Why does God permit evil????

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;105934 wrote:

I don't understand your use of the term, "valid". And what conclusion proves what question "invalid"? And what is a valid or invalid question. And what is a valid god. It is arguments that are valid or not valid. Not questions or gods or anything else that I know of. In other words, I don't understand what you are saying. Could you rephrase it in plain English so I can know what you are talking about?

If i ask you why the boats fall of the edge of the world, with a flat earth. Would you classify it as a relevant question? The question is not valid because the world is round. The description of the earth is incorrect.

This god does not exist because the description is wrong.

---------- Post added 11-26-2009 at 05:56 AM ----------

Alan McDougall;105980 wrote:

xris why the heck do you think I started this thread??, it was because I could not and still cant understand why a supposed benevolent God would/does just sit back and do nothing while a child is raped, or why god did nothing but apparently just on-looked the horrors of the holocaust. This type of question has almost turned me into an anti-god atheist

Xris it is NOT MY GOD is is your God like it or not, you can disown God but he will never disown you. You seem to have taken the attitude with me that I somehow enjoy suffering evil and pain. Come and live where I do , where criminals roam the streets and people lock themselves behind electric fences very high walls and burglar bars. The football fans are going to be given a bad surprise if they want to tour the crime capital of the world. South Africa has a true annual murder rate of about a fifty thousand people. Almost as many people die here due to crime annually as those that die in the Iraq war. For me to still suggest that God is some old father Xmas granddaddy of would be ridiculous

Because my mother was Jewish and I suffer from a mental disorder I would have been exterminated by the NAZI devils if I had lived in the German occupied territories during the war.

Am I comfortable with the fact God permits evil absolutely not, one of my first thread in the religious forum was about the horrific Chapter 31 in the Book of Numbers where God supposedly commands Moses to commit genocide of the Midianites

Coming back to the suffering child, if God directly intervenes and saves that one child from drowning, then what about a child that is drowning in another pond, where does it stop??? where???????

The title of the thread was "Why does God permit evil"? thus we should assume he exists be he evil , good or remote and uninterested and uncaring

There is no such thing as a benevolent god Alan, so the question is not relevant. If god exists you don't know him nor do I. Your description fails to describe the facts relevant to his existence. You are foundering on the definition, not the possibilities. If you assume he exists with the description given, he is evil.

The child is an example of his malevolence not his capacity.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;106054 wrote:

If i ask you why the boats fall of the edge of the world, with a flat earth. Would you classify it as a relevant question? The question is not valid because the world is round. The description of the earth is incorrect.

This god does not exist because the description is wrong.

---------- Post added 11-26-2009 at 05:56 AM ----------

.

As I have pointed out (several times) the problem of evil arises only about a God who is all-benevolent, and all-powerful. So, if such a God does not exist, then there is no problem of evil. If that is what you are saying, I agree. But, that, of course, is irrelevant to the problem of evil.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;106060 wrote:

As I have pointed out (several times) the problem of evil arises only about a God who is all-benevolent, and all-powerful. So, if such a God does not exist, then there is no problem of evil. If that is what you are saying, I agree. But, that, of course, is irrelevant to the problem of evil.

If there is no god who can be described as benevolent, then the question is redundant. Evil is a concept derived from a benevolent god, no god no evil, just crap now and then.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;106064 wrote:

If there is no god who can be described as benevolent, then the question is redundant. Evil is a concept derived from a benevolent god, no god no evil, just crap now and then.

But that is all irrelevant even if true. The philosophical problem supposes there is a benevolent, all-powerful God. It is independent of whether or not there is such a god. If I asked the question, supposing that there are other intelligent beings on other planets, would they have a religion? it is irrelevant to answer, there are no intelligent beings on other planets. That is no answer.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;106067 wrote:

But that is all irrelevant even if true. The philosophical problem supposes there is a benevolent, all-powerful God. It is independent of whether or not there is such a god. If I asked the question, supposing that there are other intelligent beings on other planets, would they have a religion? it is irrelevant to answer, there are no intelligent beings on other planets. That is no answer.

As long as these aliens appeared logical then the question would be valid. I would not rule out alien life but I would ill conceived creators.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;106069 wrote:

As long as these aliens appeared logical then the question would be valid. I would not rule out alien life but I would ill conceived creators.

