R
ribozyme
Guest
I do not believe in the Judeo-Christian God precisely because of this objection.
How do people on this forum address this issue?
How do people on this forum address this issue?
- Status
B
BlaineTog
Guest
Define your objection. But the answer’s probably going to be “free will.”
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
Are you saying that there is such a thing as evil?
Some Christians believe in god precisly becuase there is such a thing as evil.
R
ribozyme
Guest
I consider poverty to be an evil because it has the potential to cause immense suffering… I do not see how is that caused by “free will.”
B
brycelaliberte
Guest
I’m assuming your logic falls this way;
Given: God is all-good, and all-powerful
That logic goes;
Given: God is all-good, and all-powerful
Also: Pain is evil
There is pain, so what? There is evil, so what? God knew this was possible, yet He still gave us free will and put us into the world. This only shows how greatly loving God truly is.
God’s love is demonstrated in the gift (yes, it is a gift) of free will in that He is not forcing us to love Him, or forcing us to hate Him. (Very important) He will not hold us with Him against our will, and also makes it possible that we may come to Him if it is our will (another incredible gift of which we obviously do not deserve).
How does this sound to you?
subscribed
Given: God is all-good, and all-powerful
- God exists.
- Evil exists despite God’s existence
- Therefore, either God is not all-good or all-powerful, or both
That logic goes;
Given: God is all-good, and all-powerful
Also: Pain is evil
- God exists
- Pain exists despite God’s existence
- Therefore, either God is not all-good or all-powerful, or both
There is pain, so what? There is evil, so what? God knew this was possible, yet He still gave us free will and put us into the world. This only shows how greatly loving God truly is.
God’s love is demonstrated in the gift (yes, it is a gift) of free will in that He is not forcing us to love Him, or forcing us to hate Him. (Very important) He will not hold us with Him against our will, and also makes it possible that we may come to Him if it is our will (another incredible gift of which we obviously do not deserve).
How does this sound to you?
subscribed
A
Anneg
Guest
National Geographic Explorer had a show that was interesting. Called the Science of Evil, it included 4 stories of what they called evil along with some scientific studies of moral decision-making. I’ve been thinking about some of the scenarios they mentioned. I do not think they actually dealt with the issue of evil but with evil deeds, but some of the studies were interesting. Did anyone else see it? What do you think? Where do we get our capacity for evil deeds and how do we decide to choose evil? Any discussion? PAX, Anneg
B
buffalo
Guest
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
The problem of Evil
We all want a better world. We all believe in a perfect society free of pain and suffering. If we all agree that there is such a thing as the greater good, then we should also agree that the perfect “good”, is worth dying for, suffering for, and fighting for. Those who greatly suffer for the greater good are called heroes.
Now; whether or not you believe that God is perfect, is beside the point. Let’s look at the logical consequence of an “objective perfection” if such a thing were real.
If the Greater Good exists objectively, and is personal, then it follows necessarily that human beings will have freewill, and will approach God from a position of imperfection; since you cannot truly appreciate the light unless you see it from the darkness of night. Life is a metaphor.
Now; if this greater good, which is personal, is the root of all reality, but can only be appreciated and loved from the darkness of night, then it will follow from that premise that you will exist in a state of potential suffering, but only because the end to such suffering is the greater good.
If you respond to this by saying,” don’t I have a say in this?"
Well…it might seem that you don’t, but if there is such a thing as an “objective good”, then it follows necessarily, that life, existence and love is a good thing; and that the greater good, the root of all life and existence, is worth fighting for, dying for, and ultimately worth suffering for, regardless of your opinion to the contrary. An objective truth cannot be changed by emotional dispute or deceptive feelings. Jesus made this clear when he died on the cross. He is “the way the, the truth and the light”, and his way, is the way of “great suffering”. He makes no secret about that. He died so that we can have heaven, and that is why Jesus is a hero to so many; even to people that don’t believe in his message respect the concept of his sacrifice as a symbolic truth.
The road to perfection is pain. An objective good requires sacrifice, and so those who sin will suffer, because they stand against perfection; the “objective good”. God does not need to respond to your objection, because you answered your own question in the first place. We both desire the greator good, we both want and believe in the same God; we merely define God differently. God is the greatest desire because he is the greatest good. The problem of evil is an excuse, not a logical argument.
