The problem of Moral Evil (debunked)

[MindOverMatter2]

But, why should we think God would desire to create agents with morally significant freedom…,etc. ?

Love shares, Love is creative, because that is the nature of love. The creative act of the Christian God is synonymous with the idea of sharing the good of ones existence, with a being other than itself. Where there is God you can be certain that there is also a creation.

That is not a difficult thing to grasp.

I have no good reason to expect God to create anything. Therefore, theism’s explanatory power over any observation is pretty low for me, be that evil or hiddenness etc.

Why do human beings want children? Healthy minded individuals who plan pregnancy do so because they want to share the good of their existence with beings made in their own image, because they can see the good in the idea of looking after family and nurturing their health. And it isn’t always just the result of a blind impulse to propagate. Perhaps it might be hard for you to believe this, but some people actually have children because they believe its a good thing to do. It is an act of sharing, building a personal community, family. Sharing the love of ones personal nature. God creates us, not because he is compelled to by something outside of himself, or because of genetics, but rather because Gods nature is absolute love, goodness, and perfection, and thus it is natural for God to share the fruits of that perfection, simply because it is the nature of good to share.

This is not a difficult thing to grasp.

That is, evil is surprising given theism. That’s reason to doubt theism.

Its not surprising if you begin with the fact that God is love, love is creative and unselfish, love gives freedom, and therefore the dignity which allows its creation to make real choices.

This is not a difficult thing to grasp.

 

[Perplexity]

John Russell Jr:

My question is why we should expect God to create anything at all, given his attributes (omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence etc.).In other words, what about God’s attributes alone lead us to expect God to create anything?

Your answer was that God created the world perfectly, but then it deteriorated because of free choices.

Your answer just says that God did create, it doesn’t tell us why we should expect God to create anything. So, it seems to be an answer to a different question.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

MindOverMatter says in 1st arguement in OP …

The goal of God, is that everybody should freely choose to love God, because by doing so, mans nature as both an ontologically dependent and morally independent creature is fulfilled

FS says

There is no freedom to choose when a youngster is told that life fullfillment is in fact an expression of hate… at an early age by an adult… role model. (influence)

Gods goal in freedom, for all to choose freely …is denied. Your #1 arguement is illogical. If you are having trouble joining these dots understanding the nature of corruption and its effect on freedom, I cannot help you further.

If i am having trouble, its simply because the dots are not joining. You are not making any sense. The meaning of your argument is unclear.

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

John Russell Jr:

My question is why we should expect God to create anything at all, given his attributes (omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence etc.).In other words, what about God’s attributes alone lead us to expect God to create anything?

Your answer was that God created the world perfectly, but then it deteriorated because of free choices.

Your answer just says that God did create, it doesn’t tell us why we should expect God to create anything. So, it seems to be an answer to a different question.

… my dearest friend ,

… it was not the sum totalof my knowledge that last post , i tried to a your q quickly , but you raise a great q here and one i think may never have been solved , but i have already solved it , i’ll tell you briefly , but i’m not writing a book – note that , so if unsure a dialogue is ok to fully solve the problem , we take the concept of something and nothing , and i’ll cover more than your q with this , we need to understand that although we so oft and commonly use the word nothing , nothing is what it says , it is nothing and does not and cannot exist full stop , why does god exist ??? , there is no time , there is only eternity , in eternity there is no beginning , end or middle , there is just " now " and all in " now " just " is " or is " isness " , now although there’s no time or beginning – to get our head around why god must and does exist we just have to know the right q , there is a choice of something or nothing existing , now if nothing exists , which is impossible – but let’s allow it for argument , then nothing having existence has become something , so whether something or nothing exists we see that something has to exist , this something we call god by the way , of the nature of this something we can know many things but require revelation to really know much about god , but this something must be the most absolutely infinitely perfect something that can be , the reason is that nothing / ness cannot exist , so there can be no nothing / ness in this something , it must be completely perfect , we know some of those perfections but there is beyond infinitely more and we will never even nearly fully know or understand let alone appreciate god , he is way beyond us little creatures , we know god is love as love unites and it’s opposite evil divides , as to god being a trinity , we only know this thru revelation , but if true it is the most absolutely infinitely perfect and powerful love that is each of the 3 and that binds the 3 together so perfectly that though they are 3 they become united as 1 , now why is god creative ??? , the nature of something is that it must do something , be creative , this is why god is infinitely creative and must express his infinite creativity in an infiniute number of infinitely creative ways , i’ll touch on pantheism as i’ve been thinking on it too if you like , if god must create more of huimself thenn this shows he is not the most infinitely perfct something that can possibly be , it is total contradiction and impossibility , we know things come to be in our world , we see it , and they are not god or it proves god is imperfect and if that were so god does not exist , poof – he’s gone , this is brief so if you want to go back and forth on all or any pts or anything else feel free dear friend ,

