Why does God permit evil????

@kennethamy,

Friday Afterlife Report 27th November 2009

I posted this same article on another thread but feel it is pertinent here also, if this is unacceptable I will delete it!!

When tackling the Thomas Aquinas' argument that 'God' is the first Cause, Mills said, Wrong! Why?

1. Thomas Aquinas entered into evidence a legitimate 'qualified' statement to the argument of Cause and Effect: that 'God WAS the First Cause'.
2. Directly linked to this is the fact that an 'intelligent' effect had to have had an 'intelligent' cause, i.e. GRAVITY is an 'intelligent' energy effect which had to come from an 'intelligent' cause. You can't have 'gravity' without energy.
3. Order in the universe, an 'intelligent' effect had to have an intelligent cause. Gravity plays a huge part in producing order in the universe. If there is 'order', there has to be intelligent design..
4. The power5. The process of 'growth' anywhere, is an intelligent effect from an intelligent cause - has to be!
6. The perfection of the structure of an atom is an intelligent effect from an intelligent cause. And there are thousands of other examples of intelligent effects which had to come from an intelligent cause. Nature on its own is not intelligent.
7. Every intelligent effect mentioned above has energy for its sustenance and maintenance.There is energy in the evolution-process. Whilst energy cannot be destroyed - energy can be transformed. 'Intelligent effects' are intelligently- -designed energy. Some experts say that the activity of energy had no beginning, it will be modified over time in many ways but it will have not end. 'Chance' does not and cannot explain 'order' in the universe.
8. Scientific observation of 'consciousness'. Scientists - such as Profs. Aspect, Dalibard, Roger and even Dr.David Bohm claim that the universe has 'consciousness'. If there is consciousness there inevitably is energy - because you cannot have consciousness without energy. Everything in the universe - and on planet Earth is ' intelligently -designed energy.' There are those who argue that the power/order behind the universe's intelligent-designed energy is the First Cause - 'God.'
9. Implied in Mills' argument that the thousands and millions of intelligent effects we can observe ourselves came about by 'chance'. That is not acceptable and can never be acceptable.
10. Statisticians will tell you 'NO' - 'You can't use 'chance' as a reasonable explanation for a cumulative succession of things, each with a one in a billion billion probability of coming by chance. Chance' alone will not and cannot explain 'intelligent effects.'

This does NOT mean that 'God' is the traditional religious God - and someone with a long white beard in the sky 'controlling traffic' on Earth. . .Accordingly, the atheists' argument against the First Cause can never be accepted in logic, in professional debate and in science. The 'First Cause' adequately explains the existence of a 'POWER' people call 'God.'

Thus god exists good, bad, personal or remote like the God of Spinoza and Einstein

0 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.

but if God were to act in order to eliminate any evil committed by anyone else would that eliminate free will?
If God were to expunge all free will would that be good or evil?

1) God is good
2) Good finds it's definition in the nature of God (whatever is within the nature of God is good)
3) Evil is anything contrary to God's nature
4) If God acts against his will (does evil) he is no longer God.
5) God has free will as part of his nature.
therefore 6) If God expunges free will then he is no longer God.

0 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

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

Alan,

I've tried having this discussion with these Atheists and found they are more interested in trying to argue for the sake of arguing than having any real objective discussion on the matter. So maybe you and I will have better luck in coming to a conclusion...

I had a 3-hour long talk with a good friend of mine the other night. She was just ordained as a Priest in the Anglican Church and both of us have found such discussions stimulating.

The Theoddesy is a topic I've discussed with people of many faiths including Christian, Sikh, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, and Shinto.

My take on it is this:

Evil comes from humanity. God permits us to be evil because He gives us the choice to act in accordance to His Will or to do our own will. If we choose to do our own will, then it is possible we will act with evil intent. Ultimately, we have a choice: do evil or do not do evil.

