Why God didn't desire a universe without evil?

[truetofaith]

God is responsible for evil if acting always good is impossible.

It seems you are trying to take the blame for evil off yourself and pin it on God!

 

[meltzerboy]

As the Greeks held that a though, in so far as it exists, is a kind of being, so thoughts are things. I remember my philosophy teacher giving us that lesson.

Part of the Hellenic influence on Judaism, perhaps?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

It seems you are trying to take the blame for evil off yourself and pin it on God!

Amen. People who are always blaming God for their problems have a low sense of human responsibility. But the worst at the atheists who blame God, which seems to be rather common! Talk about your oxymorons!

 

[STT]

God doesn’t just act good “always”. Always is meaningless here, as if God is subject to the passing of time to demonstrate his goodness. That’s merely our experience of the matter.

God is The Good: the summation of it, the source of it, the pure essence of it. Pick your own inadequate expression if those fail you.
That innocuous little word “is” is very important in Christian theology.

I was talking about people in creation rather than God.

 

[STT]

Then we are at an impasse.

I am sorry for that but I think I was clear enough.

It is plain to me that God created this universe without evil.

I agree with out.

It is plain to you that God created this universe with evil.

No.

I got nothin’.

tee

Hmmm. What I am arguing is that why God didn’t create a universe that people always do good.

 

[STT]

Why?
I challenged this assumption in the second post of the thread and you are not addressing it.
Why is God responsible (accountable?) for the refusal of others to love him?

The main issue here is whether a universe that people always do good is possible. That should be possible if people have free will. Otherwise for any other reason God is responsible for creating people who could not act according to their free will.

 

[STT]

Not with the devil tempting them!

BTW…Lucifer wasn’t evil, he just wanted to be like God and went his own way, opposite of God’s Will.
He now tries to entice humans to go against God…we call that evil.

God didn’t create evil…His creations choose not to obey God.

Who tempted Lucifer?

 

[friardchips]

The main issue here is whether a universe that people always do good is possible. That should be possible if people have free will. Otherwise for any other reason God is responsible for creating people who could not act according to their free will.

You have already been answered and evaded the lines of thinking that could have gone some way to answering your thread, so am beginning to suspect that you either just simply don’t understand what is being put in from of you, or, you don’t want it answered because you’d rather keep whatever idea that is in your head, in your head.

This and some other threads in similar vein are turning into conversations following the path of a something akin to a hamster wheel.

 

[STT]

You have already been answered and evaded the lines of thinking that could have gone some way to answering your thread, so am beginning to suspect that you either just simply don’t understand what is being put in from of you, or, you don’t want it answered because you’d rather keep whatever idea that is in your head, in your head.

This and some other threads in similar vein are turning into conversations following the path of a something akin to a hamster wheel.

I am following the argument freely. Were you following the discussion? What is the problem?

 

[friardchips]

I am following the argument freely. Were you following the discussion? What is the problem?

Yes, I am following the discussion.

I’ll ask straight out: do you have a preconceived answer or do you not think you know?

What do you think?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

You have already been answered and evaded the lines of thinking that could have gone some way to answering your thread, so am beginning to suspect that you either just simply don’t understand what is being put in from of you, or, you don’t want it answered because you’d rather keep whatever idea that is in your head, in your head.

This and some other threads in similar vein are turning into conversations following the path of a something akin to a hamster wheel.

This is how I feel about any discussion with SST::banghead: It is like talking to a brick wall.

 

[truetofaith]

Who tempted Lucifer?

No one. I guess it was an original thought to be like God.
I can’t find the story of the fall of the angels in the Bible. It may be in Revelation.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

The number of possible universe, what it could be if we have done so and so, is infinite.
This means that universes without evil are possible. Why God didn’t desire a universe without evil?

