The Problem of Evil

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.