God wants was to not do evil, but allows us the freedom to choose for ourselves. Ultimately, this means we can choose God or choose ourselves.
Many choose themselves and, due to our limited human capacity to process information (eg. morals, ethics, emotions, emotional history, personalities, desires, rational and irrational thought, hopes, fears) effectively, we humans act in an evil way.

Your thoughts on this?

-ITL-

---------- Post added 11-26-2009 at 10:16 PM ----------

re_turner_jr;106279 wrote:

but if God were to act in order to eliminate any evil committed by anyone else would that eliminate free will?

Yes. If people don't have a choice to be 'good' or be 'evil', then they don't have free will.

Quote:

If God were to expunge all free will would that be good or evil?

Neither. It would make humanity mindless in the way that single-celled organisms are mindless.

Is that what you desire?

-ITL-

2 Replies

@IntoTheLight,

IntoTheLight;106280 wrote:

Evil comes from humanity.
Your thoughts on this?

-ITL-

I don't know why people keep saying that all evils come from humanity when natural disasters like plagues, earthquakes, floods, and so on, cause untold suffering and death. Natural disasters do not come from humanity. They are what insurance companies like to call, "acts of God". Yet people say that all evil comes from people. It obviously does not.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;106283 wrote:

Natural disasters do not come from humanity. They are what insurance companies like to call, "acts of God". Yet people say that all evil comes from people. It obviously does not.

Once again, natural disasters are not "evil" because in order for an act to be evil, it has to be made as part of a choice between 'good' and 'evil'. No natural disaster I'm aware of is a sentient lifeform capable of making moral decisions.

Since humans are the only sentient lifeforms on earth (as far as we know), then only humans are capable of "evil" acts.

This is the 2nd time you've asked me this question and the second time I've given you the exact same answer.

Do I need to break out the hand-puppets?

kennethamy;106283 wrote:

Natural disasters do not come from humanity. They are what insurance companies like to call, "acts of God". Yet people say that all evil comes from people. It obviously does not.

Are you now taking your conceptions of theology from insurance companies? - Don't mind me if I laugh at you.

-ITL-

1 Reply

@IntoTheLight,

IntoTheLight;106287 wrote:

Once again, natural disasters are not "evil" because in order for an act to be evil, it has to be made as part of a choice between 'good' and 'evil'. No natural disaster I'm aware of is a sentient lifeform capable of making moral decisions.

Since humans are the only sentient lifeforms on earth (as far as we know), then only humans are capable of "evil" acts.

This is the 2nd time you've asked me this question and the second time I've given you the exact same answer.

Do I need to break out the hand-puppets?

Are you now taking your conceptions of theology from insurance companies? - Don't mind me if I laugh at you.

-ITL-

And your answer is awful. Suffering and pain are evils. Innocent people and animals are in terrible pain throughout the world. Read the news. Watch television. It does not matter who causes these evils. They exist. And they are certainly not caused by human beings. So what on earth has it to do with free will? Absolutely nothing. So, the question you have not answered is this: why is there suffering and pain which is not caused by Man, which God does not prevent or remove? I don't care whether you call them "evils" or not. How come an all powerful and loving God, permits children to suffer from disease, or from floods? How can free will be the answer to that?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

[Response deleted - I've added Kennthamy to my Ignore list.]

-ITL-

3 Replies

@IntoTheLight,

So this creator who created us for a certain purpose. I understand from the theists we are here to experience and learn...That child one in billion that died prematurely what purpose was their lives? What experience did they gather from this oh so wonderful existance?

Thousands of years, millions of lives and the purpose of these experiences goes on and on. Us poor imperfect creatures acting out this charade for an ultimate purpose that we had no say in creating, nor the ability to question or any even say enough's enough. Go on inventing this god you so admire but he is an illusion, an image that defies logical debate.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;106274 wrote:

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.

all right
But if the premises are wrong the conclusion may be invalid.
Of course one might come to the right conclusion using invalid premises it happens all the time. One might construct a valid argument and come to the wrong conclusion because the premises are wrong.

