The Problem of Evil

John Hutton

In light of recent discussions in the feedback thread, it was agreed that a "Superthread" would be set up to contain all discussion on a commonly recurring topic (in unrelated threads), namely "The Problem of Evil".

The 'problem' can (and I'm sure will be in this thread) formulated in a variety of ways. Generally, an example of evil is given, of suffering, such as a natural disaster where thousands die, children dying, people suffering from horrible diseases etc. you get the idea. Something which seems wholly bad. It is then argued that this obvious evil is irreconcilable with the existence of an all-powerful, all-good God.

If God is omnipotent, then why would He not stop the earthquake which destroyed a children's hospital killing all the innocent women and children inside? Why would God even allow something like cancer to exist to kill children? Why would He allow people like Hitler to go around killing millions? Why would He allow people to sexually abuse others, particularly those sworn to serve God? If God was both all powerful and infinitely good, then He would either not allow these terrible things to happen, or would save people from them. Seen as evil obviously does exist, these things obviously do happen, then God must not exist. Because if He cannot stop them, He is not all-powerful and therefore is not God. If He can stop them and decides not to, then he is not infinitely good, and therefore is not God. The end conclusion is, that God does not exist.

I hope I have given a fair representation of the argument, which is, in fairness, a serious argument which must be given consideration and wrestled with. It was one of the main "stumbling blocks" I had to overcome, particularly in light of the child sex abuse scandals. This has been a problem that theologians have grappled with for centuries, but is perhaps particularly apt to be discussed here again now in a time of pandemic. I am not a theologian myself by any means, or even particularly well read in this area, but I might offer some 'answers' to this problem - I would point out though, that as with most serious issues, there is no one simple answer or point that can be taken in isolation, but rather a range of points that form parts of a wider answer. But here are some thoughts I'd offer: (Please note that these are my basic thoughts and are not meant to be some sort of definitive Christian response):

1. I would say that in tackling this problem you must take the entire argument that religion offers together, and not pieces of it. A central point of Christianity is that our earthly existence is but a small part of our eternal lives. In other words, what we experience here for the eighty or so years we live is not all there is - an eternity of life awaits after we die. Now, an argument that (to put it glibly) "it doesn't matter if you suffer because it's only for a comparatively short time" is not very convincing, but it does offer a context within which this issue must be examined.

2. We need to look at what is meant by God being infinitely good. If He was infinitely good, wouldn't this cancel out any evil? It would, if evil was a "positive" state. Evil is best understood as a lack, or a privation, of good. So rather than an act being an "evil" one (in the sense that evil is a positive state) it is really an act which lacks good, lacks compassion, lacks empathy etc. So it is not a case of Good and Evil competing with one another, hence the mere "existence" of evil is not a barrier to God. Good and evil are not two "powers" competing against one another, rather evil is the absence of good.

3. We must look at free will. Free-will is undoubtedly a "good" with which we have been blessed by God. If you give free-will to something, by definition, it means that it may do something that you may not want it to, or even that you specifically tell it not to. If God prevented us from doing evil things, it would be a denial of a good, of free will. We would not be free at all. Free-will is an overall good to the degree that its denial would be a greater evil and cause more suffering than the amount of evil which some would choose to do. God would be a dictator, and man worse than a slave or robot. So by creating us, and by giving us free will God has sort of "gave up" (or at least decided not to exercise) some of His power over us.

4. Ok, so free-will explains bad things people may do, but what about natural disasters? There is a theory referred to as "free-process", where similar to "free will" God has "given up" some of His power over creation, and the sun rises on the good and evil alike... The natural world, similar to humanity, has been given the freedom to develop as it would. And some natural disasters, (I would argue Covid) are actually aggravated, or even caused, by man's carelessness and destruction of the natural world.

5. Is it possible that what seems wholly bad actually is not? I'm sure we have all experienced things in our lives that seemed terrible at the time, but in hindsight we can see that they led to good things, or we were better off for it. Perhaps a terrible betrayal and breakup, but we later met someone far better. Perhaps a car accident, but when in hospital they discover and fix a serious illness that would have gone undetected. These are obvious examples, with which we either have experience of, or can understand. We can understand them because they 'made sense' within the span of our own understanding and we came to an understanding that while perhaps not "good" in and of themselves, a greater good came about because of them. But we only see and understand a tiny sliver of human experience. Can we say for sure that a terrible occurrence happening may not lead to a greater good at a time beyond our understanding? Or that should this terrible occurrence have been prevented it would not have led to something even worse? I don't think we can, hence I do not view bad things happening as something which is irreconcilable with the existence of God.

The above points are very brief explorations of topics on which many volumes of books have been written. I could go on further but I think that is enough for now (this is a wall of text already) save I will add that I do not view the existence of evil, logically, as a barrier to belief in God. I do not see how it could be, when thoroughly explored.

I also do not really see it as a positive argument in favour of the existence of God. But it, logically, should not be a reason to prevent you from believing in God.

Finally, I would suggest that people read Job.

smacl

A lot depends on what you understand evil to be, as it can be a very emotive term. I tend to think of it in the rather limited terms of an action one person performs on another. I don't personally believe in intrinsic evil, i.e. evil as a noun that is unrelated to personal behaviour. Nor for that matter to I believe a natural event such as disease, famine or climate change are evil. The rationale here, rightly or wrongly, is that evil conjures up the notion of a malevolent actor at play which, outside of human behaviour, I don't believe exists. Borrowing from the wikipedia page on evil, I would agree that evil is more of an intellectual concept than a true reality. In my opinion, the terms good and evil are too broad and ambiguous to be useful outside of generalisations.

Wikipedia also have a page specifically on the problem of evil which is a decent read.

John Hutton

John Hutton wrote: »

If God is omnipotent, then why would He not stop the earthquake which destroyed a children's hospital killing all the innocent women and children inside? Why would God even allow something like cancer to exist to kill children? Why would He allow people like Hitler to go around killing millions? Why would He allow people to sexually abuse others, particularly those sworn to serve God? If God was both all powerful and infinitely good, then He would either not allow these terrible things to happen, or would save people from them. Seen as evil obviously does exist, these things obviously do happen, then God must not exist. Because if He cannot stop them, He is not all-powerful and therefore is not God. If He can stop them and decides not to, then he is not infinitely good, and therefore is not God. The end conclusion is, that God does not exist.

Or why my own father was tortured for six years by cancer before succumbing. I'm largely in agreement with the premise that a benevolent and compassionate god (I don't acknowledge the large 'g') that is portrayed in Judeo-Christian scripture wouldn't passively let all these malicious occurrences transpire without any sort of intervention. If one existed, and that naturally is purely a subjective matter. For my own part, I don't believe in any fundamental overseer that is the orchestrator of my fate. Therefore, I do not ascribe such terminology as "evil" to atrocities, because that would be framing them in a Christian context. I also consciously reject any influence of Christian morality (the ten commandments for instance) on my own compass. Whether that means I am an arbiter of my own free will is debatable, I believe there is something much larger than me at play - deferring to science and everything which sprung from the Big Bang. And that of course isn't entirely conclusive in its own right, simply meaning I recognise it as a viable means to be. The only "leap of faith" I'll make that there being an undefinable energy in the universe that has lead to this very moment, and subsequent ones (I don't linger on mortality versus immortality): We come from stardust; we shall return to stardust.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

I think you're mixing up evil with bad.

Natural disasters like earthquakes are hardly "evil" in the same way a lion is not "evil" if he kills a zebra for his dinner.

