Why does God allow evil?

[JM2C]

Therefore, it is not man's fault, if evil (or the absence of good) exists. Correct?

Who’s fault is it then?

 

[JM2C]

For, how can you call "fault" something which necessarily brings a greater good?

That’s exactly the point, evil exist so people can see what evil really is compare to good. Does God allowed this evil do his own thing? Yes! Otherwise, all will be good in the eyes of men even if we do evil, because we can’t differentiate the evil from good.

 

[JM2C]

So, if I load a gun and shoot the first child I see, the logical consequence is that this act will bring a greater good. He did not stop my hand, did He?

The logical conclusion should be, who is responsible for this act? Ah, we blame the evil of course to escape responsibility and at the same time blame God for NOT stopping it and that's how evil works, blame it all on God to escape responsibility.

 

[JM2C]

Why are you condemning me, then (if you condemn me), since by not shooting that child I would have reduced the amount of greater good that would follow?


Ciao


- viole

No one will condemn you for not shooting that child and good will still be good and so as evil will still be evil.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

That’s exactly the point, evil exist so people can see what evil really is compare to good. Does God allowed this evil do his own thing? Yes! Otherwise, all will be good in the eyes of men even if we do evil, because we can’t differentiate the evil from good.

So God allows evil so that people can notice the good?

 

[JM2C]

So God allows evil so that people can notice the good?

or God allows the good so that people can notice the evil.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So why did God "allow" the Holocaust?

 

[Ouroboros]

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.

Agree.

The idea of a "loving God" is very convoluted. When the explanation is that God somehow is loving and have a higher goal and therefore allows evil and not expressing his love, then God is starting to become that abusive dad who's hitting his wife and kids because it somehow empowers him and his ideas. It doesn't make him loving. It makes him a jerk.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..we blame the evil of course to escape responsibility and at the same time blame God for NOT stopping it and that's how evil works, blame it all on God to escape responsibility.

Exactly .. and those that say that Almighty God shouldn't have created us capable of evil fit into this category .. it doesn't matter which way you want to put it, mankind is responsible for the evil..

Why did God create us with a free will to obey or disobey? We will all find out one day, and the intelligent person will hold their tongue..

 

[Ouroboros]

Why did God create us with a free will to obey or disobey? We will all find out one day, and the intelligent person will hold their tongue..

Which means that the question isn't answered. The question was why God allows evil. Your answer is we have to wait to see.

 

[Gambit]

The concepts are actually extremely close to each other.

I see them as opposites. Materialism reduces everything to matter; idealism (a.k.a. immaterialism) reduces everything to spirit.

 

[Glaurung]

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".

Oh my goodness, an atheist on the internet has informed me that Christianity is balderdash! Well, I guess I should renounce my faith and adopt atheistic materialism now.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Oh my goodness, an atheist on the internet has informed me that Christianity is balderdash!

I'm not sure where you think he said that Christianity as a whole is balderdash.

I do see where he said that your claim that there was no suffering until the first man sinned is balderdash, but I also know plenty of Christians who don't accept that claim.

Well, I guess I should renounce my faith and adopt atheistic materialism now.

We do get to sleep in on Sundays.

 

[Glaurung]

I'm not sure where you think he said that Christianity as a whole is balderdash.

I don't think it's a stretch to assume that he does think that. And he's free to.

I do see where he said that your claim that there was no suffering until the first man sinned is balderdash, but I also know plenty of Christians who don't accept that claim.

You'll find Christians who believe and disbelieve pretty much anything. There are even some some self-identifying 'Christians' in Europe who go so far as to admit to being outright atheists, because apparently theism isn't all that central to the faith after all.

We do get to sleep in on Sundays

That I'll grant you would be one thing to gain.

 

[Ouroboros]

I see them as opposites. Materialism reduces everything to matter; idealism (a.k.a. immaterialism) reduces everything to spirit.

Where you see opposites, I see a beautiful symmetry.

 

[Gambit]

Where you see opposites, I see a beautiful symmetry.

I see the "unity of opposites."

 

[Ouroboros]

I see the "unity of opposites."

Correct.

 

[Gambit]

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.

I see. Your "nondualism" reduces everything to materialistic monism, rather than idealistic monism..

 

[viole]

Nope, man is accountable for his moral decisions and his failure to align himself with what is good.


God does not allow evil as a means to bring about the greatest good in of itself (God's will is not dependant on evil) but in his foresight, he is able to bring about the greatest good despite evil. He allows evil because his will cannot disturbed by whatever evil he permits to occur. And his will is ultimately the greatest good.


No, because you are misrepresenting the nature of God's permission of evil. An evil act in isolation, may not have any prospect of a greater good in of itself. It's the allowance of evil as a reality that he allows as it will not prevent God's will coming to ultimate fruition which is the greater good. He will allow you to shoot the child because he permits you free moral agency. But of course, just because you're free to do something doesn't mean you won't have to answer for it when standing before God.


I think this is already answered. God permits evil because he allows moral agency, and despite all the evil that will occur, he will nonetheless bring about the greatest good with and despite it. You still hold complete accountability for your life and your decisions.

Well, the post I addressed did not talk of bringing the greater good despite evil, but because of it. God allows evil in order to bring about the greater good henceforth. Which, at face value, seems like an opportunistic way to bring about the greater good by using evil, whatever greater good is.

So, considering the whole of reality, past and future, including the afterlife and all that, as the subject to which the concept of goodness can be applied, what instantiation of this reality is better? The one where the bullet reached its target, or the one where things like our Lady of Fatima deviates it slightly in order to save the life of the child?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Koldo]

That’s exactly the point, evil exist so people can see what evil really is compare to good. Does God allowed this evil do his own thing? Yes! Otherwise, all will be good in the eyes of men even if we do evil, because we can’t differentiate the evil from good.

If evil didn't exist, how would we do evil without noticing it? Wouldn't that require evil to exist in the first place?