In any event the OT questions why god "permits" evil without specifiying the tradtional problem of evil and without specifying that god must be omnipotent and omniscient. So quibbling about valid arguments based on invalid premises is avoiding the issue.

---------- Post added 11-27-2009 at 10:10 AM ----------

xris;106385 wrote:

So this creator who created us for a certain purpose. I understand from the theists we are here to experience and learn...That child one in billion that died prematurely what purpose was their lives? What experience did they gather from this oh so wonderful existance?

Thousands of years, millions of lives and the purpose of these experiences goes on and on. Us poor imperfect creatures acting out this charade for an ultimate purpose that we had no say in creating, nor the ability to question or any even say enough's enough. Go on inventing this god you so admire but he is an illusion, an image that defies logical debate.

And without god?
What is the purpose of evil then?
For that matter what is the purpose of the world at all?
Where do our notions of the true, the beautiful and the good come from?
Where does the world come from?
We become one little insignificant flicker of reason and experience in an indifferent and purposeless universe.
You are not any futher ahead rejecting all visions of the sacred and the divine.
You might claim it gives you freedom, but freedom to do what? One just sinks back into effable mystery, individualism and possibly despair.
I agree that some religous visions are harmful, irrational, and conflict directly with a modern and scientific worldview but many are not. The only visions you seem to entertain are those which have become incompatible with the rest of your worldview. There are reasons why the majority maintain a religous worldview.

---------- Post added 11-27-2009 at 11:15 AM ----------

[QUOTE=re_turner_jr;106111]You said "whatever his nature". before I go further we need to agree upon the nature of the God we suppose exists.[/QUOTE]

re_turner_jr;106111 wrote:

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.

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

The religious challenge is to put forth a conception of god that is worthy of worship and praise. I think that vision or conception necessarily requires that" god is good". Religion may involve a call to faith beyond reason.

The philosophy of religion challenge is to put forth a rational coherent conception of "god" which does not resort to god is ineffable mystery or god is transcendent beyond human understanding as an explanation or faith beyond reason. The difference between religion and religious philosophy is precisely the call for reasoned speculation in philosophy.

Any conception of the divine in which god is not "good" would not seem to be a suitable object of human praise or worship except perhaps out of fear or a wish for power. In any event if god is not good the problem of evil is solved but the problem of religion (worship, praise and obedience) is aggravated.

In my view the traditional problem of evil (god is omnipotent, god is omniscient, god is benevolent) whence cometh evil? Is unsolvable except by resort to god is beyond comprehension, "this is the best of all possible worlds" , or the Book of Job suggestion of a god beyond human questioning and reason.

The best philosophy of religion solution since the age of reason, enlightenment and science is to question the premises. Many modern theologians have done precisely that. The orthodox classical conception of god as all powerful and all knowing is not rationally tenable in the modern age.

The notion that god is all powerful and all knowing fails the test of a universe in which not only evil occurs, but in which it took 15 billion years of evolution for human life to even appear in a remote corner of an unremarkable galaxy. In the history of the earth, much less the history of the universe; human life is but a brief flicker and life has nearly been wiped off the face of the earth on more than a few occasions. Furthermore our long term future (sun out of fuel, red giant, bye bye earth) does not seem so bright assuming pollution; global warming, military technology or meteors do not do us in earlier.

So the real challenge is to construct a vision of god which takes into account modern science and the modern world view. Some say it can not be done. I beg to differ. As a prerequisite religion must abandon supernaturalism and science must abandon materialism. In any event for the purpose of this discussion the medieval scholastic vision (a fusion of Greek philosophy and Christian theology from the middle ages) in which god is immutable, impassive, omnipotent, omniscient and omni benevolent) will not accomplish this purpose of a modern vision of god compatible with a scientific worldview.