Generally speaking, I think you hit the nail on the head when you said Free Will. Free Will, as the US is finding out, has consequences, both good and bad.

I have a slightly controverisal view in this respect, in that I feel God is not good, God is neutral. He is a judge, and as such, must remain impartial. This is a consequence of Him granting us Free Will.

And as a result of this, our natural and unnaatural acts have consequences both good and bad for us, both in this life and the next.

John Hutton

We should distinguish between natural evil and moral evil. Natural evil being, for example, suffering coming from natural causes, moral evil being that springing from acts of man.

I think a return to looking at what evil actually is, is warranted. St Augustine formulated it best, rather than evil being a positive force (like, say compassion is, i.e an 'active output') evil is rather the absence, or privation, of good. So evil is not "something" in and of itself, rather it results from the absence of something good. Evil is not something that was "created".

For the purposes of the "problem of evil" you could, instead of saying evil, replace it with the problem of "suffering", "bad things happening", "people doing bad things", "people suffering misfortune" etc. However the use of "evil" in the context of the "problem of evil" is as a noun, rather than an adjective and is correct to be used as meaning the fact of suffering, bad things, wrongdoing, misfortune etc.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

John Hutton wrote: »

We should distinguish between natural evil and moral evil. Natural evil being, for example, suffering coming from natural causes, moral evil being that springing from acts of man.

Evil for me is tied to morality, and you can't have morality without a consciousness.

I think a return to looking at what evil actually is, is warranted. St Augustine formulated it best, rather than evil being a positive force (like, say compassion is, i.e an 'active output') evil is rather the absence, or privation, of good. So evil is not "something" in and of itself, rather it results from the absence of something good. Evil is not something that was "created".

For the purposes of the "problem of evil" you could, instead of saying evil, replace it with the problem of "suffering", "bad things happening", "people doing bad things", "people suffering misfortune" etc. However the use of "evil" in the context of the "problem of evil" is as a noun, rather than an adjective and is correct to be used as meaning the fact of suffering, bad things, wrongdoing, misfortune etc.

I think this is a better way of expressing it. I mean, an earthquake killing fifty people is not evil in the same way as a terrorist or mass-murderer killing fifty people in a deliberate and pre-meditated act.

John Hutton

Deleted User wrote: »

Or why my own father was tortured for six years by cancer before succumbing. I'm largely in agreement with the premise that a benevolent and compassionate god (I don't acknowledge the large 'g') that is portrayed in Judeo-Christian scripture wouldn't passively let all these malicious occurrences transpire without any sort of intervention. If one existed, and that naturally is purely a subjective matter.

Firstly, I'm sorry to hear about your dad.

If possible, I would like to explore why you think suffering (in general, lets not personalize it to you or you dad) is logically irreconcilable with the existence a benevolent or compassionate God. Because I do not see how it is.

Regarding your point about evil, see my previous post. (I could have included more on what I meant by evil in the OP but I thought 1400 words was enough to start! ha)

antiskeptic

What is the problem exactly?

God respected human self determination and that self determination brought about evil (in man), storms, sickness, etc.

For God to intervene would be to interfere with that choice.

You could ask why God let us self determine, knowing what that would mean. But that might be unresolvable: if you intervene you diminish the choice you gave.

His allowing us to self determine doesn't impact on his being compassionate. He might go about trying to save us from ourselved in a way that doesn't confound or diminish our being permitted to self direct our lives.

It appears this is what he has done - implemented a mechamism of salvation that utilises the negative effects of our self determination to save us.

There is nothing like the negative effects of the self directed (i.e. Adamic) life to encourage a man to become convinced of the futility and agony of the self directed life. And thus convinced, to perhaps abandon it.

Sickness, loneliness, shame, poverty, outcast, abandoment, hatred. All the result of our own and others evil. And the result of a fallen world.

When you've nowhere left to turn, you turn to God. According to the desperate anyway. It is an insistent self directed man who won't pray in a foxhole. But insist you can, if you insist.

So, evil, a necessary and very useful evil.

antiskeptic

What is the problem exactly?

God respected human self determination and that self determination brought about evil (in man), storms, sickness, etc.

For God to intervene would be to interfere with that choice.

You could ask why God let us self determine, knowing what that would mean. But that might be unresolvable: if you intervene you diminish the choice you gave.

His allowing us to self determine doesn't impact on his being compassionate. He might go about trying to save us from ourselved in a way that doesn't confound or diminish our being permitted to self direct our lives.

It appears this is what he has done - implemented a mechamism of salvation that utilises the negative effects of our self determination to save us.

For there is nothing like the negative effects of the self directed (i.e. Adamic) life to encourage a man to become convinced of the futility and agony of the self directed life. And thus convinced, to perhaps abandon it.

Sickness, loneliness, shame, poverty, outcast, abandoment, hatred. All the result of our own and others evil. And the result of a fallen world.

When you've nowhere left to turn, you turn to God. According to the testimony of desperate anyway. It is an insistent self directed man who won't pray in a foxhole. But insist you can, if you insist. To the bitter end

So, evil, a necessary and very useful evil. For if saved, it will be evil which has helped convince us we need it

Leroy42

According to the bible, God first placed Adam in the garden of Eden. A place free of evil.

He then chose to cast Adam and Eve out for their sins. Thus, even by gods own plan, evil does not have to exist.

The reason it does is through gods choice. He could stop 'evil' anytime he choses.

You can dance around the definition of evil as much as you wish, but it is clear that natural disasters, disease, disabilities etc do not have to exist.

But if one ascribes to the notion that suffering on Earth is repaid in Heaven, then does that mean those not subject to massive suffering, I.e death in earthquakes, cancer etc, get less out of heaven than those that do?

Or if not, then what is the purpose of suffering? If no purpose, then it brings us back to whether a caring God could remove it.

Leroy42

I don't want to derail the thread, but there should not be a simple acceptance that free will necessitates the existence of evil.

There are limits on our free will, so it can be argued that limiting our free will to only varieties of 'good' would not remove the concept of free will.

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote: »

It appears this is what he has done - implemented a mechamism of salvation that utilises the negative effects of our self determination to save us.

For there is nothing like the negative effects of the self directed (i.e. Adamic) life to encourage a man to become convinced of the futility and agony of the self directed life. And thus convinced, to perhaps abandon it.

Who declares so, are you "his" messenger on Earth? The sheer condescension to imply that those who do not share your zeal are diminished beings scrabbling around in the dark. You seem to consider yourself an authority, assuredly you are not. Your opinion is not worth more than mine, and vice versa. That's all they are, interpretations of subjective belief. However, deriding other people's pathways in life as less than enlightened if they reject an "orthodox" journey is rather callous. Or that an existence without a spiritual leader is devoid of meaning to the point of "agony". Thankfully you do not get to inhabit or direct the lives of others, you would be less than empathetic but rather grimly didactic. Regaling the gullible and ignorant with stark parables of foreboding and terror if they don't subserviently devote themselves to a higher power. You strike me as well-adjusted with a chip on both of your shoulders.

John Hutton

Leroy42 wrote: »

I don't want to derail the thread, but there should not be a simple acceptance that free will necessitates the existence of evil.

There are limits on our free will, so it can be argued that limiting our free will to only varieties of 'good' would not remove the concept of free will.

I think if you limit choices to only "good" options this fatally undermines the concept of free will. Not only does it mean people cannot choose to do wrong, but they cannot choose to do good either (because 'good' is their only choice.)

smacl

John Hutton wrote: »

I think if you limit choices to only "good" options this fatally undermines the concept of free will. Not only does it mean people cannot choose to do wrong, but they cannot choose to do good either (because 'good' is their only choice.)

