Why does God allow evil in the world?

[Jefe_Wyatt]

Please forgive my crudeness in asking this next question. It is important to know what precise “evil” you are talking about here. What is evil in this in this scenario?

Again, please forgive my crudeness in asking this next question. It is important to know what precise “evil” you are talking about here. What is evil in this in this scenario?

No problem. If our definitions of evil aren’t the same then we’ll have trouble finding a point of common ground. Defining evil is a complex task that many philosophers have devoted their lives to, so forgive me if my definition is crude, and may need revising as arguments are brought against it. That said, I believe that suffering constitutes evil.

There is a high probability that your first two premises are correct absolutely. From them, how does one arrive at the final three?

In response, a favorite quote of atheists from Epicurus:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

How can a “truth” be a “cop-out”?

Well, I don’t accept this as a truth. I admit, calling it a cop out is a bit inflammatory of me. It is a result of my frustration at trying to have a discussion with a religious person about the existence of evil, and have them rule me out by saying “Well it’s all part of God’s plan.”

Given that I don’t believe in God, this statement has absolutely no meaning to me.

Not if one remembers that the perception and understanding of this phenomenon is from nature and the universe. Think, in logic (our computations on the phenomena of reality) the above two statements are absolutely TRUE. But, we also know that no “infinities” exist, plus, if one did, there could only be middle causes - no first cause and no effect. But, we know that effects occur and have occured, directly from nature. So, we have no choice but to reason that there must be a First Cause, or, First Mover, and this we call God.

We could call it anything we want, but, the concept of God would still be identical in it.

I can’t get my head around this reasoning. We can’t accept the first two statements as absolutely true, because they lead to a contradiction. Everything must have a cause, but causes cannot be infinite. This means there has to be a first cause, or a Prime Mover. By definition, this first cause did not have a cause. We have arrived to this conclusion using our premises, but have now contradicted our first premise: that everything had a cause. Therefore there is a flaw somewhere in our argument.

I also thank you for being a thinker, your respect, and willingness to listen to what I am saying. This is the same for most of the people I have dealt with on this board. I really do want to talk rationally about this, and I don’t mean to offend anyone with my views. Just as you are willing to hear my arguments, I greatly desire to hear yours. I know that the general populace of this board believes in God, and that’s why I’m here. I have plenty of atheist friends, and we spend most of our time agreeing with one another. How boring is that?

 

[That_one_guy]

If I don’t like it…it’s evil.Problem solved.

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

God is so good, he can bring good out of evil? Show me how God brings good against a child that is raped and killed. Show me how God brings good out of the countless millions who have suffered and died throughout history. Evil exists, and so if God exists, God must be either unwilling, unknowing, or incapable of banishing it.

I don’t think it’s Him. I think it’s just us. It’s all on how we deal with it. Some children may get through it and decide to help others to stay strong; others may resent the world around. Some societies may work to bring each other together and keep each other safe and comforted; others may distrust or attack all and only protect their families and themselves.

It’s all on us.

 

[crowonsnow]

Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): “Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil.” This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.

So what is the difference, if any, between what is “good” and what is “evil” when gods are involved? What is Augustine saying is the difference? Or is he simply saying that when gods are involved they are the same?

Does Augustine attempt to demonstrate a difference anywhere in his writings, to give specific examples that illustrate the difference between something that is “good” and something that is “evil?”

Many on this forum see a god committing mass murder against infants such as in the Noah story as “good” because it was done by their god. Others would define such a genocidal act as evil, regardless of the perpetrator.

So I assume that to Augustine anything a god does is good. Is that correct? Or do gods have a hand in evil? Or is there no difference when gods are involved?

 

[JDaniel]

No problem. If our definitions of evil aren’t the same then we’ll have trouble finding a point of common ground. Defining evil is a complex task that many philosophers have devoted their lives to, so forgive me if my definition is crude, and may need revising as arguments are brought against it. That said, I believe that suffering constitutes evil.

Continuing on in crudeness, and what “suffering” would a “raped and murdered child” undergo? (If you will bare with me, please describe this completely.)

In response, a favorite quote of atheists from Epicurus:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

As extension, then, this philosophy seems like it would be a great rationale for the child-rapist: There’s nothing to worry about; there’s no God, so, why not just do what feels good?" (Remember, you chose Epicurus?)