How would you "rule it out"? Although that is a separate question. But "ruling it out" does not answer the question either. You are just denying the supposition. The logical error is the same. It does not follow from:

If X then Y
Not-X

Not-Y.

That form of argument is called, the fallacy of denying the antecedent.

For example:

Suppose I argued:

If there were aliens, then they would have religion.
There are no aliens

Therefore, aliens would not have religion.

That is fallacious.

And your argument is:

If there were a God, then he would be all-good, and all-powerful
There is no God

Therefore, God would not be all-good and all-powerful.

But that argument is just as bad as the alien argument.

1 Reply

@re turner jr,

re_turner_jr;106015 wrote:

The title of the thread, being "Why does God permit evil?", assumes the presup that God in fact does exist. I will assume the same presup and not pause to negate or defend that point at this time.

The question is a re-stating of the problem of evil, which anytime I've heard it stated formally, attacks one of three attributes of the Judeo-Christian God; omnipotence, omniscience, all-good (all-loving). I will also assume that the discussion focuses on this God. remember I am taking for granted that this Judeo-Christian God does exist without proof as that is not the question stated (at least as I read it.)

If this is the reason for this question being asked then a definition of the three attributes needs to be reached.

All-good (all-loving) - Since God created everything (material and immaterial) then God also defines what is good and evil. So God is in fact good because he is God, if you disagree with him on this point, tough he holds all the aces.

Omniscience - God knows everything and there is nothing that is beyond his knowledge. I would also include the attributes of omnipresence and trancendance in his omniscience.

Omnipotence - God can do anything that is within his nature. For God to do something outside of his nature would negate his Godhood. Therefore no silliness like "Can God make a rock so big...?" and "Can God cease being God?"

Also evil needs to be defined.
Evil - anything that is contrary to the nature of God is evil to the degree that is removed from his nature.

If you agree so far then let me re-state the question if not please ask questions.

Why does God allow what is contrary to his nature to occur?

A really good well thought out post and yes the thread pre-supposes that God exists, whatever his nature.
Note I use "HIS" FOR GOD for convenience

And yes no silliness!!

2 Replies

@kennethamy,

You can argue all you like but if the question is fallacious in its logical quest then it is not valid. If you tell me aliens exist then i would propose a reply but if you tell me they don't exist then its a silly question. How can I formulate a reply to a question that has no basis for debate.

What does this green apple taste like? but in fact its red. Ask me what the red apple tastes like , dont put forward a question that is not relevant.

---------- Post added 11-26-2009 at 08:51 AM ----------

Alan McDougall;106073 wrote:

A really good well thought out post and yes the thread pre-supposes that God exists, whatever his nature.
Note I use "HIS" FOR GOD for convenience

And yes no silliness!!

Then its a silly question because your explanation of the question invalidates its asking. You are presuming another view of this god that has not been described. The question is begging us to ask why a benevolent god allows evil,if he is benevolent he would not allow evil.

0 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;106073 wrote:

A really good well thought out post and yes the thread pre-supposes that God exists, whatever his nature.
Note I use "HIS" FOR GOD for convenience

And yes no silliness!!

Except that:

(1) For God to do something outside of his nature would negate his Godhood.

(2) Why does God allow what is contrary to his nature to occur?

1. and 2. seem to be inconsistent with one another. How can it be asked why God allows what is contrary to His nature, which implies that God does allow it, and also state that God cannot do anything contrary to His nature because that would "negate His Godhood" ? If God allowed it, he would not be God. So either God does not allow what is contrary to God's Nature, or there is no God, because if He did, He could not be God. You cannot have it both ways.

So there is an inconsistency in that post you think is "well thought out".

"Logic is Logic. That's all I can say". Oliver Wendal Holmes.

2 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;106076 wrote:

Except that:

(1) For God to do something outside of his nature would negate his Godhood.

(2) Why does God allow what is contrary to his nature to occur?

1. and 2. seem to be inconsistent with one another. How can it be asked why God allows what is contrary to His nature, which implies that God does allow it, and also state that God cannot do anything contrary to His nature because that would "negate His Godhood" ? If God allowed it, he would not be God. So either God does not allow what is contrary to God's Nature, or there is no God, because if He did, He could not be God. You cannot have it both ways.

So there is an inconsistency in that post you think is "well thought out".

"Logic is Logic. That's all I can say". Oliver Wendal Holmes.