I agree with the former, but would dispute the latter insofar as not every choice we make has any moral dimension. e.g. will I wear the blue or green jumper today.

It also comes down to whether you consider evil to be a concious act or also allow inaction, or choice of alternative neutral action, to be evil. Rather than choosing to do good you can choose to do nothing or do something else entirely. If you consider this passively evil then failing to devote every waking minute of our lives to persuit of good would make us inherently evil by ommission. If however we do not look after your own basic wellbeing we won't last that long and hence fail to carry out future good works we would otherwise have done, hence making us evil once again. Damned if you do and damned if you don't, so to speak I think this leads to a notion a 'greater good' which often seems to come up in the context of theodicy.

Leroy42

John Hutton wrote: »

I think if you limit choices to only "good" options this fatally undermines the concept of free will. Not only does it mean people cannot choose to do wrong, but they cannot choose to do good either (because 'good' is their only choice.)

Firstly, one needs to consider the existence of free will. Second, what the actual purpose of this free will actually is. Could we live our lives without free-will? If heaven is, well heaven, then free-will cannot exist as otherwise, it would be no different than here

But good and evil are just our interpretation of them. Being good has levels. We readjust our level of evil when something more evil happens (ie the holocaust).

So what is the purpose of allowing people to do evil? What is gained from it? God already knows the real person, so why have them inflict harm on others just do god can see examples of what he already knew?

We only have free-will to extend that you ascribe to it. There is plenty of things you have no control over. Do disabled people have free will to be free of their disability?

But going back to the issue of evil, does the amount of evil that ones endures in this life impact on the afterlife? Surely if evil is sent to test us, then how can certain people get tested far less than others and still be expected to receive the same reward?

That should totally unfair. I would expect that a person that suffered brain trauma at birth, lived a vegetative state or whatever would get better rewards than a person born in wealth and opulence and never having a particular worry of problem during their life.

But that raises the prospect of us, and I mean generally those in the West, not actually getting the rewards that you think you will. We would be second class citizens of heaven.

John Hutton

Leroy42 wrote: »

Firstly, one needs to consider the existence of free will. Second, what the actual purpose of this free will actually is. Could we live our lives without free-will? If heaven is, well heaven, then free-will cannot exist as otherwise, it would be no different than here

God certainly did not have to grant us Free Will. But he did, out of love. Your supposition that heaven would be the same as here because of free-will necessitates that people in heaven are the same as they are on earth and that the external circumstances are the same, meaning that the same behavior is to be expected. But that is not the case.

But good and evil are just our interpretation of them. Being good has levels. We readjust our level of evil when something more evil happens (ie the holocaust).

We need to go back to the definition of evil which is meant when it is used in the phrase "Problem of Evil".

From my dictionary:

The fact of suffering, misfortune, and wrongdoing

Something that brings sorrow, distress, or calamity

So what is the purpose of allowing people to do evil? What is gained from it? God already knows the real person, so why have them inflict harm on others just do god can see examples of what he already knew?

God clearly does not want people to do wrong, nor does he, by granting free will, somehow force people to do ill to one another. God granting free will did not lead inevitably to the fall. Mankind did not have to fall, but we did.

We only have free-will to extend that you ascribe to it. There is plenty of things you have no control over. Do disabled people have free will to be free of their disability?

You are mixing free process and free will here, free-will has to do with what we have control over, our own choices and not natural events and processes which may have led to the disability. (Although free-will may have led, inadvertently perhaps, to someones disability) I can't turn left, and realizing I made a wrong turn will that I actually turned right and have this happen.

I guess it comes down to whether you think free-will is something which is good - and whether God making man in His image and likeness was good.

But going back to the issue of evil, does the amount of evil that ones endures in this life impact on the afterlife? Surely if evil is sent to test us, then how can certain people get tested far less than others and still be expected to receive the same reward?

That should totally unfair. I would expect that a person that suffered brain trauma at birth, lived a vegetative state or whatever would get better rewards than a person born in wealth and opulence and never having a particular worry of problem during their life.

But that raises the prospect of us, and I mean generally those in the West, not actually getting the rewards that you think you will. We would be second class citizens of heaven.

Is it not possible that those who have an "easy" life here on earth actually could have a harder time getting into heaven? I think God judges people as he finds them, within the context of their own lives.

There are no second class citizens of heaven, but I would take the point, and agree, that many may not get the rewards they think they are entitled to.

smacl

Leroy42 wrote: »

Firstly, one needs to consider the existence of free will. Second, what the actual purpose of this free will actually is. Could we live our lives without free-will? If heaven is, well heaven, then free-will cannot exist as otherwise, it would be no different than here

Not sure that works. Say that in a given situation I have the choice of doing a 'good' thing or an 'evil' thing. That I choose to do the good thing rather than the evil thing does not imply that I did not have a choice. From a purely secular perpsective one could argue that as humanity evolves so to does our moral framework. Collectively therefore we will choose good over evil more often than previously as a matter of free will rather than despite it. Logically therefore, while being good or evil demands the existence of free will, having free will does not necessiate that good or evil actions will take place. One could further argue that an evolving secular morality involves free will to a much greater extent than a theistic morality which mandates good behavior.

John Hutton

smacl wrote: »

Not sure that works. Say that in a given situation I have the choice of doing a 'good' thing or an 'evil' thing. That I choose to do the good thing rather than the evil thing does not imply that I did not have a choice. From a purely secular perpsective one could argue that as humanity evolves so to does our moral framework. Collectively therefore we will choose good over evil more often than previously as a matter of free will rather than despite it. Logically therefore, while being good or evil demands the existence of free will, having free will does not necessiate that good or evil actions will take place. One could further argue that an evolving secular morality involves free will to a much greater extent than a theistic morality which mandates good behavior.

A "purely secular" and materialist position is one which holds that free-will does not exist in the first instance.

smacl

John Hutton wrote: »

A "purely secular" and materialist position is one which holds that free-will does not exist in the first instance.

Secural society does not imply adherence to a materialist point of view, nor for that matter does it hold that free will does not exist. Quite the opposite in fact in that you'll note that our laws are underpinned by the notion of self determination which in turn implies the existence of free will. Further, at a more base level, even if you were to hold a strictly materialistic view of the universe this does not imply that the universe is deterministic. Either way, once we're at the level of making conscious decisions, we lack the mental faculties to comprehend the complete causal chain leading up to our choices, nor even a tiny fraction of all the variables involved. As such, I doubt many would argue that free will does not exist at a subjective level.

Causal determinism, i.e. the basis by which we might consider free will to be illusory, is only useful when considering a closed system from the point of view of an external observer, e.g. God considering our universe or Daniel Dennet observing a sphex wasp. It is of little value if you are part of the system under consideration. Whether or not free will exists objectively (there are strong scientific argurments for and against), it does exist as part of our subjective consciousness and we act on that basis.

John Hutton

smacl wrote: »

Secural society does not imply adherence to a materialist point of view, nor for that matter does it hold that free will does not exist. Quite the opposite in fact in that you'll note that our laws are underpinned by the notion of self determination which in turn implies the existence of free will. Further, at a more base level, even if you were to hold a strictly materialistic view of the universe this does not imply that the universe is deterministic. Either way, once we're at the level of making conscious decisions, we lack the mental faculties to comprehend the complete causal chain leading up to our choices, nor even a tiny fraction of all the variables involved. As such, I doubt many would argue that free will does not exist at a subjective level.

