Problem of evil, is this a satisfying answer?

[We Never Know]

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.

Do you think a rabbit that had babies and one dies of a disease thinks its evil or does the mother rabbit and the rest of the babies simply go on to try to survive? Point being, evil doesn't exist to them.

 

[Nimos]

Then what one considers evil, someone else may not consider it evil.

I would agree with that. Its subjective as I see it.

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.

Yes, to me that seems true as well. Its merely degrees of evil and the outcome decide how evil a person will perceive it . For instance lying could be seen as evil, but also beneficial or even as a joke.

So telling your child that Santa is real can give them a lot of joy, believing that someone is actually going to give them presents. However telling a blind person that they can cross the road as there are no cars, even though you can see a bus coming, is not really a nice thing to do.

But evil is ultimately according to the bible what God decide it is. So we have to "argue" based on that and whether we agree or not using our so call ability to know good from evil, even though it doesn't really seem to work all that well, as you would assume that it would be very easy to agree on what is evil and what is not.

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

It depends how you look at it, if you believe evil is subjective, then you are correct as evil doesn't really exists then. But if there is a God with the ability to do whatever he wants and decide not to remove the pain from someone that is suffering. It makes you wonder why he doesn't? Also God would have the ability to remove hunger, natural disasters or at least make sure that no humans suffers as a consequence of them. Also pain is other things than purely physical, for instance parents can feel pain due to the loss of a child or another loved one which would make it a mental pain.

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.

That is because those we don't agree with are clearly wrong, we all know that And that causes frustration, when they don't agree with us.

 

[Koldo]

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?

Then God is not omnibenevolent. There is no problem of evil then.

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.

It wasn't so much about dying that I intended to refer, but rather the entire process involved.
Do you intend to argue that something that happens naturally can't be evil though ?
If evil is subjective, I don't see how you would do it.

 

[We Never Know]

I would agree with that. Its subjective as I see it.


Yes, to me that seems true as well. Its merely degrees of evil and the outcome decide how evil a person will perceive it . For instance lying could be seen as evil, but also beneficial or even as a joke.

So telling your child that Santa is real can give them a lot of joy, believing that someone is actually going to give them presents. However telling a blind person that they can cross the road as there are no cars, even though you can see a bus coming, is not really a nice thing to do.

But evil is ultimately according to the bible what God decide it is. So we have to "argue" based on that and whether we agree or not using our so call ability to know good from evil, even though it doesn't really seem to work all that well, as you would assume that it would be very easy to agree on what is evil and what is not.


It depends how you look at it, if you believe evil is subjective, then you are correct as evil doesn't really exists then. But if there is a God with the ability to do whatever he wants and decide not to remove the pain from someone that is suffering. It makes you wonder why he doesn't? Also God would have the ability to remove hunger, natural disasters or at least make sure that no humans suffers as a consequence of them. Also pain is other things than purely physical, for instance parents can feel pain due to the loss of a child or another loved one which would make it a mental pain.


That is because those we don't agree with are clearly wrong, we all know that And that causes frustration, when they don't agree with us.

"That is because those we don't agree with are clearly wrong, we all know that And that causes frustration, when they don't agree with us."

That seems to be the way every one sees it.

Btw, show me your evidence for god. You must have plenty to make the claim the others are clearly wrong.

 

[Koldo]

Do you think a rabbit that had babies and one dies of a disease thinks its evil or does the mother rabbit and the rest of the babies simply go on to try to survive? Point being, evil doesn't exist to them.

That doesn't mean much though.
A blind rabbit would think there is no such thing as being able to see the world either.

 

[We Never Know]

Then God is not omnibenevolent. There is no problem of evil then.



It wasn't so much about dying that I intended to refer, but rather the entire process involved.
Do you intend to argue that something that happens naturally can't be evil though ?
If evil is subjective, I don't see how you would do it.

What's with you and god being this or that? God hasn't been/can't be proven or disproven so like evil, he exists in our minds and can't be much other than a belief.

 

[We Never Know]

That doesn't mean much though.
A blind rabbit would think there is no such thing as being able to see the world either.

Does a rabbit, blind or not, think evil exists or is evil a human concept?

 

[Koldo]

What's with you and god being this or that? God hasn't been/can't be proven or disproven so like evil, he exists in our minds and can't be much other than a belief.

I think you might be a bit lost in the conversation.
The' problem of evil' (this topic's title) is the name of a pretty old argument that points the contradiction between an omnimax God and the existence of evil. This is why I keep referring to God.

 

[Koldo]

Does a rabbit, blind or not, think evil exists or is evil a human concept?

I don't know. Do you ?

 

[We Never Know]

I think you might be a bit lost in the conversation.
The' problem of evil' (this topic's title) is the name of a pretty old argument that points the contradiction between an omnimax God and the existence of evil. This is why I keep referring to God.

Dude! There is no evidence for a god. God is a belief. Always has been. If you want to argue god is or isn't omni this or omni that, go do it with the ones that care.

 

[We Never Know]

I don't know. Do you ?

Lol. Nice avoidance. If that's your answer then that should be your answer about gods as well.

 

[Nimos]

"That is because those we don't agree with are clearly wrong, we all know that And that causes frustration, when they don't agree with us."

That seems to be the way every one sees it.

Btw, show me your evidence for god. You must have plenty to make the claim the others are clearly wrong.

Im an atheist so I would say there are none

 

[Koldo]

Dude! There is no evidence for a god. God is a belief. Always has been. If you want to argue god is or isn't omni this or omni that, go do it with the ones that care.

What ?

 

[We Never Know]

Im an atheist so I would say there are none

My mistake. Either way the claims are made on lack of evidence.

 

[Koldo]

Lol. Nice avoidance. If that's your answer then that should be your answer about gods as well.

It is not an avoidance. It is an honest answer. I don't know how animals perceive morality, if at all.
I also don't know if gods exist. So ?

 

[We Never Know]

It is not an avoidance. It is an honest answer. I don't know how animals perceive morality, if at all.
I also don't know if gods exist. So ?

How logical is it to argue about something you admit you don't know?

 

[Nimos]

My mistake. Either way the claims are made on lack of evidence.

I haven't made any claims except that I see no evidence.

 

[Koldo]

How logical is it to argue about something you admit you don't know?

 

[We Never Know]

Claiming something isn't without knowing isn't entertaining it, it's arguing it.

 

[Koldo]

Claiming something isn't without knowing is entertaining it, arguing it.

What am I claiming... exactly ?