The devil knows Gods plan and attempts to deceive us in to thinking that pain counts against us and God. But in reality, pain is there to teach us. If natural suffering repulses you, then that is all the more reason to unite with the objective perfection we call God. They suffer, not because God wants them to suffer, but because humanity as a whole is imperfect. When i see sombody rotting away from cancer, such a thing counts against me, not because i caused the cancer, but because i add to the sin which has forced us in to this situation. The evil in this world reflects how trully wikid and imperfect we are; not God. In this respect, we add to sin of those who beat Jesus and crucified him, since we stand opposed to perfection, and Jesus was perfect. You cannot enjoy the greater good if you are not in communion with God.
We all want a better world. We all believe in a perfect society free of pain and suffering. If we all agree that there is such a thing as the greater good, then we should also agree that the perfect “good”, is worth dying for, suffering for, and fighting for. Those who greatly suffer for the greater good are called heroes.
Now; whether or not you believe that God is perfect, is beside the point. Let’s look at the logical consequence of an “objective perfection” if such a thing were real.
If the Greater Good exists objectively, and is personal, then it follows necessarily that human beings will have freewill, and will approach God from a position of imperfection; since you cannot truly appreciate the light unless you see it from the darkness of night. Life is a metaphor.
Now; if this greater good, which is personal, is the root of all reality, but can only be appreciated and loved from the darkness of night, then it will follow from that premise that you will exist in a state of potential suffering, but only because the end to such suffering is the greater good.
If you respond to this by saying,” don’t I have a say in this?"
Well…it might seem that you don’t, but if there is such a thing as an “objective good”, then it follows necessarily, that life, existence and love is a good thing; and that the greater good, the root of all life and existence, is worth fighting for, dying for, and ultimately worth suffering for, regardless of your opinion to the contrary. An objective truth cannot be changed by emotional dispute or deceptive feelings. Jesus made this clear when he died on the cross. He is “the way the, the truth and the light”, and his way, is the way of “great suffering”. He makes no secret about that. He died so that we can have heaven, and that is why Jesus is a hero to so many; even to people that don’t believe in his message respect the concept of his sacrifice as a symbolic truth.
The road to perfection is pain. An objective good requires sacrifice, and so those who sin will suffer, because they stand against perfection; the “objective good”. God does not need to respond to your objection, because you answered your own question in the first place. We both desire the greator good, we both want and believe in the same God; we merely define God differently. God is the greatest desire because he is the greatest good. The problem of evil is an excuse, not a logical argument.
The devil knows Gods plan and attempts to deceive us in to thinking that pain counts against us and God. But in reality, pain is there to teach us. If natural suffering repulses you, then that is all the more reason to unite with the objective perfection we call God. They suffer, not because God wants them to suffer, but because humanity as a whole is imperfect. When i see sombody rotting away from cancer, such a thing counts against me, not because i caused the cancer, but because i add to the sin which has forced us in to this situation. The evil in this world reflects how trully wikid and imperfect we are; not God. In this respect, we add to sin of those who beat Jesus and crucified him, since we stand opposed to perfection, and Jesus was perfect. You cannot enjoy the greater good if you are not in communion with God.
M
Mystic_of_God
Guest
Define evil. Please. Maybe we can make mincemeat out of your usual poor arguments better.
(I am so kidding you, a lot of people on here argue that way, though.)
But please, define evil. Do you mean suffering? Do you mean evil acts? What do you mean?
Assuming you mean suffering, gathering from the discussion thus far, I will proceed.
Assuming that suffering is the greatest evil (incorrect, but for the sake of argument…), let us proceed.
How does atheism solve the problem? It seems that it only worsens things by removing hope.
[Edited]
P
Pete_1
Guest
“Take away all sin and selfishness and you would have heaven on earth”
catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0019.html
catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0019.html
N
Nullasalus
Guest
For me, in a few ways.
One, a universe without evil would be a universe without myself or anyone I know. Not only have all of us committed evil (even if minor compared to real horrors in the world), we’ve all experienced evil. And you can’t change the experiences without changing the person, since a person is a totality of their experiences, choices, past, etc. A God who allowed only the most perfect people and perfect universes would be a God who condemned us to non-existence.
