PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
It's not the same. Did you ever go to hospital?
-
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!
Why God allows Evil
- Thread starter Estro Felino
- Start date
Koldo
Outstanding Member
How about MY own free will to choose to not be a victim?
Can't add anything other than I agree
I don't attribute evil to any God. I'm saying the fact that evil exists is strong evidence to me that there is no loving God.
I don't really understand your question. Like I said I am not familiar with the word "paradigm", I have seen it used and checked its definition but it's not a word I've ever used. And I'm not sure what you mean by "stem". I'm guessing you are using it as a synonym for "source" but I could be wrong.
Pudding
Well-Known Member
According to the op's logic:
When a person is in a situation where he can prevent a child being tortured by a violent father...
If he choose to save the child, then he is a saviour. The action "to save the child" is choose to do good. People who choose to do good is the party of good. The party of good will choose to do good.
Because he violates the violent father's freewill to torture the child, therefor he is a dictator. By violates the violent father's freewill to torture the child, he disrespect the violent father's freewill to torture the child.
If he choose Not to save the child, then he is Not the party of good, because he choose Not to do good.
When God is in a situation where he can prevent a child being tortured by a violent father...
God will always choose Not to save the child, because saving the child would violate the violent father's freewill to torture the child. Because God is not a dictator, because God respects the violent father's freewill to torture the child, so God will not save the child, so God will allow the violent father to torture the child.
The action "to save the child" is choose to do good. A God who choose to do good is the party of good. The party of good will choose to do good.
But since God will always choose Not to save the child, then God is Not the party of good, because God choose Not to do good.
God hopes people can choose the party of Good by themselves?
Aren't God suppose to be all-knowing in the sense that he is aware of the past, present, and future?
If God is all-knowing, then before he creates any human he already know whether or not anyone will choose the party of Good by themselves.
Does God hopes those people "who God already knows will Not choose the party of good by themselves" to choose the party of good by themselves?
Does God hopes those people "who God already knows will choose the party of good by themselves" to choose the party of good by themselves?
Last edited:
The problem with that "analysis" is that it totally, 100% ignores the experience of the victim -- who one would have thought was just as much in care of an omnipotent deity. That victim, as I'm sure you will notice, is given no such opportunity to exercise any free will at all, or if so, only the freedom to cry out in agony. Not much freedom there, I'm afraid.That's exactly what I am talking about in the OP.
He won't stop them because it is like He forced them to choose good, doing that.
It would be dictatorial. As dictatorial as preventing someone from voting the party they like.
Were I omniscient and omnipotent, I'm pretty sure I could work out how to resolve both sides.
That is a very good point.
But what about all those people who could help the victim and did nothing?
You need no miracles to help victims.
Perhaps a God should have motivated those people to help.
He cannot violate free will.
There is no evidence I'm aware of to support that claim.
If you have decided that there is something that God cannot do, you have at the same time robbed Him of omnipotence. That word means, as I'm sure you understand, "the power/ability to do everything."
idea
Question Everything
As someone who has had to deal with child abuse from a previously respected religious leader - know pedophiles are quite good at covering their tracks, at hiding what they do. Victims are groomed, are drugged, are young and naive, and do not ask for help - do not understand. Betrayal trauma - when trauma comes at the hands of a provider or authority figure - messes up the Victims head. It is very difficult to convict, very difficult to fight. If "god" was loving, pedophiles would not be able to manipulate Victims and hide their actions so easily. No one helps, because no one else knows what is going on in most cases.
Victims pray for help, their prayers are not answered.
That may be so, but all too often, it would seem, the only witness is "God."
firedragon
Veteran Member
What is evil in your paradigm? Is it suffering? Do you make a distinction between suffering out of natural causes and suffering due to intentional causes?
Are both of them "Evil"?
(Generally, evil is attributed to a metaphysical discourse. But it seems like you use it synonymously with human suffering).
Suffering can be a result of evil but it's not evil.
ppp
Well-Known Member
Unless there is an omniscient and omnipotent creator.
Wouldn't the evil tag belong on the creator? Any suffering would just be a by-product.
ppp
Well-Known Member
You're right. Creating suffering, or even the potential for suffering, is the evil action.
firedragon
Veteran Member
What is this "evil" for you?
Murder, rape, child abuse, genocide, terrorism, animal cruelty. Hopefully that's enough examples.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Oh I get it. Yes that's enough examples. Thanks.