Why does God allow evil?

[Salek Atesh]

As long as there is no logical contradiction in stating that it is possible for a world to exist where 'people experience good feelings without finding complaints with anything', that is it. I have to do nothing more.

That is a contradiction and not possible, as no one agrees on what good things are. Unless there is Objective Good, which (by inverse), defined Objective Bad. But, sorry, I don't subscribe to the idea that there is a magically existing set of morals out there that define what is good and what is bad. I don't see any evidence for its existence as an objective fact.

And yet, first world is no heaven. Therefore it is irrelevant.

Really, I don't see how your theoretical universe can magically eliminate all suffering while still making pleasure a thing that exists.

But anyways, the first world thing describes a pattern. Better the life of someone, and they still find fault. I don't subscribe to the notion that "perfection", itself a subjective notion, can exist outside of infinity.

What is preventing an omnipotent deity to provide such a life experience where we don't perceive anything as bad?

You don't have to perceive anything as bad. To do so you simply have to reject the false dichotomy that things are "good" or "bad" in the first place, and find your way to the realm of contentment. This is a thing you can do.

However, you accept the existence of some sort of Objective Good and Objective Bad, and thus you experience those things by the ways you have defined them.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You don't have to perceive anything as bad.....However, you accept the existence of some sort of Objective Good and Objective Bad...

There seems to be a basic contradiction here.

 

[Salek Atesh]

There seems to be a basic contradiction here.

Ah, I see what you are saying, and how I was not clear.

What I'm saying is that if you don't accept a dichotomy of good and bad, then you have no bad. This is not meant to imply that everything is good, but rather that good and bad are not a thing.

When one defines for themselves the subjective concept of good and bad, then things are either good or bad in accordance to the description they have made for themselves.

Objective good or bad do not exist, in my opinion, but some seem to believe they do, and that their subjective good/bads match that mythical objective dichotomy.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Objective good or bad do not exist, in my opinion, but some seem to believe they do, and that their subjective good/bads match that mythical objective dichotomy.

When you good and bad, do you mean good and evil, or do you mean pleasant and unpleasant?

 

[Salek Atesh]

When you good and bad, do you mean good and evil, or do you mean pleasant and unpleasant?

...

Exactly.

Well, I guess I just can't leave my response as "exactly". Right. So in a sense this illustrates the subjective nature of all the terms you just mentioned and how the meanings of those words vary from person to person, thus attaining a world without Good or Evil, a world without Good or Bad, a world without Pleasure or Unpleasure, is physically impossible. Well not physically impossible, but logically impossible. The original question posed falls apart because of the subjective nature of the concept of what is "good" and "bad", "good" and "evil", and even "pleasure" and "unpleasure", it is impossible to create a universe of more than one sapient being that is only "good".

Thus the question presupposes the notion of an objective standard to which to measure "good" and "bad". And this idea of a mythical, inexplicably magically existent standard of objective morality is one I do not support.

And in a sense, by ridding those dichotomies you can experience the world without them. Only by accepting and defining these terms, and therein defining their opposites, do you ever experience them. But if you experience and define them, then you've also experienced and defined the opposite.

 

[Neo Deist]

Pick one:

Atheist- because there is no God
Deist- because God is not concerned with us
Theist- because of free will
Fundamentalist- something about overcoming obstacles, trials, not seeing the big picture, etc.

The first three choices are more of a straight forward answer. The fourth is a man made concoction because they had to come up with some reason while maintaining certain beliefs and dogma.

 

[Koldo]

That is a contradiction and not possible, as no one agrees on what good things are. Unless there is Objective Good, which (by inverse), defined Objective Bad. But, sorry, I don't subscribe to the idea that there is a magically existing set of morals out there that define what is good and what is bad. I don't see any evidence for its existence as an objective fact.

We don't need to agree on what good things are for that statement to be true. Therefore, your rebuttal makes no sense.

Really, I don't see how your theoretical universe can magically eliminate all suffering while still making pleasure a thing that exists.

Which is not an argument in itself. You don't see how... nevertheless, I do.

But anyways, the first world thing describes a pattern. Better the life of someone, and they still find fault. I don't subscribe to the notion that "perfection", itself a subjective notion, can exist outside of infinity.

A pattern that becomes irrelevant at the point we are debating. It says nothing about whether there could be a state where someone could find fault on nothing.

You don't have to perceive anything as bad. To do so you simply have to reject the false dichotomy that things are "good" or "bad" in the first place, and find your way to the realm of contentment. This is a thing you can do.

However, you accept the existence of some sort of Objective Good and Objective Bad, and thus you experience those things by the ways you have defined them.

You haven't replied to my question.

 

[Koldo]

Pick one:

Atheist- because there is no God
Deist- because God is not concerned with us
Theist- because of free will
Fundamentalist- something about overcoming obstacles, trials, not seeing the big picture, etc.

The 'free will' argument part has flaws on it. Just worth mentioning.