… may god bless and love you ,

… john …

 

[Perplexity]

Mindovermatter:

You use phrases like “This is not a difficult thing to grasp” and “it might be hard for you to believe this, but some people actually have children because they believe its a good thing to do.” etc. I’m not sure if you’re being condescending or just trying to make your conclusion ‘obvious’ to strengthen it. Either way, I’m not sure anyone (theist or atheist) should accept it.

Love:

What does it mean to say that love is creative, and how does this help you out?

Well, I guess love is a relational notion such that if S loves, then S loves something or someone. If you’re familiar with philosophy a common way of expressing this idea is to say that love is intentional. Unless, you just mean that God is ‘loving’ like…he’s a pretty kind guy.

If you mean the former, then it doesn’t make sense to say God is love prior to him creating anything, so this wouldn’t lead us to expect God to create anything.

Unless you say that God is a Trinity (or at least a Binitary) and that’s how he can be love. But, that makes it even more unlikely that he’d create anything since he has other perfect persons to love for eternity.

If you mean the latter, I can’t discern any way in which this implies God would create anything.

I’m sorry but I’m not sure how what you’ve said helps you.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Mindovermatter:

You use phrases like “This is not a difficult thing to grasp” and “it might be hard for you to believe this, but some people actually have children because they believe its a good thing to do.” etc. I’m not sure if you’re being condescending or just trying to make your conclusion ‘obvious’ to strengthen it. Either way, I’m not sure anyone (theist or atheist) should accept it.

Love:

What does it mean to say that love is creative, and how does this help you out?

Well, I guess love is a relational notion such that if S loves, then S loves something or someone. If you’re familiar with philosophy a common way of expressing this idea is to say that love is intentional. Unless, you just mean that God is ‘loving’ like…he’s a pretty kind guy.

.

You know what love means, what it means to love, do you not? And you evidently are aware of there being different kinds of love, yes? There is not just the kind of love we associate with feelings, but rather one can also act because one has knowledge that it is good to do so, and not simply because there is a reward; do you understand? It is good to share ones good things, do you agree? To never share ones good things is necessarily selfish; am i wrong?

In the case of God, God being the ultimate reality and source of all being and all truth, it follows that if an act is objectively good then it is objectively good because of Gods “objective nature”. There is such a thing as moral truth because of the objective an ontological nature of ultimate reality; and the same is true of mathematical truths or physical laws, assuming that God is ultimate reality. Because God’s perfect - and thus eternal - will perfectly reflects Gods eternal nature, this is why we call God love.

You are simply avoiding the issue by asking questions which have nothing to do with the context of the thread, you are trying to avoid the conclusion, because you know where it leads; you are not stupid. I have explained that Gods creating the universe is an act of love, its an act of goodness, it is good to share. Thats a good reason to act, that is greatest reason to act; to share ones goodness. God, being the source of all reality, has the greatest good, and thus God has the greatest reason to act. Because Gods nature is a perfect act of love, there is never a point in time where God is not acting, for it is a timeless act; thus there is no before creation. You argue that you don’t know what it means for there to be a nature that is love, a being that acts simply because love is its nature. But its not necessary for me to explain Gods nature, because the thread is not about how is it possible for Gods nature to be love; but rather, the question is “given the Christian concept of a God who acts out of love and is the nature of love, is it consistent that evil exists”. I explained why it is consistent, assuming the existence of a being whose nature is love, as defined in the second paragraph.