If one simply sees the divine as operating through nature and natural law for the purpose of creation of value (order, complexity, life, mind and experience) one can begin to reestablish a religious vision of reality. God in this vision, however, is no longer omniscient (the future is open at least in some respects). God is also no longer omnipotent (establishing value involves struggle and suffering, real risk and real reward) in this vision. God can remain benevolent as the source of possibility, of truth, of beauty, and of goodness. This in a very simplistic presentation is the god of process theology, the religious vision of process philosophy.

Now this is not the vision of god in orthodox, traditional or classical theism nor is it the vision of god in the "traditional problem of evil". This is however the philosophy of religion section of the forum and the OT calls for a philosophical speculation about the nature and attributes of god compatible with the "why does god permit evil". It is a rational vision of the divine in which omnipotence and omniscience have been sacrificed to retain divine benevolence and values. This vision is attacked both by atheists and orthodox religious; not surprisingly on the same ground. The claim is that a god who is not omnipotent and omniscient is not a god at all. I reject that claim. Any "god" who is powerful enough to bring order from chaos and create (even over time and through struggle) the marvelous world in which we live and experience is powerful enough for me and worthy of worship and praise. Any god who can in general foresee the necessary constants and physical laws to develop a universe in which true novelty, creativity and meaning (life, mind and experience) can develop has enough wisdom and foresight for me. Attributing omniscience and omnipotence as attributes to god raises rationally insolvable problems respecting evil, evolution, extinctions, free will and other serious problems. Omnipotence and omniscience are theological mistakes best abandoned in a modern religious conception of the divine.

0 Replies

@IntoTheLight,

IntoTheLight;106293 wrote:

On the contrary, I'm following the literal (on-topic) title of this thread.

Your sole tried-and-true Strawman in this debate is something that has nothing to do with the topic.

The topic is: "Why does God permit evil""

It is NOT: "Why does God permit suffering?" -- That's an entirely different topic and, since you're so hell-for-leather about it, I suggest you start a new thread on it. But it has nothing to do with the original topic of this thread.

I
-ITL-

The traditional problem of evil has always posed the question of why there is suffering and pain when there is an all-good God who would want to prevent suffering and pain, and who is all-powerful, so that He can prevent suffering and pain. Evil has always been understood as just short-hand for suffering and pain (or, at least, undeserved suffering and pain). Read Dostoyevsky (Brothers Karamazov) Hume, and so on, who have always meant by "evil" suffering and pain. Google "the problem of evil" and see how the problem has always been discussed as the problem of innocent suffering and pain. So, it is you who are insisting on a change in the understanding of the term. Try reading up on it, and you will see that you are wrong.

In any case, use the term "evil" just as you like. What do you think a book with the title, "After the Holocaust, how can we believe" is about? Well, that's the kind of problem people discuss under "the problem of evil".

---------- Post added 11-27-2009 at 03:13 PM ----------

prothero;106393 wrote:

all right
But if the premises are wrong the conclusion may be invalid.
Of course one might come to the right conclusion using invalid premises it happens all the time. One might construct a valid argument and come to the wrong conclusion because the premises are wrong.

In any event the OT questions why god "permits" evil without specifiying the tradtional problem of evil and without specifying that god must be omnipotent and omniscient. So quibbling about valid arguments based on invalid premises is avoiding the issue.

---------- Post added 11-27-2009 at 10:10 AM ----------

Conclusions are neither valid nor invalid. Since they are statements, they are either true or false. It is only arguments that can be valid or invalid. As I have already explained, an argument can be sound or unsound. It can be sound only if it has all true premises, and is valid. Arguments that are valid, but have false premises are unsound (under this definition) and unsound argument may have false (not invalid) but false, conclusions.

