The problem of Evil

[TheTrueCentrist]

TTC:

No, what I am saying is that free will potentially leads to evil. It doesn’t have to - if we simply accept God’s gift - but, if we don’t it could.

God, therefore, could have selected a world with potential for evil but no actual evil. He could have maintained free will and eliminated evil. If he could not do this, (i.e. actual evil is required for us to have free will) then we are right back to my original point: “free will inevitably leads to evil.”

Your analysis makes no sense at all. Perhaps you should think about it a little, this time, and try to re-create something that uses logic to attempt to define a logic.

That is not a response. My point is quite clear. We believe we understand what goodness is. We believe that goodness does not tolerate or permit evil. I do not think, for example, that anyone became a saint for passively allowing evil to happen. God, however, appears to do so.

Well, it’s either that, or . . . we become robots.

No, see below. I contend we either already are robots or that God could have chosen a world with both free will and no evil decisions.

From the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia

That answers quite clearly my point which you claimed made no sense. NACE takes the position that we do not really know what goodness is. We say that God has goodness to an infinite extent, but this passage says that we cannot understand his actions. Therefore, the compatibility of God’s goodness with his actions is something we are required to take on faith. If we understood God’s goodness (i.e. true goodness) then we would be able to see that God’s works are good on our own, however we do not understand what goodness is.

Why?

Because if God was able to make our free will compatible with his fore-knowledge once (i.e. in this world) then he could make a similar world, with the primary difference being that he knew no one would ever choose evil. Just think of it this way: each person has a finite number of free-will decisions they make in their life. If we let the good choice be 1 and the evil choice be 0, then all God has to do is think up worlds until he finds one in which everyone’s list of choices reads all 1s. If he cannot do that, then we must conclude that evil is an inevitable outcome of free will. Instead God picked ours which has some arbitrary mix of 1s and 0s. He didn’t have to. He could have chosen some other mix of 1s and 0s. He could have chosen all 0s. There is nothing special about our lists of 1s and 0s.

 

[Ian_Ward]

God loves even the evil and gives them a chance to repent. Evil is also here to test and strengthen the good so that they becoem stronger and diminish the effect of Evil. We fear evil, as you can clearly see in your statement we are troubled do to personal injury that evil exists , God is never affraid of evil, evil is God’s servant to test his children, Evil is God’s garden hoe to do with what he likes.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

God loves even the evil and gives them a chance to repent. Evil is also here to test and strengthen the good so that they becoem stronger and diminish the effect of Evil. We fear evil, as you can clearly see in your statement we are troubled do to personal injury that evil exists , God is never affraid of evil, evil is God’s servant to test his children, Evil is God’s garden hoe to do with what he likes.

So evil is actually good because it comes from God?

 

[tonyrey]

*The onus is on you to explain how **every ***

The onus is still on you to explain how **every **instance of evil could be prevented, i.e. by producing a feasible blueprint of a universe devoid of evil…

 

[rom422]

Allowing evil to occur when one has the power to stop it is incompatible with out understanding of what good is. There are therefore two possibilities, we don’t actually understand what good is, or God is not infinitely good.

There is a third possibility: We don’t fully know what God’s hidden purposes are. For example, I am a man who never saw snow until I came to the U.S. In Autumn I saw all those beautiful leaves fall, and I wondered why God would allowed this evil to happen. The trees looked so bare. I kept this doubt until harsh winter came, when I saw how the heavy snow cling to the branches. I then realized that if the trees did not lose their leaves, the weight of the snow would have been too heavy and many of the branches would have broken. So, you see, there was a reason why trees lose their leaves in Autumn. I did not see at first God’s grand design. He wants to save the trees, so he permitted them to lose their leaves.

Sometimes we unjustly condemn God for permitting evil in the world. We think it is incompatible with His goodness. We do not realize that the permission of evil is actually part of His good plan for the world.