Two, even with this as the case, it can all be rectified through God. People who are evil can become good, people who have experienced evil can overcome or even benefit from it, and if Christianity is right then death and injustice itself will be triumphed over by all people. Obviously good effects can follow from ‘evil’ natural events as well. We see some of this even while we live - good does exist, people do change, etc. In other words, through God, an evil world can be saved.
So in my view, evil is a cost that cannot be avoided for a benevolent God, especially a truly omnipotent and omniscient God - it’s vastly better to permit evil and bring about an improvement and move towards perfection, than to only allow perfection.
S
Swan
Guest
Bad. IMO, this does not show how greatly loving God is but the opposite. God creates man, decides to make him fallible, puts him in situations where he is bound to fail, punishes him, calls it love. Here’ how I see it: as God does seems to let evil run amok God is either (a) incapable of stopping it, or (b) not interested in stopping it. Either way, God offer little, IMO, of practical use. The free will philiosphy was clearly created in an attempt at excusing God somehow. This lets God off the hook despite the fact that he desinged the game. God designed a game where all players suffer, thus he loves us? Sorry, doesn’t follow. Indeed, all relgion, I’m willing to bet, began as mankind’s attemtp to make sense of suffering. We still can’t do it, despite what you believe.
As for good coming from evil, don’t see that either. It’s completely illogical.
B
brycelaliberte
Guest
This is not nearly what I said. God creates man, makes him good, and lets him make his own decisions as to love God or hate God. Also, we are not ‘bound to fail,’ or else we should be mere animals.
Ever read Job? And I already dealt with the capability of God on evil, He lets it happen. A consequence of free will, that bad things can happen.
He’s not practical if you’re trying to subvert Him to the role of a servant, or some force to be used at advantage.
Although not speaking practically, I suppose, what good is there without God?
And it isn’t letting God off the hook, it is finding credit where credit is due. If evil can exist despite God, then how could good exist despite no God? You must accept there being good and evil, and so there is God (from which the good is sustained), or accept that there is no good or evil.
Suffering is only as bad as the person lets it get between them and God, and no suffering is ever greater than God. (And the person letting it get between that person and God is ahem free will, while that person not letting it is also ahem free will.) The answer ultimately to evil’s existence is free will. The answer ultimately to good’s existence is free will. You cannot accept one consequence without the other.
You should read C.S. Lewis’ The Problem of Pain.
You can’t do it because you don’t accept that answer, or any other. You choose to hate God (this is just the following up of denying God) because you let the world come between you and Him. People have denied God on the basis that there is evil, people have denied God on the basis that they’re having too much fun without Him. I should think that the answer is neither, if they both have the same conclusion.
What evil has there ever been that wasn’t a good subverted?As for good coming from evil, don’t see that either. It’s completely illogical.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
By finding more difficulties - I like finding difficulties 
**As for this problem, human free will is no answer at all - because that could easily be overruled, by God, Who is all sorts of things that make evil impossible. For me, the problem is in the Christian conception of God, not in evil. **If God is
- All-Beneficent
- All-Benevolent
- All-Knowing
- All-Mighty
- All-Powerful
- All-Wise
- Alone Creator
- Eternal
- Faithful
- Free
- Good
- Gracious
- Infinite
- Just
- Love
- Moral
- One
- Sovereign
- Transcendent
- True
- Unconditioned
- Unconstrained
- Unique
- Unthwartable
**- & so forth, then evil cannot exist. God is all these things. **
**Free will in man itself needs to be accounted for, & can be - which is why it is not the answer. God, in the current reading of the “Christian story”, created man & serpent knowing full well that the one would lead the other to sin, which is extremely displeasing to God. This reading makes God sound both passive-aggressive & wicked: because it means that God put man in a situationin which sin was unavoidable, & massively damaging to all future generations; it means that God is responsible for the damnation of millions, who were born in original sin through no fault of their own. **
**It’s a mess, because it’s a patchwork: of OT myth, misinterpretation, eisegesis, exegesis, Church dogma, extra-Biblical philosophising, & wonky linguistic & chronological data. **
**I don’t think evil can be explained: that requires rationality, & evil is irrational. I don’t think it needs explaining, but only to be accounted for; which is not the same thing. Since Christian faith does not function like one of those books in which one can can “enquire within upon everything”, since on the contrary “we see in a glass darkly”, I don’t regard this failure to explain it, or to give a complete account of it, as a problem. Sometimes it is best to admit that one does not know
**
B
BlaineTog
Guest
Free will overruled is not free, by definition. Nor is free will a bad thing. It is good! God wants us to use our free will to freely choose him, but it is a logical impossibility for him to force us to choose him freely, to unfreely freely choose him, to do a thing and its opposite at the same time.
