Why does God allow evil?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I often asked myself why, if God was good, and I had done little wrong, I was subjected to the awful experiences of that South African National Party (Nazis). I could only understand it by realizing that I must have done similar bad things in a previous life, and that I was now on the receiving end of my own karma.

The idea that we deserve whatever negative things we experience would be the end of charity.

As an atheist, I don't need to believe that some force ensures justice for all. I can recognize injustice for what it is and work to stop it.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

The idea that we deserve whatever negative things we experience would be the end of charity.

As an atheist, I don't need to believe that some force ensures justice for all. I can recognize injustice for what it is and work to stop it.

Ah. But I was not saying so in absolute terms. Only in my own specific situation. Perhaps in some others too.
Nonetheless if someone has brought evil on himself, true grace would still end the suffering regardless.

But to risk your life, your sanity, and your soul, to fight against seemingly impossible odds can only happen in the light of the Divine.
It takes more than human nature to volunteer for a suicide mission.
It takes far more than human nature to see en entire government crumble before your faith,
just when you thought you were going to a fate worse than hell.

 

[McBell]

Ah. But I was not saying so in absolute terms. Only in my own specific situation. Perhaps in some others too.
Nonetheless if someone has brought evil on himself, true grace would still end the suffering regardless.

But to risk your life, your sanity, and your soul, to fight against seemingly impossible odds can only happen in the light of the Divine.
It takes more than human nature to volunteer for a suicide mission.
It takes far more than human nature to see en entire government crumble before your faith,
just when you thought you were going to a fate worse than hell.

source please.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Source? Its the narrative of my life.

 

[McBell]

Source? Its the narrative of my life.

So nothing but your beliefs ratified by your experience?

Do you honesty believe that your personal experiences are the same for all humanity?
If not, then how do you explain your "human nature" claims?

 

[Koldo]

Ah. But I was not saying so in absolute terms. Only in my own specific situation. Perhaps in some others too.
Nonetheless if someone has brought evil on himself, true grace would still end the suffering regardless.

But to risk your life, your sanity, and your soul, to fight against seemingly impossible odds can only happen in the light of the Divine.
It takes more than human nature to volunteer for a suicide mission.
It takes far more than human nature to see en entire government crumble before your faith,
just when you thought you were going to a fate worse than hell.

You underestimate humanity.

 

[Salek Atesh]

LOL! So God is a dungeon master. That's actually funny!

I remember when I grew up. D&D was considered evil, made by Satan, and would lead us all astray. So I never played it a child. Such silly notions by people full of fears. Oh, and violins were okay even though they used to be considered Devil's guitar.

The God as DM approach makes sense to me as a longtime DM.

Even if God is Good, the Players are Evil, thus Evil's existence is born, because the players will always endeavor to bring trouble to the DM regardless of said DM's good intentions.

Although, this understanding would fall outside of the Problem of Evil, as every DM knows they are not all-powerful, the Evil players are.

 

[Salek Atesh]

There is a line of debate that uses the 'greater good' as a justification for the existence of evil. What this means is that while god does indeed has the unlimited will to do good and wants to prevent all evil, he can't prevent all evil since that would also prevent the greater good that can be possibly achieved. That means that god must allow evil to the extent that it is necessary to achieve this greater good. In other words, if he were to prevent all evil he would not have the unlimited will to do good.

Woah, hold on. Yes, there are people that hold to the Greater Good rhetoric, but you have not shown these people to agree with the notion that Suffering is Evil. Typically, these sorts of people define Evil as other things. These people who believe God Maximizes Good, do not believe a Benevolent God would eliminate suffering. In fact, no one who believes in a benevolent God believes that God would eliminate all suffering entirely. Because to hold that belief would be, as you demonstrate, such an obviously false view.

Show me someone who believes in all three of the Qualities of God in the PoE by your definitions. Not by their own definitions. Someone who legitimately believes that their God has the power to end all suffering, and has the utmost desire to end all suffering. Otherwise there is no purpose to the problem of evil. It is as useful as a logical method disproving the existence of the FSM.