The question of why God permits evil makes sense only if there is supposed some reason why God should not permit evil. Otherwise, what would even be the point of the question? Clearly, the point of the question is to ask how it is that there is evil even though God is (supposed to be) all-good. For, if God is all-good, then why would He allow there to be evil? An all-good God would want no evil. The only possible answer to that question would be that although an all-good God would want there to be no evil, and there is evil, then if must be that God is unable to prevent the evil. He wants to prevent the evil, but He cannot do so. It follows then that God is not all-Powerful, since He cannot do something He wants to do. On the other hand, going back, if God is all-Powerful (as it is also reputed) then why does He not prevent evil? The only reasonable answer is that God is not all-Good. It, therefore, follows that since there is evil, either God is not all-Good, or God is not, all-Powerful, or, of course, both. The logic is impeccable. Indeed, it is in the valid form of what in logic is called, a "dilemma". So, if the premises are true, then so must be the conclusion.

Which brings me back to something else you said. Logic is not a quibble. Trying to philosophized without knowing basic logic is like trying to row a boat without oars.

0 Replies

@IntoTheLight,

[QUOTE=IntoTheLight;106280]Evil comes from humanity. God permits us to be evil because He gives us the choice to act in accordance to His Will or to do our own will. If we choose to do our own will, then it is possible we will act with evil intent. Ultimately, we have a choice: do evil or do not do evil.

God wants was to not do evil, but allows us the freedom to choose for ourselves. Ultimately, this means we can choose God or choose ourselves.
Many choose themselves and, due to our limited human capacity to process information (eg. morals, ethics, emotions, emotional history, personalities, desires, rational and irrational thought, hopes, fears) effectively, we humans act in an evil way.

Yes. If people don't have a choice to be 'good' or be 'evil', then they don't have free will.

Neither. It would make humanity mindless in the way that single-celled organisms are mindless.

Is that what you desire?-ITL-[/QUOTE]The free will defense works "sorta" up to a point.

The first problem with the free will defense is it does not address natural disasters: earthquakes, floods, famine, pestilence or disease at all. One could say these trials are necessary for testing and building character but anyone who has actually been subjected to these disasters would probably object strongly. When my child dies of leukemia I want some other explanation.

The second problems is; must we have enough free will to build concentration camps, conduct pogroms and genocide, construct nuclear weapons, chemical and biological weapons and otherwise destroy our selves and the planet? Could not an all powerful and all wise god have constructed a meaningful world with a little less "free will" as a trade off for murder and mayhem?

As my posts show, I think the solution to the problem lies in a different conception of the divine and divine action. I also think the traditional conception of god is not only incompatible with the problem of evil, and "free will" (there the problem is omniscience not omnipotence), but with our modern scientific notions of how the world works (age of the universe, age of the planet, the long painful process of evolution and mass extinctions).

Trying to patch up the classical orthodox god of the medieval scholastics in view of modern science just will not do. A new conception of divine nature and divine action is called for.

2 Replies

@prothero,

prothero;106419 wrote:

The free will defense works "sorta" up to a point.

The first problem with the free will defense is it does not address natural disasters: earthquakes, floods, famine, pestilence or disease at all. One could say these trials are necessary for testing and building character but anyone who has actually been subjected to these disasters would probably object strongly. When my child dies of leukemia I want some other explanation.

The second problems is; must we have enough free will to build concentration camps, conduct pogroms and genocide, construct nuclear weapons, chemical and biological weapons and otherwise destroy our selves and the planet? Could not an all powerful and all wise god have constructed a meaningful world with a little less "free will" as a trade off for murder and mayhem?

As my posts show, I think the solution to the problem lies in a different conception of the divine and divine action. I also think the traditional conception of god is not only incompatible with the problem of evil, and "free will" (there the problem is omniscience not omnipotence), but with our modern scientific notions of how the world works (age of the universe, age of the planet, the long painful process of evolution and mass extinctions).

Trying to patch up the classical orthodox god of the medieval scholastics in view of modern science just will not do. A new conception of divine nature and divine action is called for.