Causal determinism, i.e. the basis by which we might consider free will to be illusory, is only useful when considering a closed system from the point of view of an external observer, e.g. God considering our universe or Daniel Dennet observing a sphex wasp. It is of little value if you are part of the system under consideration. Whether or not free will exists objectively (there are strong scientific argurments for and against), it does exist as part of our subjective consciousness and we act on that basis.

You said from a secular point of view - it's most reasonable here to ascribe a materialist viewpoint here as otherwise would be to involve the religious or spiritual.

Considering the heft of the issues we are talking about, it is most important to consider whether free-will, objectively exists. We actually are talking about God considering our universe.

If you are a materialist, and everything is the result of material interactions (including the brain, your mind, conscience etc.) then we do not experience free-will. Most people when questioned generally reveal that they hold some form a dualist position where they regard the mind, spirit or whatever as being immaterial and separate. You might well argue that everything is so complicated that we have the appearance or illusion of free will, which is fair enough, but we are talking about whether free-will exists in the context of whether an all powerful, all knowing and infinity good God allows "bad things" to happen and be done.

So to come back to our topic at hand, if there was an all powerful being with infinite knowledge, intelligence etc, (or even some sort of mega advanced super computer ) which can grasp all the various inputs, data, variables etc., would they be able to 'strip away' the complexities and see that we do not have free will? If they could, and free will does not exist, this would be a negative mark against God because many of the ills we suffer are deterministic and it would be most cruel, to the extent that we would conclude that God couldn't exist. In other words, 'The Problem of Evil' cannot be answered without reference to the existence of free-will.

Leroy42

Or another way to look at it is that the problem of evil is only answerable with reference to the existence of God with the input of free-will.

It is necessary to find some reason as to why a loving, all known god would allow evil to exist. Free will is a convenient way to get around the problem. IT has the added benefit of not actually being something concrete, so it can be thrown into an argument and never actually be debated as everyone can have their own version of it.

One then has to twist the purpose of evil, or suffering, into some form of test to again make it fit with the preconceived notion of god. But, as I have asked a few times what is the purpose of suffering? In many cases, religions will tell us it is sent to test us, but that implies that those that suffer more have been tested more and fairness would suggest that they would then receive more rewards.

But I have not heard anywhere that religions believe in different levels of heaven. That those killed in war get treated better, or get closer to god, than those that simply died of old age. However, I am reminded of the parable of the camel passing through the eye of a needle. I don't think that necessarily relates to material wealth, but rather suffering. Those that suffer the most will gain the most in heaven.

There is little free-will in my child getting leukaemia. Or for a child to be born into famine or worn torn country. One can f course argue that man, as an entity, has the free will to stop the war etc, but not that individual. That child has no free-will in terms of their suffering. YEs we have certain freedom to make certain choices, but not full free-will, there are limits to what we can do regardless of what we want. So free-will is limited. And if it is limited, why not remove the need for evil and simply limit it to good things.

People could still be free to help their fellow man rather than ignore them, but it remove the desire to actually inflict harm. Suffering would still be part of life though natural disasters, death of loved ones, missing out on winning a game, broken hearts etc. There is plenty of suffering available within the confines of a free-will limited to good intentions only that I don't see the need to add the existence of evil to the mix.

smacl

John Hutton wrote: »

You said from a secular point of view - it's most reasonable here to ascribe a materialist viewpoint here as otherwise would be to involve the religious or spiritual.

Nope, I said secular society, something to which we both belong, i.e. a society of people with varied beliefs where law is based on democratic rather than religious fundaments. This has little to do with materialism.

Considering the heft of the issues we are talking about, it is most important to consider whether free-will, objectively exists. We actually are talking about God considering our universe.

If you are a materialist, and everything is the result of material interactions (including the brain, your mind, conscience etc.) then we do not experience free-will. Most people when questioned generally reveal that they hold some form a dualist position where they regard the mind, spirit or whatever as being immaterial and separate. You might well argue that everything is so complicated that we have the appearance or illusion of free will, which is fair enough, but we are talking about whether free-will exists in the context of whether an all powerful, all knowing and infinity good God allows "bad things" to happen and be done.

You seem to be implying that 'objective' free will depends on the existence of an external actor such as God. Indeterminism however allows for free will without the existence of God or another such external actor. Whether we can consider it objective is dubious, in much the same way as trying to consider any concious thought to be objective. Indeterminism is entirely compatible with materialism. That said, and as discussed previously, I doubt you will find many people who adhere to a strictly materialistic philosophy.

So to come back to our topic at hand, if there was an all powerful being with infinite knowledge, intelligence etc, (or even some sort of mega advanced super computer ) which can grasp all the various inputs, data, variables etc., would they be able to 'strip away' the complexities and see that we do not have free will? If they could, and free will does not exist, this would be a negative mark against God because many of the ills we suffer are deterministic and it would be most cruel, to the extent that we would conclude that God couldn't exist. In other words, 'The Problem of Evil' cannot be answered without reference to the existence of free-will.

I agree that evil is dependent on the existence of free will, if one cannot choose to do evil the evil action becomes a natural event. I also don't think that God can be held responsible for the evils of man in this context. Where one could point the finger at God is in the area of natural suffering. I tend to go with the school of thought that, much like having the choice to do evil, enduring suffering and witnessing the suffering of others is part of what makes us tick. It forces us to evolve, learn and create solutions that reduce this suffering. If we could not experience pain, would we still be human?

Leroy42

smacl wrote: »

If we could not experience pain, would we still be human?

If we were not aware that pain existed in the first place would we still be human? Not everyone suffers the same levels of suffering, so what is the cut off point? Are those that watch their children die of cancer more human than those than don't?

Adam and Eve were human, but in the Garden they had no evil, or pain, or suffering and yet still had free-will and still were human.

The only conclusion is that God decided that evil was a punishment for the original sin, as such it cannot be held that evil, or suffering, is a necessity of being human or even of having a relationship with god.

It is a punishment for Adams sin. God could stop it at any time, yet chooses not to. So it is entirely his responsibility, if one believes in the Adam and Eve story, for the existence of evil.

smacl

Leroy42 wrote: »

If we were not aware that pain existed in the first place would we still be human? Not everyone suffers the same levels of suffering, so what is the cut off point? Are those that watch their children die of cancer more human than those than don't?

Adam and Eve were human, but in the Garden they had no evil, or pain, or suffering and yet still had free-will and still were human.

The only conclusion is that God decided that evil was a punishment for the original sin, as such it cannot be held that evil, or suffering, is a necessity of being human or even of having a relationship with god.

It is a punishment for Adams sin. God could stop it at any time, yet chooses not to. So it is entirely his responsibility, if one believes in the Adam and Eve story, for the existence of evil.

Not being a Christian myself, I don't see a whole lot of mileage to be had in analyzing the logic within the bible in detail. I don't accept with the major beliefs so not much point in picking holes in the minutiae.

To me, naturally occuring disease and its attendent suffering is a natural phenomenon moreso than an evil we can blame on anyone. A Christian has a veritable smorgasbord of theodicies to choose from to alleviate the contradictions arising from belief in an omnibenevolent God and the entirely arbitrary nature of who a disease strikes and when.

John Hutton

smacl wrote: »

Nope, I said secular society, something to which we both belong, i.e. a society of people with varied beliefs where law is based on democratic rather than religious fundaments. This has little to do with materialism.