You ask a question and the conclusion is the god who is benevolent would not do evil. Therefor the question is invalid, it was not invalid when it was asked but by its conclusion the question becomes void, silly. Not unless you ask a god who we know to be malevolent, allows evil, why? that is a relevant question. The question rejects a reply.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;106077 wrote:

You ask a question and the conclusion is the god who is benevolent would not do evil. Therefor the question is invalid, it was not invalid when it was asked but by its conclusion the question becomes void, silly. Not unless you ask a god who we know to be malevolent, allows evil, why? that is a relevant question. The question rejects a reply.

First of all, the question is whether a benevolent God would allow evil, not do evil. There is an important difference.

Questions do not have conclusions. Questions have answers. What would the conclusion of a question be? And, I don't know what a "void" question is, either. Nor do I know what an "invalid" question is. Can you explain what those mean, since I am entirely in the dark. The question, so far as I know, is whether a good God, who is all powerful, would allow evil. I don't see what is "invalid", "void", about that question, nor what its "conclusion" is supposed to be. The question does not assert there is such a God, or any God at all. The word, "would" shows it is a conditional. It is asking why such a God, if he existed, would allow (not do) evil. That is all. And Leibniz's answer is that yes, such a God might allow evils that are logically necessary for a greater and compensating good, which could not exist unless the evil were allowed. Now that is the issue. Is that true? It is not whether such a God would do evil. The answer to that is, no. He would not do evil because such a God would be all-good. But, would such a God allow evil if a greater good could not exist without it? The answer is obviously, yes.

0 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;106073 wrote:

A really good well thought out post and yes the thread pre-supposes that God exists, whatever his nature.
Note I use "HIS" FOR GOD for convenience

And yes no silliness!!

You said "whatever his nature". before I go further we need to agree upon the nature of the God we suppose exists.

For the nature of the question stated I would assume that we are talking about a benevolent God, because the question couples God with the problem of evil. If God is not the Moral Law Giver (defining what is right and wrong) then the question implodes;If we don't also assume that god is benevolent (all-good) we would have to first uncover where we get the idea of evil just to make sense of the question.

So again, if you agree with the following statement let me know and we can continue the conversation, if not then we'll discuss the presups first.

While we (humans) may not fully understand the nature of God (or be able to), that nature by necessity is good.

---------- Post added 11-26-2009 at 12:14 PM ----------

kennethamy;106076 wrote:

Except that:

(1) For God to do something outside of his nature would negate his Godhood.

(2) Why does God allow what is contrary to his nature to occur?

1. and 2. seem to be inconsistent with one another. How can it be asked why God allows what is contrary to His nature, which implies that God does allow it, and also state that God cannot do anything contrary to His nature because that would "negate His Godhood" ? If God allowed it, he would not be God. So either God does not allow what is contrary to God's Nature, or there is no God, because if He did, He could not be God. You cannot have it both ways.

So there is an inconsistency in that post you think is "well thought out".

"Logic is Logic. That's all I can say". Oliver Wendal Holmes.

(1) For God to do something outside of his nature would negate his Godhood.

(2) Why does God allow what is contrary to his nature to occur? --or --
(2) Why does God [not do anything to prevent] what is contrary to his nature to occur?

Do would be to take action, while allow would imply the absence of taking action.

Are you assuming that doing and not doing are the same?

1 Reply

@re turner jr,

re_turner_jr;106111 wrote:

You said "whatever his nature". before I go further we need to agree upon the nature of the God we suppose exists.

For the nature of the question stated I would assume that we are talking about a benevolent God, because the question couples God with the problem of evil. If God is not the Moral Law Giver (defining what is right and wrong) then the question implodes;If we don't also assume that god is benevolent (all-good) we would have to first uncover where we get the idea of evil just to make sense of the question.

So again, if you agree with the following statement let me know and we can continue the conversation, if not then we'll discuss the presups first.

While we (humans) may not fully understand the nature of God (or be able to), that nature by necessity is good.

---------- Post added 11-26-2009 at 12:14 PM ----------

(1) For God to do something outside of his nature would negate his Godhood.

(2) Why does God allow what is contrary to his nature to occur? --or --
(2) Why does God [not do anything to prevent] what is contrary to his nature to occur?

Do would be to take action, while allow would imply the absence of taking action.

Are you assuming that doing and not doing are the same?