Well, I don’t accept this as a truth. I admit, calling it a cop out is a bit inflammatory of me. It is a result of my frustration at trying to have a discussion with a religious person about the existence of evil, and have them rule me out by saying “Well it’s all part of God’s plan.”

Unfortunately, even atheists have members that are unglib, or, simply don’t know a good answer.

(Snip)
I can’t get my head around this reasoning. We can’t accept the first two statements as absolutely true, because they lead to a contradiction. Everything must have a cause, but causes cannot be infinite. This means there has to be a first cause, or a Prime Mover. By definition, this first cause did not have a cause. We have arrived to this conclusion using our premises, but have now contradicted our first premise: that everything had a cause. Therefore there is a flaw somewhere in our argument.

That is correct. It is the conundrum itself that produces the only response possible! Once we understand that God, or Yahweh, or etc., is the ONLY remedy out of the conundrum, our headache departs.

I also thank you for being a thinker, your respect, and willingness to listen to what I am saying. This is the same for most of the people I have dealt with on this board. I really do want to talk rationally about this, and I don’t mean to offend anyone with my views. Just as you are willing to hear my arguments, I greatly desire to hear yours.

I appreciate those kind words. You have more than earned my respect. (Hopefully, that is meaningful to you, and, I’m sure it is.)

I know that the general populace of this board believes in God, and that’s why I’m here. I have plenty of atheist friends, and we spend most of our time agreeing with one another. How boring is that?

I can imagine!

JD

 

[Fran65]

God is present everywhere, but sin causes His presence to be blotted out,

I like that.

I have also heard an argument that God has created the best of all possible universes; and that although we can imagine a universe that ‘would be better’ i.e. no natural disasters or sickness; it is not possible because if it were, God would have created it, as He is omnipotent.

Of course, atheists may go on to say “If we’re going to suffer, why bother creating us then? isn’t that cruel?” This may be solved by the idea that good that we cannot imagine will come out of our suffering.

In addition, a lot of suffering is the result of evil perpetrated by people using their free will and we have to have free will to freely choose God, so God guides us, teaches us and shows us the way to live, but does not intervene in ways that some people want.

 

[crowonsnow]

Of course, atheists may go on to say “If we’re going to suffer, why bother creating us then? isn’t that cruel?” This may be solved by the idea that good that we cannot imagine will come out of our suffering.

I don’t know if it’s “cruel,” but it is certainly accurate. Or as others have said, ‘gods should not have to kill babies.’

 

[Jefe_Wyatt]

Continuing on in crudeness, and what “suffering” would a “raped and murdered child” undergo? (If you will bare with me, please describe this completely.)

Alright, I’ll play along and try to be as thorough as I can in this. I would contend that a child (let’s call it a she) does not wish to be raped, nor does she wish to be murdered. I also contend that she has the fundamental right to her own body and life. In raping her, the child-rapist is violating her express wish to not be raped, and in murdering her, he is directly violating her wish to continue living. In this, she is suffering.

He is also probably causing her considerable pain, which adds to her suffering but is not the only component. If it were, then if the murder was painless, it would not be evil, but I we all know in our hearts that this is not the case (At least, I certainly hope we all do).

As extension, then, this philosophy seems like it would be a great rationale for the child-rapist: There’s nothing to worry about; there’s no God, so, why not just do what feels good?" (Remember, you chose Epicurus?)

To a point, you are correct. I do advocate doing what feels good to the point of not directly causing suffering in others, in the capacity that I just talked about. It’s true, atheists believe that we do not have to answer to God for our evils. But this does not necessarily lead to the belief that we are free to commit evils. This is a purist, optimistic, and no doubt unrealistic view I hold – but I truly believe that humanity can choose not to do evil simply because it is evil.

Unfortunately, even atheists have members that are unglib, or, simply don’t know a good answer.

Very true. Rationality and respect are not virtues that are contained solely in atheism or religion, but can be found across people from all walks of life.

That is correct. It is the conundrum itself that produces the only response possible! Once we understand that God, or Yahweh, or etc., is the ONLY remedy out of the conundrum, our headache departs.

Could you elaborate on this for me? I don’t know how the conclusion of God lifts the contradiction.

I appreciate those kind words. You have more than earned my respect. (Hopefully, that is meaningful to you, and, I’m sure it is.)

Very meaningful. Thank you. You have my respect as well.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Well, we are made in God’s likeness and we do have the ability to reason.