Many tend to use this argument to go against the omnibenevolent attribute of God but I think it falls short. I don’t believe that it is immoral for an all-good God to create a Universe where evil exists. Just as long as God is not the one doing evil, then I see no problem at all. Sure, from our limited vantage point, creating a Universe where people would choose good overall would be better, but not doing the best does not mean it’s wrong or evil.

This also all presupposes that there aren’t any good theodicies, as in, a good reason or some goal that God has in mind for allowing evil. Perhaps he wants us to learn something? Perhaps he wants people to come to Him the hard way? Not sure. The argument you raised is a problem, but not an airtight refutation of God’s goodness.

 

[reggieM]

Many tend to use this argument to go against the omnibenevolent attribute of God but I think it falls short. I don’t believe that it is immoral for an all-good God to create a Universe where evil exists. Just as long as God is not the one doing evil, then I see no problem at all. Sure, from our limited vantage point, creating a Universe where people would choose good overall would be better, but not doing the best does not mean it’s wrong or evil.

This also all presupposes that there aren’t any good theodicies, as in, a good reason or some goal that God has in mind for allowing evil. Perhaps he wants us to learn something? Perhaps he wants people to come to Him the hard way? Not sure. The argument you raised is a problem, but not an airtight refutation of God’s goodness.

Good points. You have to measure what is evil against the ultimate result.

Let’s say to insult your new puppy dog is an evil. It’s very minor but it hurts anyway.

Now I give you a choice: Let me insult your puppy (and accept the hurt) and I will give you a million dollars.
Or, I won’t insult the dog and you can avoid getting hurt.

In this case, the benefit for suffering hurt from me is greater than avoiding it.

There’s the other thing, more simply: No pain, no gain. People just accept that as part of sports, projects - anything that demands effort.

Finally another - “You don’t get any respect unless you’ve paid your dues”.
Paying dues means coming up the hard-way. Enduring evil.

What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger?
No, but what kills you for the right reasons can make you a hero in the eyes of God.
That’s where it’s all measured.

If there is no God, then no reward. Then evil doesn’t make sense.

 

[goout]

The main issue here is whether a universe that people always do good is possible. That should be possible if people have free will. Otherwise for any other reason God is responsible for creating people who could not act according to their free will.

yes of course it is possible, but it is not reality.
People refuse good, and so we suffer. There is a gap between what is offered and what is accepted by our free will. We endure that gap.


You understand all these things, you simply refuse to accept them. If you are truly concerned about them, why don’t you consider accepting them rather than endlessly debating them?

God does not force himself on creation, that’s not the nature of love. Our human conception of creative love too often centers on the power to control.

Love is not about control.
Omnipotence is not about control.
Christianity is about relationship not unilateral decrees (without denying that God is the source of grace, ok?).

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Let’s say to insult your new puppy dog is an evil. It’s very minor but it hurts anyway.

Now I give you a choice: Let me insult your puppy (and accept the hurt) and I will give you a million dollars.
Or, I won’t insult the dog and you can avoid getting hurt.

In this case, the benefit for suffering hurt from me is greater than avoiding it.

The million dollars will NOT justify the hurting the dog, BECAUSE there is no logical connection between the “evil” and the reward. You could give that million dollars without hurting the dog.

If there is no God, then no reward. Then evil doesn’t make sense.

If there is no God, there is no ULTIMATE reward. There are plenty of temporal rewards. And evil does NOT make sense.

You presented the “greater good” defense in the problem of evil. In a nutshell it goes: “if there is some greater good, which is desirable, AND some relatively minor suffering is LOGICALLY necessary for that greater good to materialize, then it is rational to suffer the minor pain to get the greater good.”

The pivotal point is that the “minor suffering” must be logically necessary for the greater good, or without the minor suffering the good will not be possible. Just like in your example, receiving the million dollars is NOT logically contingent upon insulting that dog, and therefore the insulting the dog is not justified.