No. But if he allows the child to drown, He is doing nothing to save the child. The only explanation of that is that God cannot save the child and also produce a greater good than the evil of the child's death.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;106117 wrote:

No. But if he allows the child to drown, He is doing nothing to save the child. The only explanation of that is that God cannot save the child and also produce a greater good than the evil of the child's death.

so the two statements are not inconsistent as we can conceive of ways in which to reconcile these two statements.

1 Reply

@re turner jr,

re_turner_jr;106118 wrote:

so the two statements are not inconsistent as we can conceive of ways in which to reconcile these two statements.

They appear inconsistent. If we make some assumptions, it is possible to reconcile them. Of course, that does not mean the assumptions are true, so it does not mean that the two statements are consistent. That it is logically possible that God can be good and all-powerful, and evil exist does not mean that it is true. But that is a different issue.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;106076 wrote:

Except that:

(1) For God to do something outside of his nature would negate his Godhood.

(2) Why does God allow what is contrary to his nature to occur?

1. and 2. seem to be inconsistent with one another. How can it be asked why God allows what is contrary to His nature, which implies that God does allow it, and also state that God cannot do anything contrary to His nature because that would "negate His Godhood" ? If God allowed it, he would not be God. So either God does not allow what is contrary to God's Nature, or there is no God, because if He did, He could not be God. You cannot have it both ways.

So there is an inconsistency in that post you think is "well thought out".

"Logic is Logic. That's all I can say". Oliver Wendal Holmes.

It is because God has given each of us a free will, to intervene directly in just one event he must intervene in all. Like I asked xris if God saves a child in one pond he must save all the other children drowning in all the ponds.

2 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;106241 wrote:

It is becuase God has given each of us a free will, to intervene directly in just one event he must intervene in all. Like I asked xris if God saves a child in one pond he must save all the other children drowning in all the ponds.

God might very well have different reasons for intervention or for non-intervention. What makes you think that one size fits all? A young Hitler might have been the drowning boy, and God in His wisdom might have concluded, better let him drown.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;106255 wrote:

God might very well have different reasons for intervention or for non-intervention. What makes you think that one size fits all? A young Hitler might have been the drowning boy, and God in His wisdom might have concluded, better let him drown.

You have a point, but I mean under the same circumstances must God save all drowning kids?

If we had only good, we would have to cancel the Olympic Games because to come second to world class athletes is a very bad thing, if you get my drift

The fact that bad things happen does not mean God is bad!

0 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

[QUOTE=Krumple;105783] To a believer they can't rationalize why their god would be apathetic towards suffering so they invent the idea that god will justify all suffering with some sort of eternal bliss. But it completely ignores the point of having the person or child undergo the suffering to begin with. What is the rational for forcing a being to experience suffering? .[/QUOTE] Not all believers. It is true religion involves a hope for the ultimate triumph of justice, love and peace. It also true that for some this involves justice in an afterlife or god coming to earth to create a kingdom of heaven on earth at some point in the future (rapture, revelations, etc.). I do not think either of these conceptions reflects the most fundamental religious notion. The most fundamental notion I think is that the universe does have a direction and a purpose and is not the result of blind purposeless forces. That some outcomes are better (of more value) than other outcomes and that truth, beauty and goodness are transcendent not artificial arbitrary values.

[QUOTE=Krumple;105783] It seems far more rational to come to the conclusion that there is no god, or else there wouldn't be a need or experience of suffering. .[/QUOTE] I would say struggle and suffering are inherent to material existence. Without God there would be no universe at all but it is not possible to create a meaningful or real material universe in which these features/evils are not present.

[QUOTE=Krumple;105783] Think about it, would you stand idle and watch a child drown? Would you do nothing to feed a starving kid? .[/QUOTE] I think it is a misconception of "god" of the "divine" or the nature of the divine to think it works like that. In the modern world god does not work through supernatural means. God (if he exists) works through nature and natural process towards the preservation of value via creative advance. It is a slow tedious process with much struggle, many setbacks and much suffering. Turning ideals (the realm of possibility) into "reality" (the realm of actuality) is not accomplished through miraculous intervention (seven days of creation) but through billions of years of effort and struggle.

