Why does God permit evil????

The question is whether it is logically possible that an all good and powerful God has created the best of all possible worlds, namely this one. And, it seems the answer is, yes. It is logically possible.

If there is evil, and God can prevent it, but does not, what would you call it?

I am interested in the religious or metaphysical problem or god and/or evil. This includes the consideration of alternative conceptions or descriptions of divine nature and divine action. You confine yourself entirely to the traditional logical problem of evil with the classical scholastic description of god (omnipotence, etc.). For this reason we are pretty much speaking and talking at cross purposes.

I have already allowed that Leibniz offers a logical but not very satisfactory solution to the traditional problem of evil. I would like to see the discussion move on so to speak to more modern and more adequate, more coherent conceptions of god in the world of reason and of science. I do not have the penchant for language analysis and formal problems of logic (logical positivism) that you do.

For me the philosophy of religion is reasoned speculation about the divine nature and divine action in view of the changes in general worldview resulting from the ages of reason, enlightenment and science. The medieval scholastic conception of god formulated prior to these events is no longer coherent and adequate in the modern age. That conception of god does not sell just as Leibniz saying that the concentration camps somehow contributes to the greater good does not sell in any age. The problem of evil especially phrased as "why does god (permit) evil" is not merely a problem in logic. It is also a religous and a metaphysical problem about the nature of evil and the nature of god in general.

So if all three are true then its not logical, is it? .

Your changing the concept of evil, the question does not require that. You might just as well say its a stupid question because god does not exist. You have to stay within the parameters of the question.

Why not? One of these days, you really are going to have to tell me just what you mean by saying something is logical or not logical. It is a real mystery. If the three propositions are all true, then they must be consistent, and if they are consistent, then they are logical.

You're*
it's*

I thought this whole conversation was about sucking it up and pretending that God was real, for the sake of argument, (Hence, the title).

And what is your concept of evil? Again, it's not a universal thing... Let's just say that an evil deed is a sin. Or maybe being evil is going against the law? Is it something that's immoral, or unconstitutional? Or is it something far greater, like torture? Some people believe masterbating to be a very evil deed. Well, I don't. Do you?

Here's the web definition.... "morally objectionable behavior"

If all three are true and the question is logical,you tell me what the logical answer is or even could be?

---------- Post added 01-17-2010 at 12:30 PM ----------

If each member of the triad is true, then the triad is consistent, since that would mean that each member of the triad could be true, and it each member of the triad could be true, then the triad is a consitent triad. Now, since logic is about consistency, the answer to your question, whether the triad is logical, must be, yes.

I assure you:
To the mother whose child dies of leukemia
To the father of the child raped by a sexual predator
To the survivors of the killing fields of Cambodia or the death camps of Auschwitz
The god who "permits" evil is not a god worthy of worship.
The Leibniz solution does not carry or convince and what good is a religious conception that does not withstand the evil, pain, suffering and tragedies of life.
Limiting the question to the logical question and ignoring the metaphysical or religious aspects of the question is the least meaningful way to ask or answer why does god "permit" evil. It might make a nice logical problem to you but for the person struggling to maintain faith in the face of tragedy it does not convince.

Try a different conception of god: try approaching the religious instead of the logical problem.
God (at least no god worthy of worship) does not "permit" such things. These things are not part of the divine purpose or part of the divine plan. They do not happen because of god, god does not "permit" evil, they happen despite god. Without god all would be primordial chaos and the formless void, there would nothing of value whatsoever. There is evil and darkness in the world, for such is the state of the world before god, it is god that imposes order upon the formless void and struggles to bring forth value out of chaos. At least in religious language that how it goes.

The reason only the logical questions appeals to you?
The reason the logical question does not appeal to me? I am a theist and I am looking not merely for a logical conception of god but a religiously and aesthetically coherent conception.

Triad, logical they are all just words with no meaning. You cant convince anyone with charades. Answer my question give me a logical answer, why, if this a logical question, give me logical response to why god allows evil?

It may very well be true that people in trouble or grief are not placated by Leibniz's solution. But what is that supposed to show. Just that they are not interested in the problem Leibniz's solution solves. But, so what? The purpose of philosophy is not give solace..

No, but it is part of the purpose of religion and dealing with evil and the concept of god are both primarily religious not logical propositions.

Could be, but isn't this the philosophy of religion, and not religion?

I cringe every time I hear this statement because it is grossly over stated and sorry to say, incorrect. Despite myself wanting to support it, I can't and here is why.

Technically, god could be good and perfectly good in definition and also allow evil to occur. How is that possible? Well because the solution of evil might not be how we would solve it. For example, god could forgo "our" response to evil with his response to evil. ie. later on he justifies all evils. So in a sense god fulfills his goodness by bringing all those things that were evil, to justice. We think the very allowance of evil to occur would constitute god not owning to the definition of perfect goodness. Why does preventing evil become the only means by which perfect goodness could arise? Here is a possible example, and mind you very hypothetical.

A dog owner has two vicious dogs. Knowing the nature of his violent dogs he has placed them into a kennel together despite what other dog owners would think. "You can't place two vicious dogs in the same space or they will tear each other to bits." The dog owner of course knows that to be a possibility but goes through with it anyways. Now it would seem as though by allowing such a thing to happen, he is not preventing the evil but becomes a catalyst for evil to happen. Which is true, however there is a possibility that the two vicious dogs might fight and grow bored of fighting each other and learn to accept each others presence. Those who would be quick to deny such a possibility are being close minded. Now if the dog owner knew with absolute certainty that the dogs would fight, but later grow to accept each other, then is it evil to place them in the same kennel together? It wouldn't be. So would keeping them seperate be the ultimate goodness or perfect goodness? No, because the dogs still have the potential to be vicious towards each other. In other words, if god knows that by allowing evil it will bring about goodness then by all means he is actually fulfilling the definition even though it sounds like a contradiction. This is a HUGE assumption though and it would HAVE to mean that for every evil there is a good result, but that is incredibly sketchy if true.

So ultimately evil could be the means to a perfect end. Despite my disagreement and rather harshness that it comes from evil actions, it does on occasion lead to something positive. As dangerous as that is to say, it can't be denied.

So if you want to be a good parent, always keep your children separated so you can always be certain they will never bring harm towards each other. Then and only then could you be considered a good parent.

Well I not being of the analytic philosophy, language analysis and logical positivism school of philosophy, think philosophy is reasoned speculation about matters metaphysical. The philosophy of religion would then be reasoned speculation about the nature of god and gods action in the world including the relationship of evil to god. A somewhat broader topic than the "traditional problem of evil", its logical analysis and the solution of Leibniz. But the thread is yours until something of more interest than Leibniz and the traditional conception of god comes forth from someone other than me. :brickwall: