Why does God allow evil?

[Gambit]

Yes, God determines everything and we are that God. God by placing Himself in a finite form experiences relative reality.

Okay.

 

[Gambit]

So God gave man free-will and the capacity to do evil and create great suffering. Why would a loving God set it up like that?

It appears that unity requires duality. That's just the way it.

"Love separates for the sake of union." - Rumi

Why not make man with just the capacity for good?

Everyone is seeking the good in and of his or her own way.

 

[Gambit]

Either God has no limitations, or he is limited in what he can achieve without resorting to accepting evil. I don't see how both statements could hold true at the same time.

God cannot defy logic in order to achieve a higher good. To experience self-awareness requires the experience of that which is other than self. The separation appears to be a logical necessity. It would appear that the de-privation of good (evil) is required to learn what good is.

 

[Aupmanyav]

God cannot defy logic in order to achieve a higher good.

Logic is no bar for God. He defies it all the time. Take the example of God sending us the instructions through individuals and not communicating with us directly. I do not know if that has led to any good at any time.

 

[Gambit]

Brought together, it means that God allows evil to happen in order to bring God about. To God, it's all about God. Good or evil to us is of less importance, since the greater good is God himself.

Yes. That would appear to be true. God realizes his self through the act of creation.

 

[Gambit]

I accept the reality of evolution. Genesis is understood to contain the truths about God as the source of all existence and our relationship with him and the world. The fall of man was an event that fundamentally changed the world and humanity to what we know today, but I would not maintain that this event was the literal eating a magical piece of fruit. It's a metaphor

But you seemed to imply that natural evil was the result of humanity's fall from grace.

 

[Gambit]

That again is simple. 'Brahman' is the warp and woof of what exists in the universe. Free dictionary opines 'The underlying structure on which something is built; a base or foundation.' To me it seems to be 'physical energy' (e equals mc squared, heat, light, electricity ..). So that should be Brahman. I do not find any other thing existing in the universe. That is what our books also say. 'Sarva khalu Idam Brahma' (All this here is Brahman), 'Eko sad, Dwiteeyo nasti' (What exists is one, there is no second). Hinduism and the concept of 'dharma' gives me the way to live my life.

The Advaita school of Vedanta appears to subscribe to pantheistic idealism, not atheistic materialism.

Advaita (not-two in Sanskrit) refers to the identity of the true Self, Atman, which is pure consciousness[note 3], and the highest Reality, Brahman, which is also pure consciousness.[11] [note 4] [note 5]

(source: Wikipedia: Advaita Vedanta)

 

[Glaurung]

But you seemed to imply that natural evil was the result of humanity's fall from grace.

That is correct. The world was created in perfect natural harmony, and humanity would not have known suffering had we stayed in our original state of innocence that God had created us. But the very first sin committed by Adam had changed that, and the reality of original sin has tainted us ever since. Genesis is highly metaphorical, we don't know what precisely happened, but something happened which caused us to lose our original favour with God. But God has not abandoned us, we have Christ to redeem and to make us worthy of Heaven.

 

[Gambit]

Have you read the Bible?
What book are you reading to lead you to this question..

I have read the Bible. But I'm asking a philosophical question, not a biblical one.

 

[Gambit]

If anybody is going to care about us we have to do it for ourselves and each other. God won't do it for us.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Gambit]

That is correct. The world was created in perfect natural harmony, and humanity would not have known suffering had we stayed in our original state of innocence that God had created us. But the very first sin committed by Adam had changed that, and the reality of original sin has tainted us ever since. Genesis is highly metaphorical, we don't know what precisely happened, but something happened which caused us to lose our original favour with God. But God has not abandoned us, we have Christ to redeem and to make us worthy of Heaven.

I would characterize the Genesis creation story as mythological. Adam and Eve are mythological characters in a mythological story.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The Advaita school of Vedanta appears to subscribe to pantheistic idealism, not atheistic materialism.

IMHO, the Wikipedia definition needs a correction. For a 'no soul, no-God' person like me, the definition will be different. Though that of Wikipedia may fit the majority.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It appears that unity requires duality.

But does that make God the unity of good and evil?

 

[LuisDantas]

Because the question here assumes Christian theology. The world isn't perfect because that's not what it's here for. Ultimately, this place is a testing ground only.

I thought the question was meant to better understand and, if it came to that, challenge that variety of Christian theology.

God doesn't need you to worship him, he even gives you to complete freedom to reject him eternally.

From all appearances he insists that I do.

And I question the credibility of someone who thinks he's smarter than St Aquinas, despite not having done any study of Thomistic philosophy.

Why? That is really no challenge at all. You hold Aquinas with unreasonably high regard.

My credibility with internet atheists is not something I'm too concerned about.

That is a good thing.

I'm not trying to prove Christianity to you, it's that this question assumes Christianity and your complaint that it's incoherent is wrong. You can tell yourself that the problem of evil is some knock-down deathblow to theism all you want,

No, not to theism. To that specific variety of it, which is sustained by a pointless self-contradiction.

I disagree and your assertions that my disagreement can only be a result of incoherent reasoning is just your conceit.

Believe that if you will. I must advise you to think better about that, though.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The OP also seems to assume classical monotheism (Abrahamic god-concepts) given the use of the term "God" (which, in proper case like that and singular, designates the one-god of Abrahamic religions in common parlance). The problem of evil is pretty nonexistent outside of classical monotheisms, because they do not posit omniscience, omnipresence, or omnibenevolence. As a polytheist, my gods not only "allow" for "evil," some of them are "evil" or the cause of things labeled evil!

You're completely right.

The Problem of Evil isn't an argument against the existence of god(s); it's an argument about the character of god(s) if it/they exist.

 

[Ouroboros]

The Advaita school of Vedanta appears to subscribe to pantheistic idealism, not atheistic materialism.

The concepts are actually extremely close to each other.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The Problem of Evil isn't an argument against the existence of god(s); it's an argument about the character of god(s) if it/they exist.

If you believe in a loving God, the problem of evil looks quite tricky.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you believe in a loving God, the problem of evil looks quite tricky.

Of course. For many people, the idea that God is unloving would create just as much of a crisis of faith as the idea that God doesn't exist at all. Still, I'm not sure how this speaks against the point I made.

 

[Koldo]

That is correct. The world was created in perfect natural harmony, and humanity would not have known suffering had we stayed in our original state of innocence that God had created us. But the very first sin committed by Adam had changed that, and the reality of original sin has tainted us ever since. Genesis is highly metaphorical, we don't know what precisely happened, but something happened which caused us to lose our original favour with God. But God has not abandoned us, we have Christ to redeem and to make us worthy of Heaven.

This is pure and complete balderdash.
There was never a "perfect natural harmony". Animals preying on others have existed long before humans. Likewise, the ability to feel pain didn't just magically appear on animals across the globe after the "original sin".

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Of course. For many people, the idea that God is unloving would create just as much of a crisis of faith as the idea that God doesn't exist at all. Still, I'm not sure how this speaks against the point I made.

I was agreeing with you.
I do notice some very convoluted reasoning by theists as they try to explain the problem of evil and suffering in the context of a supposedly loving God. The arguments seem contrived and unconvincing.