You seem to be implying that 'objective' free will depends on the existence of an external actor such as God. Indeterminism however allows for free will without the existence of God or another such external actor. Whether we can consider it objective is dubious, in much the same way as trying to consider any concious thought to be objective. Indeterminism is entirely compatible with materialism. That said, and as discussed previously, I doubt you will find many people who adhere to a strictly materialistic philosophy.

I agree that evil is dependent on the existence of free will, if one cannot choose to do evil the evil action becomes a natural event. I also don't think that God can be held responsible for the evils of man in this context. Where one could point the finger at God is in the area of natural suffering. I tend to go with the school of thought that, much like having the choice to do evil, enduring suffering and witnessing the suffering of others is part of what makes us tick. It forces us to evolve, learn and create solutions that reduce this suffering. If we could not experience pain, would we still be human?

Smacl, we are still at crossed wires here with our terminology I think. "Evil" as discussed previously, can be used to describe misfortunes including natural events. It does not necessarily imply that there is malevolence involved.

So do you think that the existence of "bad stuff, suffering etc." is incompatible with the existence of God? You might not believe in God for other reasons which is fair enough. But imagine if you had satisfactory answers for all your other queries, and taking this in isolation, would "the problem of evil" be a barrier to you or do you think it can be reconciled with the theoretical existence of God?

Leroy42

The question can be reversed to ask why evil should exist with a God. To what purpose?

If it is to test us, then surely the level of evil (and I am using your definition as more akin to suffering) we endure will have an impact on how we are placed in heaven. You seem unable or unwilling to answer this question.

If evil is necessary, how come God created Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, which AFAIK was free from evil. Where they not really human at that point? Could they not prove their love to god at that point?

God could have let people have the free will commit evil acts but limited to animals for example. Thus rape and murder were removed and yet still the issue of evil would exist. Why allow evil to impact on others through no choice of their own. Hasn't their free-will be removed by being murdered?

If god is all powerful then surely it is not beyond his wit to create a universe in which we could be tested as our love for him without the need to suffering? Why are we limiting god to the choices that we can envisage?

smacl

John Hutton wrote: »

So do you think that the existence of "bad stuff, suffering etc." is incompatible with the existence of God? You might not believe in God for other reasons which is fair enough. But imagine if you had satisfactory answers for all your other queries, and taking this in isolation, would "the problem of evil" be a barrier to you or do you think it can be reconciled with the theoretical existence of God?

Not at all, though possibly for slightly different reasons than yourself. I think dealing with suffering and other forms of hardship are part of what defines us as human. A large part of human progress involves improving our lot collectively in terms of reduced suffering, we would be much simpler creatures if this had never existed. If no animals ever suffered at any time, would we still have evolution for example?

John Hutton

Leroy42 wrote: »

The question can be reversed to ask why evil should exist with a God. To what purpose?

If it is to test us, then surely the level of evil (and I am using your definition as more akin to suffering) we endure will have an impact on how we are placed in heaven. You seem unable or unwilling to answer this question.

I already said that I do not believe there are "levels" in heaven...

If evil is necessary, how come God created Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, which AFAIK was free from evil. Where they not really human at that point? Could they not prove their love to god at that point?

God could have let people have the free will commit evil acts but limited to animals for example. Thus rape and murder were removed and yet still the issue of evil would exist. Why allow evil to impact on others through no choice of their own. Hasn't their free-will be removed by being murdered?


If god is all powerful then surely it is not beyond his wit to create a universe in which we could be tested as our love for him without the need to suffering? Why are we limiting god to the choices that we can envisage?

To take this premise (which I do not find satisfactory) and to discuss it in your terms, whats to say that God has not greatly limited suffering?

You write as if God washed his hands after the Fall, forgot about us, and our earthly life is all there is. You are omitting the redemption of man and everlasting life.

God Himself suffered greatly. Christ took the sufferings of the world upon Himself, transforming it from something perhaps meaningless, to something which is redemptive. A cynic might say that the sufferings of God on the cross meant little if He knew he would rise from the dead - but the same would apply to all of us given that death is not the end.

John Hutton

smacl wrote: »

Not at all, though possibly for slightly different reasons than yourself. I think dealing with suffering and other forms of hardship are part of what defines us as human. A large part of human progress involves improving our lot collectively in terms of reduced suffering, we would be much simpler creatures if this had never existed. If no animals ever suffered at any time, would we still have evolution for example?

And of course, what seems bad, may, in the fullness of time, produce greater good, as you allude to. (Or certainly result in less bad, than if it had not happened)

Evolution would fall under what's called "free process" which is basically sort of like free-will (in that God "gave up" some of His power over the natural world to basically let things play out) but for the natural world.

But your conclusion is the same as mine, that logically, the existence of bad stuff and suffering does not mean there is no God in and of itself. This would seem, to me, to be an inevitable conclusion once you consider the issue. My feeling is that "The problem of evil", considered logically, is neither an argument for, or against God. It can be an, understandable, emotional 'argument' against the existence of God, but not one that can logically stand up to scrutiny.

Leroy42

John Hutton wrote: »

I already said that I do not believe there are "levels" in heaven...

So what is the purpose of the different levels of suffering on earth? That is the bit I don't get? Why would god allow some people suffer more than others if not for some purpose. If he has no hand in it then he cannot judge us the the level of suffering we endure or indeed how we deal with it.

Which calls into question the purpose of suffering in the first place. I can understand the theory that through suffering we can grow closer to god, but then by allowing some people to suffer more than others isn't that giving them an unfair advantage?

John Hutton wrote: »

To take this premise (which I do not find satisfactory) and to discuss it in your terms, whats to say that God has not greatly limited suffering?

Nothing, I totally agree there is nothing to say he hasn't. But that goes completely against your argument of free will. If god has decided to reduce our suffering, he has by extension, reduced our free will.

John Hutton wrote: »

You write as if God washed his hands after the Fall, forgot about us, and our earthly life is all there is. You are omitting the redemption of man and everlasting life.

If we have free-will then he must have washed his hands of us. It cannot be that he both allows us do whatever we want but he also gets involved.

John Hutton wrote: »

God Himself suffered greatly.

God is powerful. On what basis can god suffer? An eternal all powerful being that created the entire universe and sees and knows everything, and controls everything?

John Hutton wrote: »

Christ took the sufferings of the world upon Himself, transforming it from something perhaps meaningless, to something which is redemptive. A cynic might say that the sufferings of God on the cross meant little if He knew he would rise from the dead - but the same would apply to all of us given that death is not the end.

God created the sufferings of the world by kicking Adam & Eve, and every future person, out of the Garden. He could have simply kicked Adam and Eve out, like he did with Satan, but allowed all others to remain (when they were born). He choose not to, he chooses to punish everyone on the basis of the sin of Adam. It is a bit much to think he then took the suffering on his shoulders when in fact nothing has changed. We still suffer, earthquakes, disease, death, cruelty etc.

So when we talk about evil the very first creation of evil is god himself. He could stop it, his original plan was there not to be any evil, but in a rage, he decided to punish mankind forever. So if one believes in god then one must also accept that the very creation of evil is actually down to him.

John Hutton

Leroy42 wrote: »

So what is the purpose of the different levels of suffering on earth? That is the bit I don't get? Why would god allow some people suffer more than others if not for some purpose. If he has no hand in it then he cannot judge us the the level of suffering we endure or indeed how we deal with it.

Which calls into question the purpose of suffering in the first place. I can understand the theory that through suffering we can grow closer to god, but then by allowing some people to suffer more than others isn't that giving them an unfair advantage?



