Again, tell that to your 10 yr old son when he asks why his sweet little cousin died of cancer. “There’s no problem here, son!”
I already did, and
you agreed that there is no PHILOSOPHICAL problem here. There is a physical problem, of course, which we cannot prevent - as of now. Why do you keep going back to already resolved questions?
It is amusing to see the degree of credulity that must be swallowed to endorse your worldview.
Reality does not need credulity. “Excrement happens”. Explain how a tornado flattens every second house on a street and spares the other ones - in philosophical or theological terms. That is how a tornado works as a force of nature. There is no philosophical problem here either. (And your expression of “credulity which must be swallowed” reeks of condescension and insult. But I guess
YOU are allowed to do it…)
I find “because we have free will” to be the most sensible.
It is not applicable to “
natural evil”. Try again. Free will has nothing to do with diseases, tornadoes, tsunamis and other “ACTS of God”. Interesting expression, don’t you think? How is it that only negative events are referred to as “acts of God”? What is your most “adequate” explanation for the “natural evils”?
Because it’s a trenchant question and it’s one you have yet to answer.
No, it is not. Of course I am aware what you try to say here. It is the old cop-out: “MAYBE there is a perfectly good explanation for all these so-called problems, but you are simply too stupid or ignorant to understand it”. The answer to this is: “hogwash”. “Maybe” does not explain anything. If God would come and explain, we would know the reason. But God does not do that. So you are left as the advocate in God’s defense. The trouble is you are just as ignorant as everyone else. Maybe you could call upon the church (which is infallible in the matters of faith and morals) and find out the official answer for “natural evils”. I can hardly wait. But I suspect that there is none. You just have to resort to your faith (blind faith).
What does compassion look like in the face of no suffering, no illness, no pain?
And bravery–how would that work in your world without adversity?
“LOOK LIKE”??? You mean something must be visible and tangible in order for you to accept it? What are you now, a materialist?
Ah, so you’re actually saying that there *couldn’t *be bravery in the world you created without adversity.
Oh, there is bravery, all right. Bravery is the mental attitude to oppose adversity. If there is no adversity, it is simply dormant. The same for compassion. IF there would be a situation where compassion would be required, the people would exhibit it.
Of course with sufficiently advanced technology we could actually test it. We can create a convincing “virtual reality environment” where the people would have the opportunity to exhibit their compassion and bravery without having someone else be exposed to harmful effects.
It is rather strange that you advocate pain, suffering and misery so that people can act in a brave or compassionate manner. I wonder if you had the same attitude, if it was YOU or YOUR CHILDREN who had to endure the pain. Would you volunteer to have your children to be exposed to some serious pain and suffering just so that someone else could PRACTICE compassion? I don’t think so. What should we call someone who advocates other people’s suffering, but does not want to be the guinea pig herself… I think the proper word is: a HYPOCRITE!
Amen, brother! Preach it!
You are correctly espousing Catholic teaching here.
That is exactly what I have been “preaching”. The whole “problem of evil” would disappear if only God “willed it”.
So why don’t you practice it?
Whenever you try to come up with an instance for the “problem of evil”, just answer yourself: “God could fix it without any side effects”… and the problem would be solved. That is what omnipotence could do… if there would be an omnipotent being. The only problem is that God does NOT “fix” it. And that is the fundamental problem which no believer can solve.