The “greater good” defense presupposes not just that the “minor suffering” is logically necessary, but also that amount of suffering cannot be decreased without jeopardizing the greater good. Any amount of suffering which is not justified by the greater good is gratuitous suffering, and it cannot be justified.

 

[tonyrey]

The million dollars will NOT justify the hurting the dog, BECAUSE there is no logical connection between the “evil” and the reward. You could give that million dollars without hurting the dog.

If there is no God, there is no ULTIMATE reward. There are plenty of temporal rewards. And evil does NOT make sense.

You presented the “greater good” defense in the problem of evil. In a nutshell it goes: “if there is some greater good, which is desirable, AND some relatively minor suffering is LOGICALLY necessary for that greater good to materialize, then it is rational to suffer the minor pain to get the greater good.”

The pivotal point is that the “minor suffering” must be logically necessary for the greater good, or without the minor suffering the good will not be possible. Just like in your example, receiving the million dollars is NOT logically contingent upon insulting that dog, and therefore the insulting the dog is not justified.

The “greater good” defense presupposes not just that the “minor suffering” is logically necessary, but also that amount of suffering cannot be decreased without jeopardizing the greater good. Any amount of suffering which is not justified by the greater good is gratuitous suffering, and it cannot be justified.

As I have pointed out on another thread the fatal flaw in your argument is the assumption that logical necessity is the determining factor yet our solutions and decisions are based on probability. It is logically possible that we don’t exist, that truth, good, evil and suffering are illusions but we don’t take that into account in real life. We really exist in a real world in which evil does make sense because you regard it as a disproof of a loving God yet you have never explained how all evil and suffering could be prevented on this planet. Even to argue that evil and suffering are excessive and useless presupposes an amount of insight and knowledge you don’t possess. In fact your entire argument is based on nothing more than pride and presumption. You use your power of reason to prove there is no reason for our existence, thereby contradicting yourself!

 

[tonyrey]

Many tend to use this argument to go against the omnibenevolent attribute of God but I think it falls short. I don’t believe that it is immoral for an all-good God to create a Universe where evil exists. Just as long as God is not the one doing evil, then I see no problem at all. Sure, from our limited vantage point, creating a Universe where people would choose good overall would be better, but not doing the best does not mean it’s wrong or evil.

This also all presupposes that there aren’t any good theodicies, as in, a good reason or some goal that God has in mind for allowing evil. Perhaps he wants us to learn something? Perhaps he wants people to come to Him the hard way? Not sure. The argument you raised is a problem, but not an airtight refutation of God’s goodness.

Irrefutable! Dogmatic atheism is based on nothing more than than pride and presumption!

 

[tonyrey]

yes of course it is possible, but it is not reality.
People refuse good, and so we suffer. There is a gap between what is offered and what is accepted by our free will. We endure that gap.


You understand all these things, you simply refuse to accept them. If you are truly concerned about them, why don’t you consider accepting them rather than endlessly debating them?

God does not force himself on creation, that’s not the nature of love. Our human conception of creative love too often centers on the power to control.

Love is not about control.
Omnipotence is not about control.
Christianity is about relationship not unilateral decrees (without denying that God is the source of grace, ok?).

Indeed. It was an atheist, Sartre, who pointed out that we cannot sit on the fence indefinitely. The very way we live reveals what we really believe…

 

[tonyrey]

yes of course it is possible, but it is not reality.
People refuse good, and so we suffer. There is a gap between what is offered and what is accepted by our free will. We endure that gap.


You understand all these things, you simply refuse to accept them. If you are truly concerned about them, why don’t you consider accepting them rather than endlessly debating them?

God does not force himself on creation, that’s not the nature of love. Our human conception of creative love too often centers on the power to control.

Love is not about control.
Omnipotence is not about control.
Christianity is about relationship not unilateral decrees (without denying that God is the source of grace, ok?).

Indeed. It was an atheist, Sartre, who pointed out that we cannot sit on the fence indefinitely. The very way we live reveals what we really believe…