Nothing, I totally agree there is nothing to say he hasn't. But that goes completely against your argument of free will. If god has decided to reduce our suffering, he has by extension, reduced our free will.



If we have free-will then he must have washed his hands of us. It cannot be that he both allows us do whatever we want but he also gets involved.



God is powerful. On what basis can god suffer? An eternal all powerful being that created the entire universe and sees and knows everything, and controls everything?


God created the sufferings of the world by kicking Adam & Eve, and every future person, out of the Garden. He could have simply kicked Adam and Eve out, like he did with Satan, but allowed all others to remain (when they were born). He choose not to, he chooses to punish everyone on the basis of the sin of Adam. It is a bit much to think he then took the suffering on his shoulders when in fact nothing has changed. We still suffer, earthquakes, disease, death, cruelty etc.

So when we talk about evil the very first creation of evil is god himself. He could stop it, his original plan was there not to be any evil, but in a rage, he decided to punish mankind forever. So if one believes in god then one must also accept that the very creation of evil is actually down to him.

Again, you are omitting the redemption of Man. It is dishonest of you to take a part of the story go on about how terrible it is, and leave out what happened subsequently.

Iscreamkone

Good and bad are all around us.
There is very little black and white - mostly grey.
Groups like Christians try to think that they know what good is.
This is obviously incorrect judging by all their scandals over the years, throughout the world.
Christians think that their morals are the correct ones and should be enshrined in law (judging by the Church's stance in the various referenda over the years).

People have realised that the Church is good and bad like everybody else. It isn't special.
So if it isn't special there is no need for it to have a special place in society.

People need education not preaching. With education society can judge church teachings as flawed.

After that there is only the woo - and you don't need a PhD to see through that, do you?

Leroy42

John Hutton wrote: »

Again, you are omitting the redemption of Man. It is dishonest of you to take a part of the story go on about how terrible it is, and leave out what happened subsequently.

I am not leaving it out at all. I addressed it directly in my last post.

Nothing changed from mans point of view from the death of Jesus. We went to heaven before, and we go to heaven after. Unless you believe that people who died prior to Jesus did not go to heaven?

But similarly, you cannot just take your view that man has received redemption when god is the cause of his needing redemption. It was gods decision to punish man that required this redemption.

As I stated, he could have forgiven Adam, or punished Adam but left the rest of us. He chooses not to do so, but then you seem to want to ignore that and give him credit for the act of mercy.

So we are back to the subject of evil. Gods original plan was that man would live in the garden of Eden, free from evil. So it is entirely possible for us to be human and exist without evil. So what is the purpose of evil?

If one believes in god, then one must believe that god created evil (not the act itself but the ability to effect suffering) or he created everything. I am asking the question of why?

When I have asked this of others the usual response is that evil of needed because of free-will. But free will can exist without evil, unless one considers that there is no free will in heaven, but then that opens up the question of why we are given free-will so such an immaterial amount of our eternal existence?

John Hutton

Leroy42 wrote: »

I am not leaving it out at all. I addressed it directly in my last post.

Nothing changed from mans point of view from the death of Jesus. We went to heaven before, and we go to heaven after. Unless you believe that people who died prior to Jesus did not go to heaven?

Yes, that is the case. They did not go straight to heaven.

But similarly, you cannot just take your view that man has received redemption when god is the cause of his needing redemption. It was gods decision to punish man that required this redemption.

As I stated, he could have forgiven Adam, or punished Adam but left the rest of us. He chooses not to do so, but then you seem to want to ignore that and give him credit for the act of mercy.

So we are back to the subject of evil. Gods original plan was that man would live in the garden of Eden, free from evil. So it is entirely possible for us to be human and exist without evil. So what is the purpose of evil?

If one believes in god, then one must believe that god created evil (not the act itself but the ability to effect suffering) or he created everything. I am asking the question of why?

When I have asked this of others the usual response is that evil of needed because of free-will. But free will can exist without evil, unless one considers that there is no free will in heaven, but then that opens up the question of why we are given free-will so such an immaterial amount of our eternal existence?

He did 'punish' mankind with the Fall, but then he redeemed man with Christ, the 'new' Adam. Adam need not have chosen to disobey God and fall to temptation. But he did. Thus humanity fell. Through Christ and His suffering and death, we have been redeemed, and the sin of Adam has been made up for. Evil is not "needed" because of free-will, but can result from an abuse and misuse of free-will.

Again you are supposing that this is the end of the story, we have our own choice in this earthly life to accept or reject God, this is a free choice we can make. The "end" of the story is a new earth and new heaven, a 'restoration' of a kind to how it should be. So God has forgiven mankind for the Fall. And He will 'punish' each according to His judgement.

But I don't see how this has to do with the problem of evil and its bearing on the existence of God. You are essentially saying that God could have done things differently or better. But of course, God, by definition, would know better about what was the best way and why.

John Hutton

Iscreamkone wrote: »

Good and bad are all around us.
There is very little black and white - mostly grey.
Groups like Christians try to think that they know what good is.
This is obviously incorrect judging by all their scandals over the years, throughout the world.
Christians think that their morals are the correct ones and should be enshrined in law (judging by the Church's stance in the various referenda over the years).

People have realised that the Church is good and bad like everybody else. It isn't special.
So if it isn't special there is no need for it to have a special place in society.

People need education not preaching. With education society can judge church teachings as flawed.

After that there is only the woo - and you don't need a PhD to see through that, do you?

Yes, this is all very well and good but what does it have to do with the question at hand?

antiskeptic

Leroy42 wrote: »

According to the bible, God first placed Adam in the garden of Eden. A place free of evil.

Okay. Then he permitted Satan into the garden.

He then chose to cast Adam and Eve out for their sins.

Choose? That is not so clear cut. Light cannot co exist with darkness so there can be the element of 'per definition' about God and man being separated.

'Because you have done this' ties in a consequence with an action. Adam was promised death and death he got.

Delievering on promised consequences is not accurately represented by 'God choose'.

Adam choose, God delivered. Like a Just Eat courier...

Thus, even by gods own plan, evil does not have to exist.

Thus not. Evil is merely that which is contra God. Not even God can permit man the choose contra God AND prevent the existence of evil.

The reason it does is through gods choice. He could stop 'evil' anytime he choses.

Indeed. By wiping out the ability to choose contra God.

Why would he do that? Enabling our will brings about evil, yes. But it also brings about a mechanism which will decide upon our eternal destination.

I would have thought the eternal issue somewhat.more.important than the temporal one

You can dance around the definition of evil as much as you wish, but it is clear that natural disasters, disease, disabilities etc do not have to exist.

They do , if man was given dominion over nature. Like the prodigal son: given it all and allowed to do with it what he willed. He choose to wreck.

Man fell and all under his dominion fell. Now you could say God should have tempered things, maybe not given dominion over the earth to man.

But why this? God's primary aim was to equip our will to the max. Secondary is what we might do with it.

But if one ascribes to the notion that suffering on Earth is repaid in Heaven, then does that mean those not subject to massive suffering, I.e death in earthquakes, cancer etc, get less out of heaven than those that do?

I don't subscribe to the notion that heaven is about paying back suffering.

There is no reason why suffering should be doled out equally. For God is not the manager of the commodity. This is our world, made our way. If it turns out native Americans suffer more than white settlers, then that is to do with white settlers

Or if not, then what is the purpose of suffering? If no purpose, then it brings us back to whether a caring God could remove it.