Now, can somebody show me that we can categorically prove that the reasons that we give for perceiving an evil and thus making the assumption that God in ‘permitting’ this evil to be carried out is Himself either not omnipotent, or is evil Himself, or is anything other than perfectly good. . .are the absolute TRUTH?

IOW, is there some way that we can be sure that we–finite humans–know, absolutely and for certain, that because we see a 4-dimensional scenario which presents various evils having impacts on various human beings–that this somehow proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Being who created us is ‘lesser’ than we are because we (putting ourselves in His place, so to speak) would somehow be able to allow all individuals to choose actions (some of which, freely done, would cause evil results to self or others) but any of which ‘evil’ actions we (as God) would somehow magically stop, or make impotent, such that the evil would not happen? And that the God doing this. . .letting people do evil but ‘zapping it’ before it happens. . .is obviously causing ‘frustration’ (if nothing less) to the evildoers who are not permitted to exercise their free will to do evil, who will continue to either do evil (knowing they’ll be stopped) or who will probably chose to terminate their existence due to anger and frustration.

IOW. . .by stopping ‘evil’ from happening to the innocent, this God would pretty much be guaranteeing that the guilty (and remember, all of us have sinned at some point) would be so demoralized and unhappy at being ‘forced’ into good that they would never repent, and so very likely a much higher percentage of people would choose hell --or if ‘forced’ into heaven, would spend eternity in anger and pain as ‘forced’ tenants of a Being they hated and despised, and never ‘free’ to act as they chose.

Furthermore the ‘good’ people saved would never strive to improve themselves. . .why should they? They’d do the minimum (if that) knowing that just by maintaining the status quo they’re protected. Do they try to increase their holiness or do things for others? Why should they? If bad things are always punished, then there’s always going to be plenty of good. No need to strive to do better. Just stagnate.

I prefer to trust that God has the answer and that what I don’t understand, I don’t understand because I’m not God. I don’t really get the ones who seem to think that it’s GOD who doesn’t ‘understand the problem’ because God isn’t THEM.

 

[Michael_David]

If we consider evil as opposite to good, then consider that Christ has said none are good except our Father in Heaven, where does this leave us?

God looked at His creation and said it was good. So where does evil come from? If He is the light of the world, then where does the night fit in? Even though the sun never stops shining, on this earth we do have night due to the rotation.

And if we equate good to perfection, anything lacking in that would be evil. Could there be a state in the middle where one is neither good or evil? Or are we caught by our unwillingness to do good so as to make it evil? It would seem that one’s intention comes into play here… along with the goal that is tough to achieve.

I tend to think that it is more so the direction one is facing. Are we looking (going) into the light, or do we have our back to the light while following our shadow?

 

[Jefe_Wyatt]

Now, can somebody show me that we can categorically prove that the reasons that we give for perceiving an evil and thus making the assumption that God in ‘permitting’ this evil to be carried out is Himself either not omnipotent, or is evil Himself, or is anything other than perfectly good. . .are the absolute TRUTH?

I don’t know if I can categorically prove it, but I can try to discuss it with you and we can see where we end up.

Here’s an initial thought – we find it perfectly reasonable that if someone murder’s another, and we catch him, that we should incarcerate him for a time to prevent him from doing it again. Why shouldn’t God implement that sort of same system? God would always be able to catch the crook.

 

[davidv]

I don’t know if I can categorically prove it, but I can try to discuss it with you and we can see where we end up.

Here’s an initial thought – we find it perfectly reasonable that if someone murder’s another, and we catch him, that we should incarcerate him for a time to prevent him from doing it again. Why shouldn’t God implement that sort of same system? God would always be able to catch the crook.

I believe that God, in His infinite wisdom, has indeed set up such a system. He endowed his creatures (human) with reason and will and the desire for order. He delegated to us the authority to determine for ourselves what that “system” would be.

 

[Jefe_Wyatt]

I believe that God, in His infinite wisdom, has indeed set up such a system. He endowed his creatures (human) with reason and will and the desire for order. He delegated to us the authority to determine for ourselves what that “system” would be.

But if God became directly involved in the implementation, being omniscient, surely it would be a much better and more accurate system?

 

[davidv]

But if God became directly involved in the implementation, being omniscient, surely it would be a much better and more accurate system?