Whether such a being can meaningfully exist is a subject for another thread, and does not belong in this one.

 

[tonyrey]

And I have anticipated yours! Hell may be a devil’s paradise, but is it what is objectively good for all the individuals there, rather than relatively good? If it is not objectively good to be in hell, those individuals’ best interests have not been met when they could have, hence God did not love them.

It is objectively good for all the individuals there because they choose their own destiny. What more could you ask than that? Don’t you value your freedom more than anything else or would you prefer to be compelled how and what to think?

You say there’s no half-way between love and evil, and you seem to fall on the love side. Am I right in thinking you do not believe there is hell?

To deny the possibility of hell is to deny the reality of love. To deny the reality of love is to deny the value of life. Evil is the result of lack of love…

 

[Perplexity]

Mindovermatter2:

I am assuming the Christian conception of God and that he exists. I’m defending what you call the ‘weak’ position by showing that theism has no significant explanatory power over observations (whether evil etc.). You attempt to defeat the ‘weak’ position by showing that theism has a high explanatory power.

Like I said, I see no reason at all to expect this being to create anything. You say we should expect a creation because God is love. I showed that God being love shouldn’t lead us to expect creation. You didn’t provide a single objection to what I said about love. It’s as if you didn’t even read what I said.

Worse, you replied in an even more condescending manner and accused me of bringing up things irrelevant to this thread (among other accusations). My analysis of love wasn’t irrelevant, it was in direct response to you! lol

Perhaps we’re at an impasse: I don’t think you’ve provided any good reason to reject the ‘weak’ position.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

You attempt to defeat the ‘weak’ position by showing that theism has a high explanatory power.

That was not my position. That is a straw-man of my position.

Like I said, I see no reason at all to expect this being to create anything. .

Seeing no reason why God would create anything is irrelevant. Assuming that God has a particular kind of nature and act, does the evil we see in the world make it unreasonable to believe in God. This is the question. When you don’t stick to the context of the question it exposes the deceptive nature of your character; thus you should not wonder why my words seem cutting and impatient.

You say we should expect a creation because God is love. I showed that God being love shouldn’t lead us to expect creation.

You didn’t show me any such thing. You gave an argument about the definition of love; but you never showed us that given the act of love the world would not be created. The nature of love is to share. If there is a nature that is love, then such a nature would be creative in virtue of the fact that it is love. There is your answer.

You didn’t provide a single objection to what I said about love. It’s as if you didn’t even read what I said.

You know what love means, what it means to love, do you not? And you evidently are aware of there being different kinds of love, yes? There is not just the kind of love we associate with feelings, but rather one can also act because one has knowledge that it is good to do so, and not simply because there is a reward; do you understand? It is good to share ones good things, do you agree? To never share ones good things is necessarily selfish; am i wrong?

In the case of God, God being the ultimate reality and source of all being and all truth, it follows that if an act is objectively good then it is objectively good because of Gods “objective nature”. There is such a thing as moral truth because of the objective an ontological nature of ultimate reality; and the same is true of mathematical truths or physical laws, assuming that God is ultimate reality. Because God’s perfect - and thus eternal - will perfectly reflects Gods eternal nature, this is why we call God love.

You are simply avoiding the issue by asking questions which have nothing to do with the context of the thread, you are trying to avoid the conclusion, because you know where it leads; you are not stupid. I have explained that Gods creating the universe is an act of love, its an act of goodness, it is good to share. Thats a good reason to act, that is greatest reason to act; to share ones goodness. God, being the source of all reality, has the greatest good, and thus God has the greatest reason to act. Because Gods nature is a perfect act of love, there is never a point in time where God is not acting, for it is a timeless act; thus there is no before creation. You argue that you don’t know what it means for there to be a nature that is love, a being that acts simply because love is its nature. But its not necessary for me to explain Gods nature, because the thread is not about how is it possible for Gods nature to be love; but rather, the question is “given the Christian concept of a God who acts out of love and is the nature of love, is it consistent that evil exists”. I explained why it is consistent, assuming the existence of a being whose nature is love, as defined in the second paragraph.