Adam and Eve did not have to eat the fruit. They could have chosen differently. That God knew this ahead of time is beside the point.
G
gavanhe
Guest
To keep it simple:- evil is the absence of good similar to darkness is the absence of light and therefore not created. As such free will allows us to make choices that are not always good.
Evil and natural disasters (which appear to us as an evil) have been allowed by our creator since we live in an imperfect world since the fall of Adam and Eve through a choice made by them of their own free will.
Gerry
Evil and natural disasters (which appear to us as an evil) have been allowed by our creator since we live in an imperfect world since the fall of Adam and Eve through a choice made by them of their own free will.
Gerry
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
**Then you’ve just sacrificed Divine Providence to human free will 
Overruling is entirely consistent with human freedom - in fact, every time God works in us to prevent our sinning, He has done what He could have done & not did do for “Adam & Eve”. Human freedom is not worth so great a sacrifice, because if God does not overrule human perversity, there is no reason to believe that God hads any concern with creatures at all. That kind of free will is ultimately atheistic - because it mistakes freedom for independence & autonomy. **
**“Adam & Eve” had no alternative - unless God foresees non-events. The whole story is absurd theologically if treated as history. God’s knowledge is not conditioned by human acts: the very idea is blasphemous. ****We cannot choose God unless He rules our wills so that we do so - He has to take the initiative, or we never would respond to His grace. **
**There is no contradiction in this at all - Providence & Grace, far from being prejudicial to freedom, are essential to it. **
M
Mystic_Warrior
Guest
I would be one of those Christians. It wasn’t till I met true evil and fought it with good that I surmised that God exists and that He is more powerful. It is only when we meet evil that we understand how good God is.
Peace…
MW
M
Mystic_Warrior
Guest
If you look at the instances of the word “evil” in the Bible you will begin to see that there are different kinds. The authors used the word evil for different things, just like they used the word “hell” that refers to different things.
There is intrinsic, moral evil.
There are things like poverty, sickness and death which are considered “evil”.
The second kind of evil is in God’s plan and He uses them.
The first kind of evil God has nothing to do with. That is, they are our personal moral choices to sin against God by killing, stealing, adultery and so on.
We have to define what we are calling the “problem of evil” by defining what evil is.
Peace…
MW
B
BlaineTog
Guest
Not at all. God wants to elevate us to a level worthy of his love. This requires respecting our decisions, so that our choices have consequences and mean something. Adam and Eve could have chosen to tell the serpent to go tie himself in a knot, but they also could have chosen to eat the pomegranate. God wanted the former, but he had a plan for the latter as well. That he happened to know how it would all turn out is beside the point.Then you’ve just sacrificed Divine Providence to human free will
First of all, there is an ontological difference between Adam and Eve and us: we have knowledge of good and evil, and the law is written on our hearts. Second, God did all he should have had to do to prevent them from sinning by telling them right-out not to eat the fruit. Third, there is a big difference between someone’s conscience from acting up and overruling them.
Non sequitur. “If God doesn’t rape us, he doesn’t care for us at all.” Every good action is in some small way an expression of love for God. That’s the point of having good actions: to give man an opportunity to show our love for God. However, in order for something to be an expression of love, there has to be the possibility that the person might have chosen differently, and the less the possibility, the greater the expression. Were God forcing us to do good works, it would be God doing the works, not us, and the works would become meaningless. It would be like a man recording “I love you” into a tape recorder and playing the recording over and over.
What happened could have happened differently, it just didn’t. It’s like in a story: just because you know that Faramir let Frodo go doesn’t mean he had to.
And it’s certainly possible that God knows all possible worlds, even if only one of them is actually what will happen.
I’m not sure I understand you. I’m not saying that God didn’t know how Adam and Eve would have chosen, only that events are not determined by knowledge of them.God’s knowledge is not conditioned by human acts: the very idea is blasphemous.
God has to be there to be chosen, but we have to do the choosing. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be us choosing. It’s logically incoherent to claim that God forces us to choose freely.
- Status