[QUOTE=Krumple;105783] If anything I would at least toss out some of the really harsh illnesses that cause tremendous suffering. But nope, gotta keep those in there. The only thing this reality supports is that there is NO lifeguard on duty.[/QUOTE] Trust in God but look both ways before you cross the street. The notion of a personal God who intervenes in nature and natural process to save some and allow others to perish is a misconception. God is perhaps not "personal" in that sense.

[QUOTE=kennethamy;105793] Well, then if God is not all-powerful, then He does not permit evil, no more than does a surgeon permit his patient to die on the operating table. The surgeon does not want it do happen, but cannot help it from happening, for the surgeon is not all powerful. And, of course, God (according to you) does not want the child to die, but cannot help its happening, for God is not all-powerful. Is that right? .[/QUOTE] That is right.

[QUOTE=kennethamy;105793] I have two questions: [/QUOTE]

kennethamy;105793 wrote:

1. Is the person you worship, God?
2. The traditional problem of evil presupposes that God is all-loving, and God is all-powerful. So do you realize that your solution is not a solution to the traditional problem of evil?

I view the problem one about the conception of god and the presence of evil. The question is not limited to the traditional problem of evil.

[QUOTE=xris;105819] convince me that this silly weak creationist exists and he cant help any of it. What exactly is he, a minor god of mythology or a pantomime fairy who can do nothing but make silly charms?. Tell me why he can create the heavens and earth but cant stop a child dying... we are debating gods purpose.[/QUOTE] Gods purpose (as I see it) is the creation of value (order, complexity, life, mind and experience). God's means (as I see it) is through the universe, nature and natural law. God is not a person. God is not a physical being. God is spirit and the universe is an emanation of spirit a physical manifestation of the divine.

kennethamy;105850 wrote:

1. One or more of the premises is (are) false.
2. The argument is invalid (the conclusion fails to follow from the premises)
3. 1 or 2, or both.

The premises are false making the argument invalid.

[QUOTE=xris;105890] So what do you want to conclude from this debate? the premise or the conclusion? If you have a valid question then the conclusion can be quantified but I'm saying the conclusion proves the question is invalid. By the arguments given a valid god has not been exposed to even ask the question. This god in my opinion does not exist.[/QUOTE] Your conclusion? "There is no god" "There is not even any coherent notion or conception of god".

My conclusion: The conception of god in the traditional problem of evil is false. The scholastic medieval conception of an all powerful, all knowing, all good, transcendent supernatural being who rules the universe through miraculous intervention is the "failed image of god". That orthodox classical conception is not the only conception available, nor is it the god of scripture, ancient tradition, religious mysticism or even modern religious philosophy and theology. False premises lead to false conclusions and invalid argument.

The universe does have a purpose; the creation of value.
The universe does have a means; nature and natural law.
The material world is an emanation of spirit a manifestation of the divine.
Nature is the realm of possibility (god's primordial nature) becoming actuality (god's consequent nature). The universe including god is becoming not "being".

God is powerful but not all powerful. An all powerful being would have no use and no meaningful relationship with the world.
God is wise but not omniscient. An omniscient being would deprive man of his free will and moral responsibility and the universe of true novelty and creativity.

God persistently, patiently, continuously and lovingly offers forth possibilities (realm of ideals) and persuasively but not coercively guides the universe forward in a process of creative advance against the forces of chaos and disorder.

The philosophy of religion (a branch of metaphysics) is reasoned speculation about that which lies outside the realm of knowledge, of science and of proof. The existence of god, the attributes of god, and the manner in which god interacts with the world are all facets of religious philosophy. Reasoned speculation does not mean that one must limit ones musings to that which can be proven or disproved but that what is known (i.e. science and the modern worldview) should be taken into account in trying to formulate a coherent conception of divine attributes and divine action. It is fair to point out that any human conception of any divine which could "exist" must be partial and incomplete and the divine transcends human thought, language and expression. Never the less if the divine is to have any impact whatsoever on human existence some conception and speculation about the divine is necessary. Ineffable mystery is not a useful or pragmatic concept.

1 Reply

@prothero,

prothero;106268 wrote:

The premises are false making the argument invalid.

That is wrong, since the truth or falsity of the premises of an argument has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity or invalidity of the argument.

As for example:

1. All reptiles are mammals
2. All birds are reptiles.

Therefore, 3. All birds are mammals

1, 2, and 3, are all false. But the argument is valid. The conclusion of the argument follows from the premises.

2 Replies

Why does God permit evil????

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know