God uses suffering (in all its many forms) in his attempt to point out to us the futility of our self-directed lives. Those who suffer are less likely to be dazzled by the usual crap we place so much store in.

Career, wealth, knowledge, stuff, experiences. Ask someone who loses a child whether all of that matters.

The Roman centurion who stooped from his high position to the feet of an itinerant Jesus, when his child was dying, found this out.

There is really only one thing that might prise our fingers off our desire to direct our own affairs.

And that's suffering.

You can argue the logic all day long - like, how on earth can 7 billion self-directed gods live in peace? - but you'll get nowhere. "Things are getting better" or " things have never been so good". "Look, we habe the UN now!"

Whilst the world falls to bits under our feet and the planet is raped and plundered on an ever increasing scale.

Nope. The only thing that is going to convince an individual that the self directed life leads only to evermore death is ... personal suffering.

John Hutton

Just to add to the above, that although suffering may have a positive effect/outcome, it does not mean or imply that God is making these things happen on purpose. I.e. you are focused too much on money so I'm giving your kid cancer.

Leroy42

antiskeptic wrote: »

Okay. Then he permitted Satan into the garden.

OK, I hadn't thought of it that way but fine. He chose to let Satan into the garden. There is no reason to think that he had to do that.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Choose? That is not so clear cut. Light cannot co exist with darkness so there can be the element of 'per definition' about God and man being separated.

'Because you have done this' ties in a consequence with an action. Adam was promised death and death he got.

Delievering on promised consequences is not accurately represented by 'God choose'.

Adam choose, God delivered. Like a Just Eat courier...

But you are ignoring that god set those rules. Light in darkness etc. That is all based on what god wanted. He, as the creator of the universe, could have done anything he wanted. You are placing limits on him to suit your narrative. There is no reason to belive that god is subject to any limits.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Thus not. Evil is merely that which is contra God. Not even God can permit man the choose contra God AND prevent the existence of evil.

So god cannot exist without evil? How does that equate with heaven?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Why would he do that? Enabling our will brings about evil, yes. But it also brings about a mechanism which will decide upon our eternal destination.

I would have thought the eternal issue somewhat.more.important than the temporal one

But does it have to bring about evil, that is the question I am asking? We could have plenty of free-will without recourse to evil. There are plenty of limits on our free-will, yet nobody claim s that having those limits does away with free-will

And on the importance of the eternal over the temporal, I completely agree. Why would our eternal fate be governed by the choices we make in such an immaterial amount of time on this earth?

antiskeptic wrote: »

They do , if man was given dominion over nature. Like the prodigal son: given it all and allowed to do with it what he willed. He choose to wreck.

Man fell and all under his dominion fell. Now you could say God should have tempered things, maybe not given dominion over the earth to man.

But why this? God's primary aim was to equip our will to the max. Secondary is what we might do with it.

Why do they have to exist? You seem to be arguing that without earthquakes, disease, tsunamis etc the Man would wreck the planet or something.
There is plenty that 'man' can be blamed for, but earthquakes, storms at sea. While man is starting to develop science to enable us to better prepare, that does nothing for the millions of lives lost in previous times to disease and natural disasters.

We know why earthquakes happen, we know why tsunamis happen. They have nothing to do with god or teach man a lesson or anything. They are simply natural outcomes of the type of planet that we live on.

Could we live on a planet without them? Of course. There are parts of this very planet that don't suffer from earthquakes, so we know even from our own experience that they don't have to happen for man to exist, for free-will to exist.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't subscribe to the notion that heaven is about paying back suffering.

There is no reason why suffering should be doled out equally. For God is not the manager of the commodity. This is our world, made our way. If it turns out native Americans suffer more than white settlers, then that is to do with white settlers

It is of course usual that you would use a man made disaster to try to make your point. But what about lukemina in children, or anyone really? What about tsunamis? Is man to blame for those?

The world certainly wasn't made our way. Why would we make a world that a the majority of it hostile to our lives. is it 80% covered in water (surface area). We burn with too much sun, get frostbite from too much cold. And that on our own planet. It would appear that 99.99999% of the universe is totally hospitable to life.

But it is not that I think that heaven is some sort of payback for suffering. If suffering is gods way of testing us, then surely the more suffering one endures then the greater reward should come to you. Otherwise on what basis are some people tested (more suffering) than others. It is either blind luck or Gods decision. If god decision, which it must be given that evil must exist, then why? What purpose does it serve? Some kids get disease and die, some don't. No-fault of their own. What purpose does it serve? I struggle with that.

The usual answer is that it is part of gods plan, so what part? What part of the plan and does it mean that does not suffering are not part of the plan?

antiskeptic wrote: »

God uses suffering (in all its many forms) in his attempt to point out to us the futility of our self-directed lives. Those who suffer are less likely to be dazzled by the usual crap we place so much store in.

So god does place suffering on some people? You seem to be implying that certain people need to suffer in order to show them the light, which of course means you also think that certain people (mostly western world) are already clued in and don't need the suffering. But these are the very same people that inflict massive suffering on others!

antiskeptic wrote: »

Career, wealth, knowledge, stuff, experiences. Ask someone who loses a child whether all of that matters.

Ask them what purpose the death of the child lead to? Are you suggesting that people need to be taught a lesson and the death of their child, a person in their own right, is acceptable to teach them that lesson?

Would also seem to impact massively on the free-will of the child.

Leroy42

John Hutton wrote: »

Just to add to the above, that although suffering may have a positive effect/outcome, it does not mean or imply that God is making these things happen on purpose. I.e. you are focused too much on money so I'm giving your kid cancer.

So is god involved in deciding who suffers and who doesn't or not?

It goes back to your OP. the purpose of evil. I agree that it is not there as a punishment or a way to teach people. But then I don't think god has anything to do with it.

indioblack

In Christian belief the parameters of existence are determined by God. That includes any change to the nature of existence caused, according to believers, by the actions of man.
Existence, as we experience it, gives us an indication of the nature of mankind - our fall from grace, our tendency to sin.
This existence may also give us an indication of the nature of the God that Christians claim accepts the mechanics of existence.

antiskeptic

Leroy42 wrote: »

OK, I hadn't thought of it that way but fine. He chose to let Satan into the garden. There is no reason to think that he had to do that.

He had to in order to enable choice. You can't chose God/not God unless that choice is enabled in both directions.

You need options and something to attract/deflect you from the options. Then you can choose


The serpent enabled - which is why he was permitted entry. If he hadn't entered, Adam would habe just toddled along as proto-man. Man without choice

But you are ignoring that god set those rules. Light in darkness etc. That is all based on what god wanted. He, as the creator of the universe, could have done anything he wanted. You are placing limits on him to suit your narrative. There is no reason to belive that god is subject to any limits.

God cannot be in the presence darkness. Thats not a choice he has. You are supposing all things are possible when they are not.

So god cannot exist without evil? How does that equate with heaven?

There will be no contra-God choice in heaven. Thus no evil. The choice God/contra God will have been made by everyman in this life of ours.

There is no need to revisit the question once it has been answered by each individual. I've answered "for God". Why be asked again?

But does it have to bring about evil, that is the question I am asking? We could have plenty of free-will without recourse to evil. There are plenty of limits on our free-will, yet nobody claim s that having those limits does away with free-will

I'm sure that yes, you could give man choice between strawberry amd vanilla ice cream and steer clear of the God question.