Whether such a being can meaningfully exist is a subject for another thread, and does not belong in this one.

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

John Russell Jr:

My question is why we should expect God to create anything at all, given his attributes (omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence etc.).In other words, what about God’s attributes alone lead us to expect God to create anything?

Your answer was that God created the world perfectly, but then it deteriorated because of free choices.

Your answer just says that God did create, it doesn’t tell us why we should expect God to create anything. So, it seems to be an answer to a different question.

… my dear friend ,

… are you perplexed by my answer ??? is it perplexity ??? , god is something and the very nature of something is that it must do something , hence doing something = creativity , and since god is infinitely perfect his creativity must be infinitely perfect , and so he exercises his infinitely perfect creativity in an infinite number of infinitely perfect creative ways , do you get it dear friend , gods creativity knows no limits and has already all happened as god must create " now " , not existing in time , but his creations experience a gradual unfolding of events of necessity as we cannot experience our whole eternity at once , so change and time are an illusion , real to us but not really real at all , if you don’t understand then try talking to me but you have your answer , problem solved , but for the problem to be solved in your mind you might need to know more , but you know enough , it’s the understanding and appreciation that inhibit your ability to see this truth perhaps dear friend , a dialogue of minds engaging in a process of further problem solving can clear up the confusion , so try me if you don’t understand it dear friend , i’ll remove your perplexity i’m sure ,

… may god bless and love you ,

… john …

 

[FurtherSuntime]

If i am having trouble, its simply because the dots are not joining. You are not making any sense. The meaning of your argument is unclear.

MindOverMatter says
There is the strong version and the weak version.

1. The strong version: complains that there is a necessary contradiction between the concept of a loving God and the concept of evil. This is debunked by the fact that if God is ontologically the nature of love, then he possesses a nature that would not force his creatures to love each other. Love, in the context of preparing people for heaven, by its very nature is freely given and is not forced. To force ones self upon another is a selfish act. The goal of God, is that everybody should freely choose to love God, because by doing so, mans nature as both an ontologically dependent and morally independent creature is fulfilled. Since all true acts of love can only exist because of Gods nature, we can only express love to a perfect degree by freely conforming to all aspects of Gods will. If the nature of perfect love is not forceful of loving actions, then it is logically possible that evil can exist in the presence of a perfect ontological love. The consequence of this is that people can harm each other; this is to say that they can act in opposition to love. Given that God loves all his children equally, it follows from that fact that he therefore values the freedom of all his children equally. Thus the world we see before us is to be expected, since humanity is free to act as it pleases.

While this argument doesn’t explain everything about evil in the world it does refute the argument that there is a necessary contradiction between the concept of love and the concept of evil.

FS says

Within this argument you state the following (MindOverMatter says)

The goal of God, is that everybody should freely choose to love God, because by doing so, mans nature as both an ontologically dependent and morally independent creature is fulfilled.

FS…says

1. You are clearly arguing in defense of a non-interfering God and the idea of free will in an event of say the Holocaust and suggesting that Gods goal, is that everybody should freely choose to love God and therefore we have free will ect…for good reason

I’m very slow as you implied earlier today…please if you have time, can you confirm above ?
Then I will explain step by step how the confusion in this topic has come about and show where things appear irrational

 

[FurtherSuntime]

So…we know there are lots of rotten people in the world.

We also know that toddlers are not born rotten . If a person kicks their toddler around
guess what happens? We have an instant bully. Just ask any school teacher.
Take the abuse further and guess what MindOverMatter?
Theres a saying …

The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

What all this all means is that your idea of freedom to choose is baloney. So your imaginative idea that God designed free will in order to have people choose to love him as you say is not comprehensible to myself.

Theres an island in the Caribbean where the toddler that steals the greatest amount for the day gets a hero cookie…where are you getting this god designed free will so that man can choose
to love god? Childhood Influence is related to conscience.