 

[Manss]

Evil is a black background for white or is a dark environment for light. Essentially, one of the meaning of intellect is : " differing between Good and bad - Useful and harmful, right and wrong."
Human has a effective weapon against Evil and it is his "Wisdom". A wise person never does wrong and never does Evil. Also his wisdom helps him to decide against Evil, what he must to do.
For example, a wise person that he never dose an Evil encounters someone that he does Evil. What he must to do against that evildoer?
Sometimes wise people should tolerate him and try to learn him to do good. Sometimes that Evil is not simple and is not expressed from an ignorant person, but is expressed from a dangerous intelligent person that he has used his intellect as a tool against others. In this situation people have to prevent him that he stop doing Evil.
Yes, on one aspect, God has created the background of doing Evil or Good both, but it doesn't mean God confirms Evil or allows people to that. God is versus Evil and has ordered to human to be so as well. If God had created just day and light wholly , so how human would understand what is light?
Basically, Evil does mean: doing wrong or doing dirty and harmful. Despite, Evil exists but God wants it not to exist.
It dose mean, Evil exists but God has ordered to people to avoid evil so that earth to be clean of evil and they live blessed, lucky and good.
Let me I bring a touchable instance:
Why teachers makes the hard questions to trouble student, for hours?
It is obvious that the questions are not for troubling students but are some effective tools for evolution of student.
A teacher wants to root up illiteracy and misfortune and those questions are necessary for such intention and goal.

 

[jreedmx]

The question was why does God allow evil?

Maybe God can't do much about it unless we take responsibility for our actions. I think in terms of relationships. If you are developed enough to care about your neighbor then that must have some effect on your conscience. I think the more we care then the more sensitive we are to our understanding of right and wrong, and how we affect people. It's easier to treat people we don't care about, or hardly know, or even hate badly than those we care about. Evil has so many dimensions to it. My definition is when someone does things that hurt other in order that they may fulfill their own objectives at the expense of everyone else - do unto others would create a better environment than use others. I don't think God has any control over how we treat or misuse others. God can inspire us to do good, and can create an environment where we are protected from evil people to some degree with the development of human society. Actually I think that is a way that God is working to minimize evil. I don't think life is about perfectly good people running around like some unrealistic utopia, but at least we can contribute how ever we can to maintaining a relatively good society, by individual effort, and within our families, and groups, and frameworks we interact in. I don't think there is a Satan running opposite to God but if a person is wicked in this world then if there is a next realm then nothing will really change in that persons thinking or behaviour there either. So I think in terms of relative good and people trying to impose their will on others rather than do what benefits the common good.

 

[Skwim]

The question was why does God allow evil?

Maybe God can't do much about it unless we take responsibility for our actions.

I don't think it's any kind of maybe, or a matter of "unless. . . ." Any god full of love and grace, and surrounded by all the suffering in the world must be impotent. He allows evil because he can do nothing to stop it. He's essentially a powerless god who expects praise and adoration because he dropped us in a mess and offers a way out through death. In the meantime . . . . . . . . . .

 

[Salek Atesh]

We don't need to agree on what good things are for that statement to be true. Therefore, your rebuttal makes no sense.

Simply: What do you define as "good" and where do you get this magical objective standard for it??

You haven't replied to my question.

You're question reads to me like "Why isn't the sky blue??" It is, and I'm not sure how you expect me to answer then.

 

[Koldo]

Simply: What do you define as "good" and where do you get this magical objective standard for it??

Here is an analogy: The perfect tailor can create clothings with the perfect size for his clients even though all of his products might have completely different sizes.

You're question reads to me like "Why isn't the sky blue??" It is, and I'm not sure how you expect me to answer then.

If there is nothing preventing an omnipotent deity to provide such a life experience where we don't perceive anything as bad then this omnipotent deity isn't omnimax ( that is, either not omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and/or omniscient ),

 

[Salek Atesh]

Here is an analogy: The perfect tailor can create clothings with the perfect size for his clients even though all of his products might have completely different sizes.

You're analogy doesn't work, because the demands of one of the tailor's clients do not outright contradict the demands of another client. Wherein morality applied to the concept of a "Good World", one person's definition can and often does contradict another.

Person A is wealthy and greedy. Person B is poor and likes the concept of social justice. Person A's definition of a Good World necessitates his keeping his wealth. Person B's definition of a Good World is, however, not just requisite upon getting himself a better life, he also wants to see "justice" metted out against the greedy rich person by taking some of that person's wealth away. Person B sees this reappropriative justice as necessary for a "good world."

Simplified, Person A believes the world must have Quality X in order to be Good, Person B believes the world must have the inverse of Quality X in order to be good.

Tell me, oh Masterful Tailor Koldo, how do we design a world where both of their contradictory definitions of "good" are satisfied??

 

[Salek Atesh]

If there is nothing preventing an omnipotent deity to provide such a life experience where we don't perceive anything as bad then this omnipotent deity isn't omnimax ( that is, either not omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and/or omniscient ),

I am saying you are not forced to perceive things as bad. I'm saying you already live in that world. It's not even requisite upon a deity or any other metaphysical belief. It is a thing within your own power to grasp.

Thus, you asking "why doesn't a deity make this world in a way that we don't perceive bad??" strikes me as nonsensical as "why didn't a deity make the sky blue??". I have no answer to either question.