You can read more about this in here: Problem of evil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ah yes. Wikipedia. The location where I looked earlier to try to figure out what you meant by omnibenevolence, and which told me that as good was subjective, no one agreed what an "All-Good" god would be like...

It seems to me like the question presumes what an all-good God would do... despite the fact no theist would agree with that definition of omnibenevolence. The question's existence has no purpose, no point, no true use or utility.

There's another thread on this forum wherein the OP tried to prove that Islam (specifically worship of Allah) was idol worship. He, like you, was completely correct according to logic and the definitions he was using. However, his definition of "Idolatry" doesn't match the English definition of the word, nor does it match any Arabic equivalencies of the word (shirk, taghut, statue-worship). Thus, while he is technically correct, of what use is his proof, which only works by his own definitions, and not by the definitions that any other person uses?? Likewise, unless you can show someone who holds these views, the PoE is utterly useless.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Suffering is Evil.

I suppose that position would divert from the fact that both suffering and evil exist, and the implication that God is responsible for both? If God created man he not only "built in" the capacity for evil, but also the suffering inherent in human existence due to disease, ageing, death, natural disasters and so on. So for example we might wonder why a loving God created a creature with a tendency to develop cancer.

 

[Koldo]

Woah, hold on. Yes, there are people that hold to the Greater Good rhetoric, but you have not shown these people to agree with the notion that Suffering is Evil. Typically, these sorts of people define Evil as other things. These people who believe God Maximizes Good, do not believe a Benevolent God would eliminate suffering. In fact, no one who believes in a benevolent God believes that God would eliminate all suffering entirely. Because to hold that belief would be, as you demonstrate, such an obviously false view.

Show me someone who believes in all three of the Qualities of God in the PoE by your definitions. Not by their own definitions. Someone who legitimately believes that their God has the power to end all suffering, and has the utmost desire to end all suffering. Otherwise there is no purpose to the problem of evil. It is as useful as a logical method disproving the existence of the FSM.

Ah yes. Wikipedia. The location where I looked earlier to try to figure out what you meant by omnibenevolence, and which told me that as good was subjective, no one agreed what an "All-Good" god would be like...

It seems to me like the question presumes what an all-good God would do... despite the fact no theist would agree with that definition of omnibenevolence. The question's existence has no purpose, no point, no true use or utility.

There's another thread on this forum wherein the OP tried to prove that Islam (specifically worship of Allah) was idol worship. He, like you, was completely correct according to logic and the definitions he was using. However, his definition of "Idolatry" doesn't match the English definition of the word, nor does it match any Arabic equivalencies of the word (shirk, taghut, statue-worship). Thus, while he is technically correct, of what use is his proof, which only works by his own definitions, and not by the definitions that any other person uses?? Likewise, unless you can show someone who holds these views, the PoE is utterly useless.

It might be of interest to you that I used to believe the 'soul-making' to be a reasonable explanation under those definitions back when I was a teenager. You might also want to read the examples in the wiki once again to check how related 'evil' is to 'suffering' on these different views.

However, it would go way beyond my scope of interest to further talk about each different denomination who supports my definitions. Not that I haven't looked into it before, but I am not interested on going through pages and pages of sources to search for what I can quote to show you this. You would want a rather extensive list. Sorry, that is just not worth the hassle. Suit yourself. If you care enough about it, research it by yourself.

 

[Salek Atesh]

It might be of interest to you that I used to believe the 'soul-making' to be a reasonable explanation under those definitions back when I was a teenager. You might also want to read the examples in the wiki once again to check how related 'evil' is to 'suffering' on these different views.

However, it would go way beyond my scope of interest to further talk about each different denomination who supports my definitions. Not that I haven't looked into it before, but I am not interested on going through pages and pages of sources that I can quote to show you this. You would want a rather extensive list. Sorry, that is just not worth the hassle. Suit yourself. If you care enough about it, research it by yourself.