Theres no way this is un-clear

 

[Hypnotoad]

And I have anticipated yours! Hell may be a devil’s paradise, but is it what is objectively good for all the individuals there, rather than relatively good? If it is not objectively good to be in hell, those individuals’ best interests have not been met when they could have, hence God did not love them.

You say there’s no half-way between love and evil, and you seem to fall on the love side. Am I right in thinking you do not believe there is hell?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

In order for a being to be able to express true love there must be the ability for that being to sacrifice themselves completely. If this ability does not exist then the person can never be said to have ever loved completley or perfectly for that matter. Hell exists because the ability to completely sacrifice one’s-self and express true love exists; Hell is actually the product of true love.

 

[Perplexity]

That was not my position. That is a straw-man of my position.

Right…I’ll assume this means you don’t have a clue what bayesian reasoning is…

Seeing no reason why God would create anything is irrelevant. Assuming that God has a particular kind of nature and act, does the evil we see in the world make it unreasonable to believe in God. This is the question. When you don’t stick to the context of the question it exposes the deceptive nature of your character; thus you should not wonder why my words seem cutting and impatient.

If you can’t show that it’s probable that God would create something then it’s even more unlikely that we’d observe evil, assuming theism to be the case. Are you familiar with Bayes’ theorem? It’s widely used in philosophy of religion to discern arguments for and against God’s existence (especially arguments from evil). I can’t imagine you’d be impatient if you knew about it…

You didn’t show me any such thing. You gave an argument about the definition of love; but you never showed us that given the act of love the world would not be created. The nature of love is to share. If there is a nature that is love, then such a nature would be creative in virtue of the fact that it is love. There is your answer.

wat 0_o I showed that God is love iff either he has already created something, or if he is like a Trinity. Neither the former or the latter do a thing to lead us to expect him to create.

Whether such a being can meaningfully exist is a subject for another thread, and does not belong in this one.

So…I haven’t questioned the existence of God in anything I’ve said here…lol…

I’m just going to bow out of this discussion…I don’t think it’s leading anywhere productive

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Right…I’ll assume this means you don’t have a clue what bayesian reasoning is…

Its irrelevant. And in any case, if you were skilled in any kind of reasoning, you would at least realize that the context of this thread is not about operation, but rather whether or not two particular meanings (good & evil) can exist in the same reality. Does God have a good reason to permit evil in the world? This is the question.

The question of whether or not God would create anything at all, is besides point, and is thus irrelevant.

If you can’t show that it’s probable that God would create something then it’s even more unlikely that we’d observe evil, assuming theism to be the case.

If there were no God, why do you think people would not hurt each-other?
You evidently don’t know what you are talking about

Are you familiar with Bayes’ theorem?

Are you familiar with Bayes’ theorem? I don’t think you are. Otherwise you could demonstrate why it is relevant to this topic, rather than merely giving the false impression that you know better. Remember what i said about deception? Thats not a good character flaw to have.

wat 0_o I showed that God is love iff either he has already created something, or if he is like a Trinity. Neither the former or the latter do a thing to lead us to expect him to create.

Well, 0_o Gods perfect being and will are one and the same eternal act, God is pure actuality. Therefore there is never a time when God “begins” to love, for it is a natural expression of his existential nature. Giving that love by its nature “shares”, and the fact that God is love, we can conclude that God shares the fruits of his love, simply because it is the nature of good to share. A perfect being is forever expressing that which is perfect, in virtue of its perfection. Creation exists simultaneously with the first cause; the timeless act of Gods perfect existence. There was never a time before creation. The creation of the first event of what we call the universe is a timeless expression of Gods perfect nature and will.

So…I haven’t questioned the existence of God in anything I’ve said here…lol…

I’m just going to bow out of this discussion…I don’t think it’s leading anywhere productive

It has lead somewhere productive…for those who are willing to be honest with the information they receive. You are unfortunately not one of those people.

 

[Perplexity]

MindOverMatter2:

I’ll bite.

I’ll try and break this down, but from your past posts I think it’s evident you’re not taking the time to read what I’m saying. Perhaps, at least, this will benefit everyone else reading this.