I, myself, have never understood why the free will defense is a defense. Suppose a policeman comes across a criminal about to rape a woman. Should he not interfere because by doing so he will interfere with the criminal's free will? Does a successful interference by the police make the criminal into a "mindless robot" and so is wrong? Just how far should God go in preserving free will?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;106438 wrote:

I, myself, have never understood why the free will defense is a defense. Suppose a policeman comes across a criminal about to rape a woman. Should he not interfere because by doing so he will interfere with the criminal's free will? Does a successful interference by the police make the criminal into a "mindless robot" and so is wrong? Just how far should God go in preserving free will?

Well we find at least one point of agreement. The "free will" defense is not much of a defense or a solution to the "problem of evil" at all. Actually we probably have several points of agreement they are just not evident in this discussion.:shocked: We probably agree on what "god" is not but not on what "god" is.

1 Reply

@prothero,

prothero;106419 wrote:

The free will defense works "sorta" up to a point.

The first problem with the free will defense is it does not address natural disasters: earthquakes, floods, famine, pestilence or disease at all. One could say these trials are necessary for testing and building character but anyone who has actually been subjected to these disasters would probably object strongly. When my child dies of leukemia I want some other explanation.

I hate to say it but this is the same issue that Kennethyamy is stuck on and it has nothing to do with this topic.

If you're going to call a natural disaster "evil" in the exact same way that someone commiting murder is "evil", then everything is "evil": you trip and break your leg so gravity is now "evil"; you plug too many things in the same outlet and it causes a fire so electricity is now "evil", etc, etc.

What's the point of even having a discussion on the matter if you're going to use a outrageous interpretation of the word?

If you eat too much ice cream and get a stomach ache then either ice cream or digestion is "evil". It's absurd.

Quote:

The second problems is; must we have enough free will to build concentration camps, conduct pogroms and genocide, construct nuclear weapons, chemical and biological weapons and otherwise destroy our selves and the planet? Could not an all powerful and all wise god have constructed a meaningful world with a little less "free will" as a trade off for murder and mayhem?

If we have free will, we have to have it absolutely. There is no such thing as having 20% free will or 99% free will. Anything less than 100% is not free will. If God made the world (which I honestly don't know), and gave us the ability of free will, that includes ALL the possibilites therein, good and bad.

Quote:

As my posts show, I think the solution to the problem lies in a different conception of the divine and divine action. I also think the traditional conception of god is not only incompatible with the problem of evil, and "free will" (there the problem is omniscience not omnipotence), but with our modern scientific notions of how the world works (age of the universe, age of the planet, the long painful process of evolution and mass extinctions).

I agree with you and I also do not hold the traditional viewpoint that God is all-powerful and all-knowing.

Quote:

Trying to patch up the classical orthodox god of the medieval scholastics in view of modern science just will not do. A new conception of divine nature and divine action is called for.

Again, I agree completely.

-ITL-

1 Reply

@IntoTheLight,

[QUOTE=IntoTheLight;106502] If you're going to call a natural disaster "evil" in the exact same way that someone committing murder is "evil", then everything is "evil": you trip and break your leg so gravity is now "evil"; you plug too many things in the same outlet and it causes a fire so electricity is now "evil", etc, etc. [/QUOTE] You sound pretty sure about that. I have to tell you in reading about this topic almost all academic writers include "natural" evil as well as "moral" evil under the undeserved pain and suffering which an omnipotent and omniscient god should be able to prevent. Your opinion is a minority opinion. Moral evil due to the "free will" of other humans is a different class of evil. Your definition of "evil" is not the standard one used in philosophical discussion of the problem of "evil" or in theodicy in general. Job was afflicted almost entirely with "natural" evils in the Bible story.

Natural evil (the child who accidentally drowns, the mother with cancer, etc.) also needs a response from those who claim god is omnipotent and omniscient and that this is the "best of all possible worlds" or that all that happens is part of the divine will or the divine plan. "Free will" in fact helps not at all in explaining to the mother of the dying child why an omnipotent omniscient benevolent god could allow this to happen. To leave natural evil out of the discussion is to leave out the experience of "evil" that almost everyone encounters personally and which is a major cause of loss or absence of faith.

To leave "natural evil" out of the discussion is to address only part of the problem.

[QUOTE=IntoTheLight;106502] If we have free will, we have to have it absolutely. There is no such thing as having 20% free will or 99% free will. Anything less than 100% is not free will. If God made the world (which I honestly don't know), and gave us the ability of free will, that includes ALL the possibilites therein, good and bad. [/QUOTE] Well of course we are not completely free we are constrained by the laws of physics and many other natural and physical constraints. So our "free will" is of a limited and constrained form to start with. In fact lots of people argue our free will is "illusionary". I do not agree with that but I think the notion that "free will" is all or nothing is not correct. This is not a discussion though about "free will" another major area of disagreement in philosophy.

1 Reply

@Alan McDougall,

With the exception of Intothelight you people refuse to listen to us, evil exists because god has given us a free will, and with that free will we can do exactly what we like even murder our own children. The the murderer might get off here on earth, but all of us, will one day when we stand accountable before God, and explain to him why we did what we did

We might be a fallen world outside of Gods perfect will!!

1 Reply

@prothero,

prothero;106538 wrote:

You sound pretty sure about that.

I am sure about it. =)

[quote]
I have to tell you in reading about this topic almost all academic writers include "natural" evil as well as "moral" evil under the undeserved pain and suffering which an omnipotent and omniscient god should be able to prevent.
[/quote]I understand what you're saying, however, I think we need to make a distinction as to what kind of evil we are talking about. One of the problems in this thread has been that the Atheists are using the terms interchangably. Thus, when someone rebuts their moral evil argument, they merely switch to the natural evil argument and nothing is accomplished.

BTW, I think the concept of "natural evil" is silly for the reasons I outlined in my last post. There is certainly naturally-occuring harm, but that's not the same thing as "evil" - unless someone is arguing from the standpoint that: A) There is a God, and B) That God deliberately caused the "natural evil" to occur.

It seems to me that your argument is that God allows "natural evil" to occur so therefore God is bad and/or irresponsible. Is that your position?

[quote]
Your opinion is a minority opinion.
[/quote]Perhaps so, but that doesn't automatically make it less valid.

[quote]
Moral evil due to the "free will" of other humans is a different class of evil.
[/quote]THANK YOU. That is the point I've been trying to make to this beligerent crowd from the very beginning.

[quote]
Your definition of "evil" is not the standard one used in philosophical discussion of the problem of "evil" or in theodicy in general. Job was afflicted almost entirely with "natural" evils in the Bible story.
[/quote]Job wasn't affected by Natural Evil at all. In the Book of Job, both the Christian god and Satan conspired to make Job suffer. The manifestation may have been "natural evil", but it's origin was God & Satan pulling the strings to make it happen.

[quote]
[/quote][quote]Natural evil (the child who accidentally drowns, the mother with cancer, etc.) also needs a response from those who claim god is omnipotent and omniscient and that this is the "best of all possible worlds" or that all that happens is part of the divine will or the divine plan.
[/quote]

I agree with your definition...mostly. For the sake of discussion, I will agree to use the term Natural Evil to define this particular kind of harm.

[quote]
"Free will" in fact helps not at all in explaining to the mother of the dying child why an omnipotent omniscient benevolent god could allow this to happen.
[/quote]I agree that Free Will only applies to Moral Evil.

[quote]
To leave natural evil out of the discussion is to leave out the experience of "evil" that almost everyone encounters personally and which is a major cause of loss or absence of faith. [/quote][quote]To leave "natural evil" out of the discussion is to address only part of the problem.
[/quote]

I'm fine with having that discussion as long as we agree to differentiate between the two.

SO...........

Why does God allow Natural Evil to occur?

First of all, let me say that I do not claim to know the answer to this question. All of my following discussion about Natural Evil is pure speculation - not personal belief.

Here's my initial theory:

If we assume that God is omniscient and can see into the future, it is possible that God is playing some sort of cosmic chess game with humanity - putting certain people in certain places at certain points in history in order to further a goal of some kind.

In chess, sometimes you sacrifice a rook in order to take a queen. Using this analogy, it is possible that God let's some people die due to Natural Evil in order to affect the lives of others at some point in the future.

I'm going to give a purely hypothetical senario:

David is 13 and goes hiking. God causes a sudden rockslide to hit him and he plunges to his death over the side of a cliff. David's father had been molesting a neighborhood girl, but the devastating news of his son's death causes him to see how precious life is and that what he is doing is wrong so he stops. The girl, who was planning to commit suicide, instead goes on to her life. 20 years later, she becomes a psychologist who helps abused children. One of the children she is counseling has severe, almost catatonic depression. She works with him for 10 years and eventually helps him to reclaim his life. He grows up to become a organic chemist who eventually finds the cure for cancer and saves the lives of millions of people.

But if God hadn't caused 13-year-old David to fall off the cliff, a different hypothetical senario might have happened:

David returns from his hike safe and sound. The girl next door commits suicide and leaves a note implicating David's father. When the cops arrive to arrest him, David's father draws a gun and shoots at them. David witnesses his father's death at the hands of the police and develops a mindless hatred for authority figures. He and a friend plot and carry out an attack on his highschool that leaves 47 students and three teachers dead. Among the dead was a girl named Amy. If she had lived, she would've one day become a the Secretary General of the UN and personally helped stop a war between China and the USA, saving the lives of thousands, if not millions of people. Etc, etc.

While it may seem "evil" to us, the outside observers, that a 13-year-old kid fell off a cliff in a rockslide, it's possible that there's a bigger picture that we are not privy to.

Please remember that this is a purely hypothetical example. I'm not saying it's the case; I am just speculating on why God might allow Natural Evil.

What's your take on that possibility?

-ITL-

1 Reply

@IntoTheLight,

IntoTheLight;106293 wrote:

[Response deleted - I've added Kennthamy to my Ignore list.]

-ITL-

Do you think he or I care about your childish behaviour, you have been here five minutes and your tantrums have become a noticeable attraction.Grow up if you think the replies youve had warant ignoring, why participate? No one has been rude or abused you , if you cant take it , dont give it.

---------- Post added 11-28-2009 at 05:22 AM ----------

Alan McDougall;106547 wrote:

With the exception of Intothelight you people refuse to listen to us, evil exists because god has given us a free will, and with that free will we can do exactly what we like even murder our own children. The the murderer might get off here on earth, but all of us, will one day when we stand accountable before God, and explain to him why we did what we did

We might be a fallen world outside of Gods perfect will!!

I dont read into light, his ignore list is growing so his input is of no interest to me anymore, Alan.

Free will Alan, is it a gift we had a choice in accepting? I take it you see it as a benefit to humanity, a gift worthy of acceptance?

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;101706 wrote:

What about natural disasters? Hurricanes, earthquakes, plagues, crop failures, drought, floods. Man did not cause these, did he?

Natural disasters cannot be considered evil just because they harm people. They are inevitable processes of life that without would render life impossible.

Nature is full of cycles of death and rebirth. To assign evil or good to these things is misguided because we would not exist without them.

1 Reply

@Alan McDougall,

Would you call the Anoconda snake that squeezes the life out of a deer evil? Yet life is lost and an innocent animal suffers. It's nature's cycle. So I believe you cannot call nature nor natural disasters evil, it's just nature's cylces.

1 Reply

Why does God permit evil????

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know