• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Problem of evil, is this a satisfying answer?

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Yes, but he's also saying that because God doesn't do that then either God isn't omnipotent or that God doesn't exist.

Well, he's not wrong....
Except another option is that this god exists, is omnipotent but not omnibenevolent.


That's a false conclusion as any Deist knows.

I disagree. An omnipotent and omnibenevolent entity WOULD stop evil.

So if evil is allowed to continue then any of 3 options is possible:
- this god doesn't exist
- not omnipotent: this god can't / is unable to stop evil
- not omnibenevolent: this god can stop evil, but doesn't care to.


Pain Evil

I didn't say it was.
In fact, I explicitly detached it from one another:

...a universe where suffering, pain and evil exists?

But you know what I would consider evil?
Having the ability to stop pain and suffering and then not doing it.

A tsunami that kills 300.000 is not "evil" - it's a phenomena of nature with people unfortunate enough to be in the way of it.

But having the ability to stop the tsunami, and thereby saving those 300k people, and not doing it -THAT would be evil.

Also, pain and suffering = result of evil.

Not that it can't be cause by other things.
But the result of evil is always some form of pain and/or suffering.

That's in fact what makes things evil.....................



Having said all that... as some other guy here wrote already, the "problem of evil" is also refered to sometimes as the "problem of suffering", since it essentially deals with the same thing.

No matter what caused the pain and suffering, IF you have the ability to remove pain/suffering, then you have a moral duty to do so.

So in a universe where an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity exists, suffering and pain should not. Since the omnipotent part makes it possible remove any and all forms of pain/suffering and the omnibenevolent part provides the motivation and duty to actually do so.

So, in a universe where a god exists AND where suffering and pain also exists, it would necessarily have to mean that:
- this god isn't omnipotent (he can't remove suffering/pain)
- this god is not omnibenevolent (he can but doesn't care to).
- this is neither omnibenevolent or omnipotent (he can't and even if he could, wouldn't care to)
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Another non sequitur. Does a first grader think their parents are evil or lack benevolence for making the child go to school?

Parents aren't projected as being "omnibenevolent, omnipotent beings".

But you are welcome to share with us all your argument on how for example a 5-year old dying from Leukemia after years of suffering and hospital beds, is analogous to having to go to school............................. :rolleyes:

Possibly, but are the parents really evil or lacking in benevolence for doing so? Of course not.

Is your analogy completely assanine? Yes. Yes, it is.
 

leov

Well-Known Member
Why would it be bad if our nature was changed so as to be unable to do evil ?
It means introducing not natural barrier in our consciousness. We are not manufactured spiritually, we are part if existed substance. It is capable to graduate by its own will, that is the fix that just needs time in physical environment. If your lose amnesia and understand that we are eternal souls evil begin to lose its meaning, it is not satisfying..
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Knowing good and evil is part of our nature,

Err.... according to your bible, that's in fact NOT our nature.
According to your bible, that is something we acquired by eating magical fruit from a magical tree that we weren't supposed to touch, but of which we were convinced by a talking snake to eat anyway, eventhough God had forbidden it yet nevertheless, he considered it a good idea to put it in that magical garden anyway.

controlling evil side is what we set to learn.

Is it?
It seems to me that, when reading Genesis anyway, your god's intention was exactly the opposite: that we didn't know the difference between good and evil and therefor would have no need to "control" anything.
 

leov

Well-Known Member
Err.... according to your bible, that's in fact NOT our nature.
According to your bible, that is something we acquired by eating magical fruit from a magical tree that we weren't supposed to touch, but of which we were convinced by a talking snake to eat anyway, eventhough God had forbidden it yet nevertheless, he considered it a good idea to put it in that magical garden anyway.



Is it?
It seems to me that, when reading Genesis anyway, your god's intention was exactly the opposite: that we didn't know the difference between good and evil and therefor would have no need to "control" anything.
Again, Hosea 6:6
"For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings." It is not an allegory as in Genesis. It is true intention and purpose of creation.
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
Without looking back 6 pages, has anyone defined evil?
I think most work with this:

Evil

ADJECTIVE
  • Profoundly immoral and wicked.

    ‘his evil deeds’
    ‘no man is so evil as to be beyond redemption’
    1. (of a force or spirit) embodying or associated with the forces of the devil.

      ‘we were driven out of the house by an evil spirit’
    2. Harmful or tending to harm.

      ‘stories about the evil effects of television on children make good copy’
    3. (of a smell or sight) extremely unpleasant.

      ‘a bathroom with an ineradicably evil smell’
NOUN
mass noun
  • Profound immorality and wickedness, especially when regarded as a supernatural force.

    ‘his struggle against the forces of evil’
    1. count noun A manifestation of profound immorality and wickedness, especially in people's actions.

      ‘the evil that took place last Thursday’
    2. count noun Something which is harmful or undesirable.

      ‘the various social evils of our modern world’
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Again, Hosea 6:6
"For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings." It is not an allegory as in Genesis. It is true intention and purpose of creation.

Sorry I really don't see how this response is addressing any of the points I raised in the post you are replying to.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
It means introducing not natural barrier in our consciousness. We are not manufactured spiritually, we are part if existed substance. It is capable to graduate by its own will, that is the fix that just needs time in physical environment. If your lose amnesia and understand that we are eternal souls evil begin to lose its meaning, it is not satisfying..

Evil doesn't lose its meaning even if we accept the existence of eternal souls. Nevertheless, why is it better not to have this natural barrier in our consciousness ? I don't see anything wrong with having such a barrier.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
I think most work with this:

Evil

ADJECTIVE
  • Profoundly immoral and wicked.

    ‘his evil deeds’
    ‘no man is so evil as to be beyond redemption’
    1. (of a force or spirit) embodying or associated with the forces of the devil.