But the question being posed is God (and what he stands for) or not God (and what that entails)

Evil is what 'not God' entails. I don't see how we can answer the question being posed ("You want God or not God?") without intimate exposure to the actual goods involved.

Evil is what 'not God' is like (we are also exposed to what 'God' is like: beauty, love, joy, etc). Which do you want?

And on the importance of the eternal over the temporal, I completely agree. Why would our eternal fate be governed by the choices we make in such an immaterial amount of time on this earth?

So long as our hearts desire is established there is no reason to revisit it.

Why do they have to exist?

It was just part of the deal. We were elevated to highest position - and given dominion over the Earth.

When Hitler went down, all under his dominion when down.

You seem to be arguing that without earthquakes, disease, tsunamis etc the Man would wreck the planet or something.
There is plenty that 'man' can be blamed for, but earthquakes, storms at sea. While man is starting to develop science to enable us to better prepare, that does nothing for the millions of lives lost in previous times to disease and natural disasters.

We know why earthquakes happen, we know why tsunamis happen. They have nothing to do with god or teach man a lesson or anything. They are simply natural outcomes of the type of planet that we live on.

Whatever. I'm giving the biblical reason. Just dominionship or headship. The head falls, the whole body falls.

Could we live on a planet without them? Of course. There are parts of this very planet that don't suffer from earthquakes, so we know even from our own experience that they don't have to happen for man to exist, for free-will to exist.

True. They are just one of the many ways mans life is made a.misery. There is nowhere to go on earth to escape misery. It might not be an earthquake. It'll be something else potentially










[Quote!]It is of course usual that you would use a man made disaster to try to make your point. But what about lukemina in children, or anyone really? What about tsunamis? Is man to blame for those?[/quote]

It ain't God's fault. Adam fell and we are under his dominionship so get it in the neck. That's not our fault as such

See the bigger picture: it all adds up to a question posed to YOU

You experience God/not God existence on earth. Evil/good are the flavours. Your believing not in God doesn't alter things - you taste both nonetheless. Nor would secular/natural explanations placed on those flavors alters anything

And you will give your answer. The process will extract it from you whether you like it or not or believe it or not.

The world certainly wasn't made our way. Why would we make a world that a the majority of it hostile to our lives. is it 80% covered in water (surface area). We burn with too much sun, get frostbite from too much cold. And that on our own planet. It would appear that 99.99999% of the universe is totally hospitable to life.

The world fell. It was made the way.we (or rather Adam) choice for. A not-God world.

Rather, one which fell and was arrested part way down the slope leading to hell. This world still contains.much.of God.as well as much of what not God entails.

An ideal place to give all is post-Adams our own choice. Bail out before this earth finally slips and slides into the pit of Hell? Or stay put and.plummet into the Abyss?

That is the question at the root of it all.

But it is not that I think that heaven is some sort of payback for suffering. If suffering is gods way of testing us, then surely the more suffering one endures then the greater reward should come to you. Otherwise on what basis are some people tested (more suffering) than others. It is either blind luck or Gods decision. If god decision, which it must be given that evil must exist, then why? What purpose does it serve? Some kids get disease and die, some don't. No-fault of their own. What purpose does it serve? I struggle with that.

Leaving aside suffering post salvation (which has a different purpose)

Suffering aims to bring us to our knees. If we didn't suffer, why would we turn to God? He didn't make the world thus, but he uses the world as it is.

I cannot speak for every case, I don't know how it works with babies for instance - how are they saved.

Nor can I speak for every individual: why some seem to.suffer.more than others. Since I can't see into a persons life, I can't say.

All I know if that God tries to get everymans attention. Amd that he doesn't favour one over the other

The usual answer is that it is part of gods plan, so what part? What part of the plan and does it mean that does not suffering are not part of the plan?

The plan is : "there is suffering out there. Use it to get man to come.to rely on me instead of himself."

So god does place suffering on some people? You seem to be implying that certain people need to suffer in order to show them the light, which of course means you also think that certain people (mostly western world) are already clued in and don't need the suffering. But these are the very same people that inflict massive suffering on others!

We might not suffer hunger or earthquakes in the west. But we can suffer plenty.

Ask them what purpose the death of the child lead to? Are you suggesting that people need to be taught a lesson and the death of their child, a person in their own right, is acceptable to teach them that lesson?

Sufferimg is just out there. God isn't directing it as such.

People don't need anything as such. But God opts to attempt to save them and uses their suffering in his attempt.

Who are distraught parents going to perhaps turn to if they cannot bear the pain of their loss from within own selves?


If they gave up the self-reliant life (because it brings them no relief from the pain) and turned to God and were saved then the death of their child is a comparatively good thing for them. Is it not?

Would also seem to impact massively on the free-will of the child.

free will doesn't get to say how long you live.

And the big picture isn't temporal. Its the eternal. And what your answer to God's question will be ultimately.

Leroy42

OK, I think I understand it better now.

Am I right in thinking that evil is not an act or a thing, but rather the absence of god? Is that what you mean by evil? That is my understanding of what you said, but very happy to be corrected if I have misunderstood.

So, for example, an earthquake and its resultant outcome and suffering is an example of being without god?

antiskeptic

Leroy42 wrote: »

OK, I think I understand it better now.

Am I right in thinking that evil is not an act or a thing, but rather the absence of god? Is that what you mean by evil? That is my understanding of what you said, but very happy to be corrected if I have misunderstood.

So, for example, an earthquake and its resultant outcome and suffering is an example of being without god?

A will which has shaken off the constraint of God (i.e conscience)
produces evil. Such a will is "without God" for the period of time it has shaken off the constraint.

So evil can be an act.

It starts with a wilful suppression of the restraint of conscience, and unencumbered, is now free to satisfy its desires. Say a rape or a theft or a robbing of stationary from work.

Suppress conscience > sinful desire outs and acts > evil done.

The broken world is analagous to a BMW engine. Made perfect by BMW (God), it has been spannered on by someone not qualified to do so. And now it vibrates, puffs out fumes, makes noise amd won't last very long.

So yes, without God and not functioning as intended. Functioning only according to the nature of its broken master - us. It reflects us and what we are: cruel, broken, decaying, violent, uncaring, diseased..

John Hutton

Leroy42 wrote: »

OK, I think I understand it better now.

Am I right in thinking that evil is not an act or a thing, but rather the absence of god? Is that what you mean by evil? That is my understanding of what you said, but very happy to be corrected if I have misunderstood.

So, for example, an earthquake and its resultant outcome and suffering is an example of being without god?

I think you should read St Augustine on this topic.

Steve012

The American high up army generals, navy, airforce etc.. Call the dark unseen force in the world "Pathological predator intelligence"

Food for thought..

Steve012

antiskeptic wrote: »

A will which has shaken off the constraint of God (i.e conscience)
produces evil. Such a will is "without God" for the period of time it has shaken off the constraint.

So evil can be an act.

It starts with a wilful suppression of the restraint of conscience, and unencumbered, is now free to satisfy its desires. Say a rape or a theft or a robbing of stationary from work.

Suppress conscience > sinful desire outs and acts > evil done.

The broken world is analagous to a BMW engine. Made perfect by BMW (God), it has been spannered on by someone not qualified to do so. And now it vibrates, puffs out fumes, makes noise amd won't last very long.

So yes, without God and not functioning as intended. Functioning only according to the nature of its broken master - us. It reflects us and what we are: cruel, broken, decaying, violent, uncaring, diseased..

Yes true, but we have duality on this 3rd density. There is no duality within the creator.

The planet ain't called the valley of tears for nothing.