I think not. I work in a large multinational company. I am currently experiencing what I would call a pendulum swing to a more top-driven, dictatorial management approach. It has been my experience the this leads to a demoralized workforce that either rebels, leaves, or becomes minimally productive (bunker mentality). This is not my idea of the “better system”, as it violates the natural essence of the human being.

 

[Jefe_Wyatt]

I think not. I work in a large multinational company. I am currently experiencing what I would call a pendulum swing to a more top-driven, dictatorial management approach. It has been my experience the this leads to a demoralized workforce that either rebels, leaves, or becomes minimally productive (bunker mentality). This is not my idea of the “better system”, as it violates the natural essence of the human being.

This isn’t a good analogy here. We’re talking about a criminal justice system, not a company.

My point is, we find it perfectly reasonable that if we know someone has definitely committed murder to incarcerate them so they cannot commit another. But the uncaught murders go free and can continue to murder. Why is it not reasonable for God, who we take to be omniscient, to somehow incarcerate them?

 

[davidv]

This isn’t a good analogy here. We’re talking about a criminal justice system, not a company.

My point is, we find it perfectly reasonable that if we know someone has definitely committed murder to incarcerate them so they cannot commit another. But the uncaught murders go free and can continue to murder. Why is it not reasonable for God, who we take to be omniscient, to somehow incarcerate them?

It is not reasonable because it is a solution based on “worldly wisdom” and not on “wisdom from above”. The letter of James treats this topic in some depth.

With regard for the specific scenario; how is incarceration the answer to “murders happening in the neighborhood”? How does the incarceration prevent the first-time murder from committing the act?

 

[Jefe_Wyatt]

It is not reasonable because it is a solution based on “worldly wisdom” and not on “wisdom from above”. The letter of James treats this topic in some depth.

With regard for the specific scenario; how is incarceration the answer to “murders happening in the neighborhood”? How does the incarceration prevent the first-time murder from committing the act?

It doesn’t, but I thought that was the whole point of free will. God can’t completely prevent the first act because that would violate free will. Neither can we say “You’re likely to commit a murder, so we’re going to incarcerate you now.” But we do incarcerate murderers after the fact, and we don’t cry out for their rights. They had free will, they broke the law, we’re going to stop them from doing it again. We see this is perfectly reasonable, moral and just. Does God not see it this way?

 

[Harri_Laaksonen]

Why is it not reasonable for God, who we take to be omniscient, to somehow incarcerate them?

This is the realm of spiritual retribution, conscience and eternal punishment. The incarceration of people does not improve them, except very rarely when they find a really good prison chaplain.

God knows all of the murderers, rapists, robbers, embezzlers, etc. He knows crime for what it is, Sin. We are not always able to extract temporal punishment (justice) from every sinner. God reminds us that He is the final judge and that those who think they are getting away with their crimes will have to face eternal justice. If the criminal does not confess and get absolution the punishment will be hell. If grace has been restored by the sacraments, purgatory awaits to perform the temporal cleansing that has not yet been done by “serving one’s debt to society”.

Harri

 

[davidv]

It doesn’t, but I thought that was the whole point of free will. God can’t completely prevent the first act because that would violate free will. Neither can we say “You’re likely to commit a murder, so we’re going to incarcerate you now.” But we do incarcerate murderers after the fact, and we don’t cry out for their rights. They had free will, they broke the law, we’re going to stop them from doing it again. We see this is perfectly reasonable, moral and just. Does God not see it this way?

I believe He does, but not on the time-line you propose. God is perfectly Just and perfectly Merciful. His Mercy gives us until the end of our days to get it “right”. After that, His Justice, delivers us to the reward we deserve.

 

[Jefe_Wyatt]

This is the realm of spiritual retribution, conscience and eternal punishment. The incarceration of people does not improve them, except very rarely when they find a really good prison chaplain.

God knows all of the murderers, rapists, robbers, embezzlers, etc. He knows crime for what it is, Sin. We are not always able to extract temporal punishment (justice) from every sinner. God reminds us that He is the final judge and that those who think they are getting away with their crimes will have to face eternal justice. If the criminal does not confess and get absolution the punishment will be hell. If grace has been restored by the sacraments, purgatory awaits to perform the temporal cleansing that has not yet been done by “serving one’s debt to society”.

Harri

But why allow the criminal to continue after the first sin has been committed? I apologize for continuing to ask the same question, but no one has answered it and it doesn’t make any sense to me.