      ‘we were driven out of the house by an evil spirit’
    2. Harmful or tending to harm.

      ‘stories about the evil effects of television on children make good copy’
    3. (of a smell or sight) extremely unpleasant.

      ‘a bathroom with an ineradicably evil smell’
NOUN
mass noun
  • Profound immorality and wickedness, especially when regarded as a supernatural force.

    ‘his struggle against the forces of evil’
    1. count noun A manifestation of profound immorality and wickedness, especially in people's actions.

      ‘the evil that took place last Thursday’
    2. count noun Something which is harmful or undesirable.

      ‘the various social evils of our modern world’

Then what one considers evil, someone else may not consider it evil. At that's a key point. Opinions and beliefs vary, it turns into another similar god argument.

Take the adjective def, evil spirit for example. Some live trying to see and talk to ghosts. They think it's cool not evil.

Take the noun def, Profound immorality and wickedness, especially when regarded as a supernatural force.
What's immoral to some is not to others. Many think legal brothels and strip clubs are evil, many love them. And then there is god, some think he's evil, some don't.

It seems to me What is evil is an opinion held by people and those opinions vary widely. And like anything else with opinions involved, when the opinions aren't the same, the belittling, name calling, etc begins which could be labeled as evil itself.

Pain isn't evil. It's emotional and sensory. It's part of nature. Some say it's in our head.

That's the irony of it. When discussing what is evil and opinions differs, the participants will get evil trying to force their opinion while attacking the others opnion.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
I don't think so.

I'll give it a shot, to define it in the most simplistic manner and imho:

Knowingly causing or allowing harm / pain / suffering while having the ability and option not to.


How's that?

So if a man attacks your child to cause harm, he's evil.
If you attack the man in return to protect your child even to cause him harm, are you now evil?
 

leov

Well-Known Member
Sorry I really don't see how this response is addressing any of the points I raised in the post you are replying to.
I filter biblical information through this verse, Genesis is 90% allegory and matter of PARDES meditation (meru. .org) . So, I gave you my take on the matter.
 

leov

Well-Known Member
Evil doesn't lose its meaning even if we accept the existence of eternal souls. Nevertheless, why is it better not to have this natural barrier in our consciousness ? I don't see anything wrong with having such a barrier.
You asked me about my “guess” , I gave it to you. I am not going discuss merits of guesses. Lol.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
Then what one considers evil, someone else may not consider it evil. At that's a key point. Opinions and beliefs vary, it turns into another similar god argument.

Take the adjective def, evil spirit for example. Some live trying to see and talk to ghosts. They think it's cool not evil.

Take the noun def, Profound immorality and wickedness, especially when regarded as a supernatural force.
What's immoral to some is not to others. Many think legal brothels and strip clubs are evil, many love them. And then there is god, some think he's evil, some don't.

It seems to me What is evil is an opinion held by people and those opinions vary widely. And like anything else with opinions involved, when the opinions aren't the same, the belittling, name calling, etc begins which could be labeled as evil itself.

Pain isn't evil. It's emotional and sensory. It's part of nature. Some say it's in our head.

That's the irony of it. When discussing what is evil and opinions differs, the participants will get evil trying to force their opinion while attacking the others opnion.

If evil is subjective, how can good, and therefore omnibenelovence, also not be ?
And if good and evil are a matter of opinion, then I could claim God is omnimalevolent and no one could say that I am wrong per se, only that they feel differently. That's a pill hard to swallow for many theists for two reasons: The first one being that they believe in objective morality and the second one is that they want to state that it is a matter of fact, not of opinion, that God is omnibenevolent.

Other than that, even if evil is subjective, many people still feel the need to justify the evil they see in the world. For instance, I would guess that it would be disconcerting for most people to say (and believe) that children dying from smallpox was an act of omnibenevolence per se. So, depending on how people use the terms 'evil' and 'good', the argument is still applicable.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
If evil is subjective, how can good, and therefore omnibenelovence, also not be ?
And if good and evil are a matter of opinion, then I could claim God is omnimalevolent and no one could say that I am wrong per se, only that they feel differently. That's a pill hard to swallow for many theists for two reasons: The first one being that they believe in objective morality and the second one is that they want to state that it is a matter of fact, not of opinion, that God is omnibenevolent.

Other than that, even if evil is subjective, many people still feel the need to justify the evil they see in the world. For instance, I would guess that it would be disconcerting for most people to say (and believe) that children dying from smallpox was an act of omnibenevolence per se. So, depending on how people use the terms 'evil' and 'good', the argument is still applicable.

Good and evil have nothing to do with a god. We have our own opinions, make our own choices, and act by them.

Take a brothel, it's seen as evil by god believers and non-believers... And then again it's not seen as evil by god believers and non-belivers. So who's right?
 

We Never Know

No Slack
If evil is subjective, how can good, and therefore omnibenelovence, also not be ?
And if good and evil are a matter of opinion, then I could claim God is omnimalevolent and no one could say that I am wrong per se, only that they feel differently. That's a pill hard to swallow for many theists for two reasons: The first one being that they believe in objective morality and the second one is that they want to state that it is a matter of fact, not of opinion, that God is omnibenevolent.

Other than that, even if evil is subjective, many people still feel the need to justify the evil they see in the world. For instance, I would guess that it would be disconcerting for most people to say (and believe) that children dying from smallpox was an act of omnibenevolence per se. So, depending on how people use the terms 'evil' and 'good', the argument is still applicable.

Dying whether young or old is a natural act. How can something that's natural, caused by natural means, is eventually inevitable be evil?
In the case of the child, it's a natural act yet it's seen as evil because it doesn't fit into the perfect world that lives in the mind.
 
Top