 

[tonyrey]

There is a third possibility: We don’t fully know what God’s hidden purposes are. For example, I am a man who never saw snow until I came to the U.S. In Autumn I saw all those beautiful leaves fall, and I wondered why God would allowed this evil to happen. The trees looked so bare. I kept this doubt until harsh winter came, when I saw how the heavy snow cling to the branches. I then realized that if the trees did not lose their leaves, the weight of the snow would have been too heavy and many of the branches would have broken. So, you see, there was a reason why trees lose their leaves in Autumn. I did not see at first God’s grand design. He wants to save the trees, so he permitted them to lose their leaves.

Sometimes we unjustly condemn God for permitting evil in the world. We think it is incompatible with His goodness. We do not realize that the permission of evil is actually part of His good plan for the world.

The sceptic could argue that not all trees lose their leaves but I agree with you that God permits evil in the world because it is necessary.

 

[Whadyamean]

The sceptic could argue that not all trees lose their leaves but I agree with you that God permits evil in the world because it is necessary.

So “evil” is is “good” misunderstood?

 

[Perplexity]

It is the weakest argument for atheism because it presupposes the existence of goodness!

The problem of evil needn’t make mention of evil at all. If the theist will only acknowledge a metaphysics of goodness and evil which involves the existence of a perfectly good being (begging the question against the atheist), the atheist can just run a problem of suffering which renders such metaphysics irrelevant.

 

[davidv]

So “evil” is is “good” misunderstood?

No, evil is the natural consequence of the gift of free will.

Free will is necessary for true love.

Love is greater than evil as demonstrate by Jesus’ suffering, death and resurrection.

 

[tonyrey]

The sceptic could argue that not all trees lose their leaves but I agree with you that God permits evil in the world because it is necessary.

One evil is often a lesser evil than another but it remains evil.

 

[JDaniel]

I don’t so much think of the intentions of people as evil, but I think of the existence of Satan as the existence of evil. Satan is evil and the prince of deception. If God is omnipotent then why doesn’t he just do away with Satan?

Josh:

Apparently God does not annihilate what He eternally wills (into existence). And, after all, it is not this life that we should be holding onto with such tenacity; it is the afterlife that we should be grasping onto with that tenacity.

What is it that allows Satan to keep doing his evil deeds in God’s universe?

Satan does not do the deeds. But, he can encourage humans to do them, and he can thereby thwart their reception of God’s grace.

Nothing else should rightly be called, “evil.” When we term natural disasters, “evil,” we are teleomophizing the occurrence. We, humans, are ascribing to it considerably more than should be ascribed to it. This sort of stuff became popular some years ago, I suppose in order to bolster the “problem of evil” anti-God arguments.

What God gives, God can take away. It helps the proponents of those arguing against God’s existence to mis-apply the word to natural disasters. Evil is “evil.” It is the absence of God. It is the absence of “God’s Goodness.”

Does it not seem strange that those who wish to deny the existence of God rely on, as perhaps their grandest argument, a teleological description of natural disasters as “evil?” IOW, their argument actually presupposes and defends His existence!

Plain old “bad” is the antithesis of plain old “good.” “Evil” is the antithesis of God, i.e., “God’s Goodness”.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

The problem of evil is the eternal thorn in the side of atheism. If the universe is purposeless and valueless then evil simply does not exist - and the numerous attempts to explain how it exists are spectacular failures!

Exactly.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

It is the weakest argument for atheism because it presupposes the existence of goodness!

Tony:

And, it presupposes goodness as the goodness from God! Thus, it defends God’s existence. Evil is the antithesis not of merely the “good,” it is the antithesis of God’s Goodness.

God bless,
jd

 

[tonyrey]

*It is the weakest argument for atheism because it presupposes the existence of goodness! *

1. The atheist must at least believe that there is an objective reason why some events and situations are preferable to others.
2. What can that reason be if we exist for no reason?
3. If we exist for no reason it must be a subjective preference that has no bearing on the nature of objective reality.

 

[JDaniel]

God, therefore, could have selected a world with potential for evil but no actual evil. He could have maintained free will and eliminated evil. If he could not do this, (i.e. actual evil is required for us to have free will) then we are right back to my original point: “free will inevitably leads to evil.”