I’ll explain bayesian reasoning, and how it’s utterly relevant to this topic:

Bayesian reasoning:

The human mind naturally assesses evidence for a belief or hypothesis in a certain manner and on the basis of certain assumptions. We naturally assume, for instance, that if a belief or hypothesis is probably true then it will yield fewer surprises, given our evidence. We’re inclined to think that a good way to discover reality is to collect evidence and adopt the belief which is least surprised by it. Therefore, we also assume that if, given our evidence, a belief is very surprising (not leading us to expect the evidence), then it’s not worthy of our belief…at least initially.

For example, take the following competing hypotheses: (1) Jones is not the murderer. (2) Jones is the murderer.

Suppose we have some evidence at the scene of the crime; namely, the murder weapon, a gun which was licensed to and bought by Jones and Jones’ fingerprints on the murder weapon. Call all of this evidence, E.

Which of the competing hypotheses leads us to expect E, if we suppose it were true? Well, if (1) is true, it’d be surprising that Jones’ gun was the murder weapon! Of all the people in the world who own guns, why would Jones’ be the one? And even more shocking is that his fingerprints were on it! How couldn’t he be the murderer? Therefore, (2) makes much more sense of E, consequently we naturally take E to confirm or support (2) rather than (1).

How is this relevant?

Well, let’s call our observation of evil, E. We’ve got several competing hypotheses, but let’s focus on Mind’s. (1’): The Christian God exists and desires to love and be loved by rational human agents. (or something relevantly similar)

Supposing that (1’) is true, would we expect to observe E? If not, then E disconfirms (1’) in the same way E disconfirmed (1) in the above homicide example. That’s why the problem of evil is an objection lol. If E isn’t intended (by atheists) to disconfirm (1’) then I can’t make any sense of this thread at all. I can’t imagine anyone else could either.

So, everything I’ve said is utterly relevant. If we can’t expect God to create anything then we have reason to doubt (1’), which then allows E to disconfirm (1’) even more.

I just don’t think you’re well-versed enough in the relevant literature MindOverMatter2 or I wouldn’t be posting this. Perhaps, sometime, we could have a debate on this issue though.

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

;8373194]MindOverMatter2:

I’ll bite.

I’ll try and break this down, but from your past posts I think it’s evident you’re not taking the time to read what I’m saying. Perhaps, at least, this will benefit everyone else reading this.

I’ll explain bayesian reasoning, and how it’s utterly relevant to this topic:

Bayesian reasoning:

… my dear friend ,

… i know you don’t seem to want to dialogue with me but can i offer a few observations on your theories here ??? , first of all i have explained and proven why god creates but you require more evidence , let’s really look at the human mind and thought process interfering with the given proof being accepted a little shall we , the human mind is fallen and very little of it’s ability in terms of understanding and appreciation is left , although it acquires knowledge quite well and one can have photographic memory even , but knowledge on it’'s own is useless , the internet has so much knowledge it’s beyond belief but if it does not understand the knowledge what use is the knowledge , and if it does not appreciate the knowledge then it cannot know if what it understands is useful or not nor to what degree / s it might be , the fallen mind has only maybe 5 or 10 % of it’s full potential active , it is not evolving it is sorely dysfunctional ,and what little understanding and appreciation it has is very faulty and quite chaotic , which makes the whole human communication problem solving process virtually impossible , hence none here ever solve any problems perfectly , completely and permanently , they just make more as they apply band aids and bandages to the problems , apart from the fallen human mind being such a mess one of the preternatural gifts man had prior to original sin was perfect faith , and faith is the normal modus operandi for all human belief bar one single thing , we must believe all on faith , but man having lost this vital gift of perfect faith requires a booster shot of faith to believe in god and the things of god and god gives it freely if man seeks for and asks for it and he can ever increase this gift , but let’s get to the crunch of what i’m saying , in the beginning mans mind worked perfectly and he needed very little knowledge in order to know , understand and appreciate anything as perfectly as is humanly possible on the basis of faith which is the only way man can believe anything as said , a non - fallen man can take 6 small pieces of knowledge each a mile apart and jon these dots by filling in the blanks with his perfectly functioning mind and solve the problem perfectly , allowing that man must make mistakes as he learns from trial and error , but mistake = learning , and does not = error , and mistakes are a normal part of the human problem solving process and man never stops solving problems and peffecting or correcting his solutions – it’s endless , but atheists and all fallen men , but we’ll discuss atheists here , they don’t accept belief on faith as they should , they want absolute proof , they have very dysfuctional minds and need complete proof to believe anything they believe , there is the huge problem that they don’t understand how the mind should work and that the mind must operate on faith , but even worse , and let’s discuss god but it applies to everything if they are hionest , atheists want infinite dots with all possible conceivable information on the subject like god and the don’t want to have to join the dots , they want complete and absolute proof in a means man cannot do , they refuse to accept sufficient dots and accept god by joining the dots themselves and solving the problem based on their faith , they want absolute proof and humans cannot do this , and even if an atheist got this and had absolute proof he is still in dire srife because his understanding and appreciation are so extremely defective and faulty , so the atheist is beating his head against a brick wall asking for proof man cannot give and the atheist cannot accept even if he wants to , in the end you must accept you need faith and only that booster shot of faith can be given by god when he’s petitioned sufficiently , and no man can ever acquire let alone know , understand and appreciate all possible knowledge which is the unknown utopia for many in the world , it’s impossible to get that knowledge for man anyway , and all possible knowledge is not the answer , you must make a leap of faith in the end to believe the truth of anything and not just god dear friend , i hope you understand this and are not still full of perplexity , ask in doubt if unsure , i’ll do my best to help you friend ,

… may god bless and love you ,

… john …

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Mindovermatter:

Why should we expect evil, given God’s existence? You may say because given that God exists, he’d desire to create agents with morally significant freedom so he could enter into loving relationships with them, and evil is a necessary possibility/consequence. But, why should we think God would desire to create agents with morally significant freedom…,etc. ?

I have no good reason to expect God to create anything. Therefore, theism’s explanatory power over any observation is pretty low for me, be that evil or hiddenness etc.

That is, evil is surprising given theism. That’s reason to doubt theism.

Creation would more reasonably be a consequence of the existence of a god-creator. If so,
evil or perceived relative dis-order, is simply a consequence which represents a consciousness in man to comprehend something which is in fact, further ordered.

since man can comprehend a state of thought or existence which is not reliant on biological need, the end result is a lack of potential disorder, a superior entity . …the social lack from order in notice , is then identified as evil.

so its possible to answer your question by suggesting that creation and its propeties are
not items which would be a product of a directly schemed plan, but more reasonably a consequence of a God if there is a God…(which I believe)

 

[tonyrey]

Hell does not have compensations. That violates the definition of hell.

Since no one is compelled to be in hell some satisfaction must be obtained from rejecting God and being independent. There must be some incentive unless a person is a lunatic!

 

[James1215]

Thats your definition of God. If you are to challenge the Christian goodness of God then you have to challenge the appropriate definition and not your own made up straw-man.

Love is something we do, not something we are, and love is relational. It cannot have an ontological basis where only one thing exists; it is not housed within a single being, but if it exists, it exists interactively. Therefore, God cannot be Love, but only act with love in an exchange with other beings. That’s not a straw man, but a challenge to you to explain how you can possibly assert otherwise. It is all very well to say that ‘God is love’, but it makes no sense, and thus cannot be used to resolve the problem of evil.

Your account of good and evil says that we become closer to God qua Love when we act with love, and distanced from Him when we do not. Hell is the result of the latter. However, this is not adequate, because I think it conflates ‘gaining God’s approval’ with ‘sharing in God’s love’. In order for God to love us, God has to protect our best interests, not merely to sit there as embodied ‘Love’. God can only be said (in a manner of speaking) to be Love if He constantly loves every one of His creation even if they do not love Him. It is this statement which clearly contradicts the notion that God would cause or allow people to suffer objective evil for eternity in hell.