 

[Koldo]

You're analogy doesn't work, because the demands of one of the tailor's clients do not outright contradict the demands of another client. Wherein morality applied to the concept of a "Good World", one person's definition can and often does contradict another.

Which is, once again, not a problem.
There is a number of solutions for that, but the most simple answer would be to create a private "world" for each invidual.

Person A is wealthy and greedy. Person B is poor and likes the concept of social justice. Person A's definition of a Good World necessitates his keeping his wealth. Person B's definition of a Good World is, however, not just requisite upon getting himself a better life, he also wants to see "justice" metted out against the greedy rich person by taking some of that person's wealth away. Person B sees this reappropriative justice as necessary for a "good world."

Simplified, Person A believes the world must have Quality X in order to be Good, Person B believes the world must have the inverse of Quality X in order to be good.

Tell me, oh Masterful Tailor Koldo, how do we design a world where both of their contradictory definitions of "good" are satisfied??

You have created a problem which requires one thing to exist in the first place. Subtract this thing from reality and suddenly the problem is gone. Think about it.

 

[Salek Atesh]

Which is, once again, not a problem.
There is a number of solutions for that, but the most simple answer would be to create a private "world" for each individual.

Nope, sorry, Person B hates being alone, viewing it as "bad". You can't make a private world for each individual, since some view such lonliness as bad. C'mon tailor, how do we make these clothes?!

You have created a problem which requires one thing to exist in the first place. Subtract this thing from reality and suddenly the problem is gone. Think about it.

Person A wants a world made of Cheese for some reason. He views this as Good. Person B hates Cheese and wants a world with none of it.

 

[Koldo]

I am saying you are not forced to perceive things as bad. I'm saying you already live in that world. It's not even requisite upon a deity or any other metaphysical belief. It is a thing within your own power to grasp.

Thus, you asking "why doesn't a deity make this world in a way that we don't perceive bad??" strikes me as nonsensical as "why didn't a deity make the sky blue??". I have no answer to either question.

I think you don't quite get what is the relevance of omnibenevolence on the problem of evil. God must act according to his omnibenevolence. It is an imperative. It is an infinite will to do something. It is an infinite will to get rid of evil. He can not say: I have done enough good and now it is up to them to get rid of the evil that is left.

 

[Koldo]

Nope, sorry, Person B hates being alone, viewing it as "bad". You can't make a private world for each individual, since some view such lonliness as bad. C'mon tailor, how do we make these clothes?!

He doesn't need to be alone in a world of his own. Or rather, he doesn't need to perceive as being alone in a world of his own.
By chance, have you ever watched Vanilla Sky?

Person A wants a world made of Cheese for some reason. He views this as Good. Person B hates Cheese and wants a world with none of it.

Same deal as before.

 

[Salek Atesh]

He doesn't need to be alone in a world of his own. Or rather, he doesn't need to perceive as being alone in a world of his own.
By chance, have you ever watched Vanilla Sky?

Person B is horrified by the idea of the Matrix. Person B thus views a world as "Good" only if his senses relay to him Objective Truth. Thus he cannot be deceived and made to believe something is true if it is not.

Person B also requires a certain aspect of this world to be good. Namely, he wants the world to look a very specific way.

Person B hates being alone, thus we must make the world for him and at least one other real person, as he defines all types of deception, even deception to which he is unaware, as bad.

Person C is Person B's world-mate, to give him company. At the beginning, he has the same desires as B.

However, over time, the tastes of B and C change, to the point that C no longer likes this world. He views the specific designs B demands for a good world to be "bad" to him personally.

However, B and C have also now grown attached to each other, loving one another, and thus cannot be separated without causing "bad"

Both B and C also like the concept of Free Will, and view it as a necessary Good, so their likings cannot be changed or altered without creating a "bad" world.

How do you resolve their dilemma and give each a world where they have everything they want??

The strange thing to me is you've got some sort of mythical notion of "perfection" that I don't believe in and use it to explain away how these things could be possible. You think everything can just be perfectly resolved because some perfect model of the universe exists. But then again there are some people out there, odd people granted, who view perfection itself as a bad thing, or who view imperfection as good. How do you account for them?? Do you take away their freedom to hold that view?? If you limit someone's subjective viewpoints is not your universe imperfect?? The problem is if your mythical "perfect-yet-subjective multiverse" is imperfect by anyone's definition it ceases to be perfect.

I think you don't quite get what is the relevance of omnibenevolence on the problem of evil. God must act according to his omnibenevolence. It is an imperative. It is an infinite will to do something. It is an infinite will to get rid of evil. He can not say: I have done enough good and now it is up to them to get rid of the evil that is left.

Not quite what I'm trying to say, but I'll grant that I'm getting into some confusing metaphysical points so its understandable that confusion exists. I'm saying there is no "bad". "Bad" was not included in the world. There is no objective standard to "bad" and if you think there is I'm afraid I'll have to ask you to prove it.

Yet people define "good" and "bad" and make these things exist. Although they do not exist by default. You are in a world with no "bad", but you choose to view "bad" anyways.