TTC:

It does have to be! Freedom is freedom, not some watered down version that would not suit His desire for filial love, from us, and our desire to extend it, to Him.

That is not a response. My point is quite clear. We believe we understand what goodness is. We believe that goodness does not tolerate or permit evil. I do not think, for example, that anyone became a saint for passively allowing evil to happen. God, however, appears to do so.

See above.

No, see below. I contend we either already are robots or that God could have chosen a world with both free will and no evil decisions.

Then you do not understand what “evil” is. Evil is the denial of God. So, if God eliminated “evil,” man would have no choice in the matter! Period. Furthermore, we are not robots.

That answers quite clearly my point which you claimed made no sense. NACE takes the position that we do not really know what goodness is. We say that God has goodness to an infinite extent, but this passage says that we cannot understand his actions. Therefore, the compatibility of God’s goodness with his actions is something we are required to take on faith. If we understood God’s goodness (i.e. true goodness) then we would be able to see that God’s works are good on our own, however we do not understand what goodness is.

No. If we stop equivocating, there should be no problem. I know what I want. I am happy that God has seen fit to choose this unworthy soul. You may follow whatever path you wish. If you should be fortunate enough to become one of God’s elect, you’ll know it! That’s a harsh thing to say, but there’s no other way of conveying it.

Because if God was able to make our free will compatible with his fore-knowledge once (i.e. in this world)

God does not have “foreknowledge.” As infinite being, in God there is no aggregation of the past time, or, any time at all. He knows and (we say) “sees” all things at once - at least as far as our temporality is concerned. We have no idea what “duration” means, or, “is,” to God. We can only speculate - as you are doing.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

God loves even the evil and gives them a chance to repent. Evil is also here to test and strengthen the good so that they become stronger and diminish the effect of Evil. We fear evil, as you can clearly see in your statement we are troubled do to personal injury that evil exists , God is never afraid of evil, evil is God’s servant to test his children, Evil is God’s garden hoe to do with what he likes.

Ian:

That’s exactly right. As Mother Angelica likes to say, “Even s/he who is in the process of suicide, say by jumping off a bridge, can, in those few seconds before s/he hits the water, think that s/he is sorry, in a tiny act of asking for forgiveness, and God will forgive.” (That’s not exactly a duplication of the good Mother’s words, but it’s pretty close.) IOW, it only takes split seconds to be forgiven.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

So evil is actually good because it comes from God?

TTC:

No! Evil is that final act of turning away from His Love!

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

There is a third possibility: We don’t fully know what God’s hidden purposes are. For example, I am a man who never saw snow until I came to the U.S. In Autumn I saw all those beautiful leaves fall, and I wondered why God would allowed this evil to happen. The trees looked so bare. I kept this doubt until harsh winter came, when I saw how the heavy snow cling to the branches. I then realized that if the trees did not lose their leaves, the weight of the snow would have been too heavy and many of the branches would have broken. So, you see, there was a reason why trees lose their leaves in Autumn. I did not see at first God’s grand design. He wants to save the trees, so he permitted them to lose their leaves.

Sometimes we unjustly condemn God for permitting evil in the world. We think it is incompatible with His goodness. We do not realize that the permission of evil is actually part of His good plan for the world.

Rom:

And those are things that are merely serendipitously called “evil.” They are not really evil.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

So “evil” is is “good” misunderstood?

No! Evil is the excluding of God, and the allowing of Satan to take over your soul. Period! I don’t care what we’ve been led to believe by TV, novels, and the anti-theist apologists - including those who don’t know that they are anti-theist apologists.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

The problem of evil needn’t make mention of evil at all. If the theist will only acknowledge a metaphysics of goodness and evil which involves the existence of a perfectly good being (begging the question against the atheist), the atheist can just run a problem of suffering which renders such metaphysics irrelevant.

Perplexity! Go sit in the corner!

God bless,
jd