Why does God allow evil?

[viole]

You want to drag me into this little world of yours so you could play it the way you want. Not really interested in your unproven theories. The best of the possible worlds. That theory could really tax your mind and before you know it you’re as confused as the one who theorize it. You could start a thread and see what happen. Ciao my friend.

You seem to be affected by some emotional reaction.

Wonder why. This is not any little world of mine. It is actually a theological argument originated by Leibnitz and formalized with modal logic.

Do you think that arguments that try to prove God are little worlds?

My little world of mine is that using any argument to prove God is a waste of time. Don't you think so?

Ciao

- viole

 

[joshua3886]

How about when you're feeling good, does God exist?

Still doesn't exist. If someone claims to be all loving and all powerful then everyone would be happy and never sad.
The one curious thing about "God" is that no one has ever caught God on camera or in a science lab. That's my proof that God doesn't exist. Science is like kryptonite to God.

 

[Salek Atesh]

Does the experience of duality serve a greater good?

Not sure how to make sense of the question. Does the experience of the dichotomy serve one of the dichotomy's parts??

 

[muhammad_isa]

..If someone claims to be all loving and all powerful then everyone would be happy and never sad.

Oh? And why would that be?

..The one curious thing about "God" is that no one has ever caught God on camera or in a science lab. That's my proof that God doesn't exist..

That's not proof that a non-physical entity/being doesn't exist! What's more, Almighty God has no need to prove His existence .. "He is closer to you than your jugular vein"

That also means that God is 'like your mind', not able to be photographed

 

[Salek Atesh]

then everyone would be happy and never sad.

How, precisely, would that even work?? If there is no "Sad", there is no "Happy". "Happy" is then just default with nothing to compare it to. Define light without defining dark, or define hot without cold. Equally impossible things.

 

[Gambit]

Simple answer: God doesn't exist. Instead of coming up with complicated circle logic to try and explain why an all loving God would allow us to suffer; it makes perfect sense that God simply doesn't exist.

Without suffering, there would be no compassion.

 

[joshua3886]

Oh? And why would that be?



That's not proof that a non-physical entity/being doesn't exist! What's more, Almighty God has no need to prove His existence .. "He is closer to you than your jugular vein"

That also means that God is 'like your mind', not able to be photographed

So if you had all the power in the world and you loved everybody equally you wouldn't want them to be happy all the time? I have a family and I want them to be happy all the time and never sad, I'm just not all powerful so I can't make it possible. I think most people would want their loved ones to never be sad, so that makes your God rather cold to stand by and not do anything when he claims to have the power to do everything.

 

[joshua3886]

Without suffering, there would be no compassion.

Like I said, more circle logic from theists. People can easily have compassion without suffering. I have compassion for my girlfriend without suffering (I don't think suffering has ever been a part of our relationship). Your logic makes it seem as if you're only compassionate about people when you feel guilty.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Without suffering, there would be no compassion.

So God allowed the Holocaust and all the other genocides, wars, etc etc so that people could feel compassion - is that what you're saying?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Why did God "allow" the Holocaust? Can anyone give me a straight answer?

 

[joshua3886]

How, precisely, would that even work?? If there is no "Sad", there is no "Happy". "Happy" is then just default with nothing to compare it to. Define light without defining dark, or define hot without cold. Equally impossible things.

MORE circle logic. So you're saying you can't know that strawberries taste good without first knowing that dirt tastes bad? Are you saying you can't possibly enjoy watching a good T.V. show without watching a terrible one first? You can't have fun until you are bored? Flowers don't smell good until you smell something bad? We don't need a comparison for everything to have emotions about everything else.

 

[muhammad_isa]

So if you had all the power in the world and you loved everybody equally you wouldn't want them to be happy all the time?

Yes, I would .. but how is it achievable? Just as in this life, we have to work hard to be successful, so it is in achieving happiness. Who is totally happy with their work? Not many, I would say.

Basically, we need patience .. that's what I would tell my children when they were unhappy .. stick to the truth, and you will get there eventually

 

[joshua3886]

Yes, I would .. but how is it achievable? Just as in this life, we have to work hard to be successful, so it is in achieving happiness. Who is totally happy with their work? Not many, I would say.

Basically, we need patience .. that's what I would tell my children when they were unhappy .. stick to the truth, and you will get there eventually

I'm not the one claiming to be an all powerful God. If there really is an all powerful God you would think he could make it possible to have everyone happy. I don't want to worship an all powerful leader that can't figure out how to use his powers to help everybody at once.

 

[McBell]

If you answer this post#3932441 then I will answer this otherwise don’t bother me.

Where is that post?
This thread isn't any where near that long....

 

[Gambit]

So God allowed the Holocaust and all the other genocides, wars, etc etc so that people could feel compassion - is that what you're saying?

Without duality there would be no unity. Both mutually presuppose each other. You can perceive the dialectic either as a power struggle or a healing process. The choice is yours.

 

[McBell]

Without suffering, there would be no compassion.

Only because that is how the world is.

If there were no suffering, there would be no need for compassion.
Of course, that is assuming there would even be a word for compassion or suffering if neither existed.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You can perceive the dialectic either as a power struggle or a healing process.

Or just a result of human nature.

 

[Skwim]

Without duality there would be no unity. Both mutually presuppose each other. You can perceive the dialectic either as a power struggle or a healing process. The choice is yours.

Assuming that every element has an opposite, or connected to an opposite, I see no reason why evil needs to be posited in order to give meaning to good. Good in its various degrees can derive just as much meaning as it stands in opposition to bad. And although there are various degrees of bad, there doesn't appear to be any need for them. To give meaning to "very good" of "kind of good" there's no need for "very bad" or "kind of bad" to exist. Any degree of good takes on meaning from its position on the Continuum of Good without needing to consider its direct relationship to bad.

So what is bad? Not to be hackneyed, but it's "not good in any manner or degree." (Random House Websters College Dictionary) And while this seems hardly a decent definition---defining something by what it's not---this is exactly what it is, and conforms nicely to your unity of opposites. But just how bad does bad have to be to give meaning to good? Actually, not bad at all. Lousy, poor, unacceptable, crummy, awful, gross, inferior, cheesy, crappy, and icky, all non-good things, are all sufficient to convey the notion of "bad." So, in as much as we have a good working definition of bad and have shown how relatively little is enough to give meaning to "good" is there any reason to raise bad to the level of evil

"wicked, immoral, sinful, foul, vile, corrupt, iniquitous, depraved, reprobate, villainous, nefarious, vicious, malicious; malevolent, sinister, demonic, devilish, diabolical, fiendish, monstrous, despicable, atrocious, heinous, odious, contemptible, horrible, and execrable;"

?​

​

Of course not. We could all live without these beastly behaviors and still enjoy the good in life. . . . . . . along with a bit of the gross, cheesy, and icky stuff.

 

[JM2C]

Where is that post?
This thread isn't any where near that long....

That's bet me and that guy from another post/thread.

 

[Salek Atesh]

MORE circle logic. So you're saying you can't know that strawberries taste good without first knowing that dirt tastes bad? Are you saying you can't possibly enjoy watching a good T.V. show without watching a terrible one first? You can't have fun until you are bored? Flowers don't smell good until you smell something bad? We don't need a comparison for everything to have emotions about everything else.

How is it circular logic?? And yes, I am saying those things. If you have no basis for comparison you cannot declare something "good" without defining "bad".

For example: define "good" in your own words.