Each?? No, I do not need each for you to achieve proof by counterexample. You only need to provide one, if you can.

If not, I maintain the Question is pointless as I know of no-one to whom it applies.

 

[Salek Atesh]

I suppose that position would divert from the fact that both suffering and evil exist, and the implication that God is responsible for both? If God created man he not only "built in" the capacity for evil, but also the suffering inherent in human existence due to disease, ageing, death, natural disasters and so on. So for example we might wonder why a loving God created a creature with a tendency to develop cancer.

Sure, you might. If you view suffering as a bad thing.

 

[Koldo]

Each?? No, I do not need each for you to achieve proof by counterexample. You only need to provide one, if you can.

If not, I maintain the Question is pointless as I know of no-one to whom it applies.

You would still say that one example is not significant enough and only applies to a minimal part of christianity. Sorry, I already know where this is going.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

If you view suffering as a bad thing.

So what kind of suffering do you think is "good"?

 

[Salek Atesh]

You would still say that one example is not significant enough and only applies to a minimal part of christianity. Sorry, I already know where this is going.

This sounds like a Christian who once told me he could prove Christ was God but refused to provide his proof because "I wouldn't believe it anyways". This is contrary to facts. I'm a double-convert, I'm very willing to change what I think based on new evidence.

Seriously, I can see the use of it if applied to even one group who actually thinks that way. Limited use, maybe. But legitimate use none-the-less.

Provide me one, and even if it as small as the Westborough Baptists, it has a use. Limited use, but use none-the-less. But I've never met a single person who shares such obviously contradictory views. I've never met someone that stupid.

 

[Salek Atesh]

So what kind of suffering do you think is "good"?

All. Why do you think it "bad"??

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Why do you think it "bad"??

Do you wish suffering on those you love? Do you wish it on yourself?

Suffering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Koldo]

This sounds like a Christian who once told me he could prove Christ was God but refused to provide his proof because "I wouldn't believe it anyways". This is contrary to facts. I'm a double-convert, I'm very willing to change what I think based on new evidence.

Seriously, I can see the use of it if applied to even one group who actually thinks that way. Limited use, maybe. But legitimate use none-the-less.

Provide me one, and even if it as small as the Westborough Baptists, it has a use. Limited use, but use none-the-less. But I've never met a single person who shares such obviously contradictory views. I've never met someone that stupid.

One person?
Nice to meet you then!
Here I am. My nickname is Koldo, and up until the beginning of my adulthood I believed in God just as I have defined it to you and used the 'soul-making' defense to explain the existence of suffering. I believed that was a good explanation to solve the contradiction.

The difference between you thinking about the problem as being only minimally significant or not significant at all is none to me. I want you to consider the problem as being particularly relevant, however, like I have said, I can't stand the hassle.

 

[Salek Atesh]

I believed in God just as I have defined it to you and used the 'soul-making' defense to explain the existence of suffering. I believed that was a good explanation to solve the contradiction..

But if you accept Soul Making, then you did not believe that an omnibenevolent God would end all suffering, is this not correct??

Your "soul-making" thing contradicts the idea of omnibenevolence as you have established it.

As you said to me earlier, you didn't accept the idea of omnibenevolence (at least not as you now describe it) so the Problem of Evil did not apply to you.

I simply want a counterexample of someone who believes God can end all suffering, God knows how to end all suffering, and God wants to end all suffering. This is Omnimax as you yourself defined it. In yourself as an example, you thought suffering was necessary for soul-making. In other words, you did not believe God wanted to end all suffering, you thought a benevolent God would include suffering as necessity.

Now is there someone who actually fits your definition in their beliefs, or is there no point to this question??

 

[Salek Atesh]

Do you wish suffering on those you love? Do you wish it on yourself?

Suffering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes.