Why does God permit evil????

God could intervene to stop the flu shot from hurting the child. Or he could just do the obvious, i.e. eliminate flu.

Why doesn't God intervene to prevent the doctor from giving the flu shot.

Because that might result in the child getting flu, which would be a bad thing. But why does flu exist in the first place? That brings us to my question.

So, the answer to the question is that the pain to the child is permitted for a good which could not have occurred unless the pain occurred. I have no idea why the flu exists in the first place, but how is that relevant? The Leibnizian answer is, of course, very much like that to the former question. But that we cannot see it. However, whatever you think about that answer, the main point is that it is possible for God to permit an evil necessary for a compensating good. And that, of course, is the answer to the logical problem. Of course, whether it is true that all evils are necessary evils for a good which could not occur unless the evil occurred, is a different (but related problem). And, that is the Leibnizian answer to the question, why does flu exist in the first place.

The question is relevant because you see flu as evil. If its evil then why does god allow it? Your answer does not give reason it only excuses the fact, you have changed the conditions of evil. You are making a contradictory statement, evil is good for its own sake, if god was all powerful the need to have evil for good purposes would not be necessary.

The question is relevant because you see flu as evil. If its evil then why does god allow it? Your answer does not give reason it only excuses the fact, you have changed the conditions of evil. You are making a contradictory statement, evil is good for its own sake, if god was all powerful the need to have evil for good purposes would not be necessary.

If evil is logically necessary for a particular good, then it would be impossible to have that good without that evil. God would then be faced with the choice of not having that good, or having that good and evil; a package deal. God chooses the package because there is more good in the package than there is in there being no evil. Illustration:we choose the pain and the protection from flu rather than no pain and no protection from flu, because the former contains more overall good than the latter. It is impossible to have the protection, but not the pain.

Now. if the above is true of God, we can see why evil is necessary. Of course, whether it is true of God is not a matter of reason, but a matter of faith.

Your excusing the use of evil, you are making excuses for it. You cant make excuses for a supreme entity, it should not have the need to apply evil for any reason. I as I have said numerous times before the three are not compatible. God can give the protection without pain, he does not need to allow any suffering, if he is all powerful he can overcome any problem.

It really depends on whether it is a valid excuse, don't you think? If something is logically impossible, and if having a good without an evil is logically impossible, and if God cannot do the logically impossible, then it is a valid excuse for God for Him to create a world with evil in it, that He could not create a world without evil in it which would be as good as a world with some evil in it. Isn't that (as you would say) "logical"?

Not in my perfect world. The word impossible is not part of an all powerful entities job description. You are reducing his abilities. The question was never about logic , it was about trying to make sense of nonsense.

I think this is the most perfect ice cream Ive ever tasted apart from that one last week. Well its not the most perfect one is it? its the second best. Its all words and no sense, we see questions and we make assumptions on what we think the question is, not what it is actually is saying.

If evil is logically necessary for a particular good, then it would be impossible to have that good without that evil.

I agree that God cannot do what is logically impossible. He cannot, for example, create a square circle, because "square" excludes "circle" by definition. But "perfect good" or "maximum good" does not exclude "absence of evil" by definition. So how could perfect or maximum good without evil be logically impossible?

Logically impossible, not impossible. There is a difference. God can do anything that can be done. What is logically possible cannot be done. As long as God can do everything that can be done, God is omnipotent. Therefore, as Aquinas said, the inability to do the logically impossible does not detract from God's power. You just don't understand the difference between "impossible" and "logically impossible". Just think of it this way: to say that God is omnipotent is to say that God can do whatever can be done. That is why God is omnipotent, and we are not. He can do whatever can be done; and we cannot. We cannot do some things that can be done; God can do whatever can be done.

Sorry but whatever can be done can be done by god and if he is all powerful then nothing is impossible. You are once again restricting his all powerful ability. You are telling me it not logical to say all powerful.

No. I am telling you that to be all powerful is to be able to do anything that can be done. For instance, you and I are not all powerful because you and I cannot extinguish a star. So that is something that can be done that you and I cannot do. But God can extinguish a star. He can do anything that can be done. But logical impossibilities cannot be done. They are not actions. Therefore, since God can do anything that can be done, God is all powerful. Your first statement is true. And your second statement is false.

No. I am telling you that to be all powerful is to be able to do anything that can be done. For instance, you and I are not all powerful because you and I cannot extinguish a star. So that is something that can be done that you and I cannot do. But God can extinguish a star. He can do anything that can be done. But logical impossibilities cannot be done. They are not actions. Therefore, since God can do anything that can be done, God is all powerful. Your first statement is true. And your second statement is false.

You cant restrict the term by any means. If you restrict its power you have to be obliged to accept any restriction. .

That's like saying that by saying that God knows everything that can be known, I have limited God's ability. God cannot know that 2+3=6. Does that mean that God cannot know everything that can be known? Does that restrict God's ability to know? Of course not. What is false cannot be known; not even by God. So what? Can God make the rape, torture, and murder, of a little girl right? Of course not. Does that restrict God's power? Of course not.

I think your being a little silly now. He knows that 2+3 does not equal 6 because he made it so. If he made it 2+3=6 then he would have made it so. If he fails to create evil in the first place then the question need not be asked. Its not like he allows it as a the creator of everything, he must have created it. You constantly try to reduce his ability. I will ask you again are we debating an all powerful god or one you see diminished in power and responsibility?

You think God could have made 2+3=6? How could he have done that? But you miss the point. The point is that God cannot know what is false, whatever it is. For example, God cannot know that Quito is the capital of Bolivia if Quito is not the capital of Bolivia (which it is not). And God cannot know that 2+3=6 (if 2+3 does not = 6). If he made it 6 he could know it was 6. But as it is, God cannot know that 2+3 =6 (unless he can make it 6). But then, he would not know that 2+3=5. You have to follow the argument.