Why does God permit evil????

@xris,

xris;121614 wrote:

In the universe that this god is proposed created and with the ultimate power he is supposed to posses nothing is impossible and everything is possible. You can make up as many human relative questions as you please but you are not understanding that it could just be how he wished and it would for you be totally logical. Your doing it again failing to understand the meaning and the full extent of what all powerful really is.

You think that God can know something that is false? So what would it mean to say that God knows all truths? You would have to say he knows all truths and all falsities. And I would not know what you were talking about if you said that. That would mean He knows not only that 2+3=5, but also that 2+3=7, 2+3=966, 2+3=438. In fact, He would know that 2+3=any number you would like to name, including zero. In other words, you would be speaking nonsense.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;121614 wrote:

In the universe that this god is proposed created and with the ultimate power he is supposed to posses nothing is impossible and everything is possible. You can make up as many human relative questions as you please but you are not understanding that it could just be how he wished and it would for you be totally logical. Your doing it again failing to understand the meaning and the full extent of what all powerful really is.

Origin of Evil.

Problem of evil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Logical problem of evil

One example among many of a formulation of the problem of evil is often attributed to Epicurus [9] and may be schematized as follows:

If a perfectly good god exists, then evil does not.
There is evil in the world.
Therefore, a perfectly good god does not exist.

This argument is of the logically valid form modus tollens (denying the consequent). In this case, P is "God exists" and Q is "there is no evil in the world".

Another theory exists as such:

God exists.
God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.
A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils.
An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
An omnipotent being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists.
Evil exists (logical contradiction).[2]

Versions such as these are referred to as the logical problem of evil. They attempt to show that the assumed propositions lead to a logical contradiction and cannot therefore all be correct
+
Evidential problem of evil

The evidential version of the problem of evil (also referred to as the probabilistic or inductive version), seeks to show that the existence of evil, although logically consistent with the existence of God, counts against or lowers the probability of the truth of theism.

A version by William L. Rowe:

There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
(Therefore) There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being.[2]

[edit] Evidential problem of evil

The evidential version of the problem of evil (also referred to as the probabilistic or inductive version), seeks to show that the existence of evil, although logically consistent with the existence of God, counts against or lowers the probability of the truth of theism.

A version by William L. Rowe:

There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
(Therefore) There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being.[2]

Another by Paul Draper:

Gratuitous evils exist.
The hypothesis of indifference, i.e., that if there are supernatural beings they are indifferent to gratuitous evils, is a better explanation for (1) than theism.
Therefore, evidence prefers that no god, as commonly understood by theists, exists.[12]

These arguments are probability judgments since they rest on the claim that, even after careful reflection, one can see no good reason for God's permission of evil. The inference from this claim to the judgment that there exists gratuitous evil is inductive in nature, and it is this inductive step that sets the evidential argument apart from the logical argument.[2]

The logical possibility of hidden or unknown reasons for the existence of evil still exist. However, the existence of God is viewed as any large-scale hypothesis or explanatory theory that aims to make sense of some pertinent facts. To the extent that it fails to do so it is disconfirmed.[2]

According to Occam's razor, one should make as few assumptions as possible. Hidden reasons are assumptions, as is the assumption that all pertinent facts can be observed, or that facts and theories humans have not discerned are indeed hidden.

Thus, as per Draper's argument above, the theory that there is an omniscient and omnipotent being who is indifferent requires no hidden reasons in order to explain evil. It is thus a simpler theory than one that also requires hidden reasons regarding evil in order to include omnibenevolence.

Similarly, for every hidden argument that completely or partially justifies observed evils it is equally likely that there is an hidden argument that actually makes the observed evils worse than they appear without hidden arguments. As such, from a probabilistic viewpoint hidden arguments will neutralize one another.[1]
A common response to the evidential argument is by claiming that we can see plausible and not hidden reasons for God's permission of evil. This is discussed in a later section.
[edit] Evidential problem of evil

The evidential version of the problem of evil (also referred to as the probabilistic or inductive version), seeks to show that the existence of evil, although logically consistent with the existence of God, counts against or lowers the probability of the truth of theism.

A version by William L. Rowe:

There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
(Therefore) There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being.[2]

Another by Paul Draper:

Gratuitous evils exist.
The hypothesis of indifference, i.e., that if there are supernatural beings they are indifferent to gratuitous evils, is a better explanation for (1) than theism.
Therefore, evidence prefers that no god, as commonly understood by theists, exists.[12]

These arguments are probability judgments since they rest on the claim that, even after careful reflection, one can see no good reason for God's permission of evil. The inference from this claim to the judgment that there exists gratuitous evil is inductive in nature, and it is this inductive step that sets the evidential argument apart from the logical argument.[2]

The logical possibility of hidden or unknown reasons for the existence of evil still exist. However, the existence of God is viewed as any large-scale hypothesis or explanatory theory that aims to make sense of some pertinent facts. To the extent that it fails to do so it is disconfirmed.[2]

According to Occam's razor, one should make as few assumptions as possible. Hidden reasons are assumptions, as is the assumption that all pertinent facts can be observed, or that facts and theories humans have not discerned are indeed hidden. Thus, as per Draper's argument above, the theory that there is an omniscient and omnipotent being who is indifferent requires no hidden reasons in order to explain evil. It is thus a simpler theory than one that also requires hidden reasons regarding evil in order to include omnibenevolence.

Similarly, for every hidden argument that completely or partially justifies observed evils it is equally likely that there is an hidden argument that actually makes the observed evils worse than they appear without hidden arguments. As such, from a probabilistic viewpoint hidden arguments will neutralize one another.[1]

A common response to the evidential argument is by claiming that we can see plausible and not hidden reasons for God's permission of evil. .

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;121648 wrote:

You think that God can know something that is false? So what would it mean to say that God knows all truths? You would have to say he knows all truths and all falsities. And I would not know what you were talking about if you said that. That would mean He knows not only that 2+3=5, but also that 2+3=7, 2+3=966, 2+3=438. In fact, He would know that 2+3=any number you would like to name, including zero. In other words, you would be speaking nonsense.

No your starting to understand how illogical the idea of an all powerful god would be.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;121753 wrote:

No your starting to understand how illogical the idea of an all powerful god would be.

Not at all. To understand why God cannot know what is false (not that something is false) is to understand why that God cannot do anything logically impossible, "does not detract from God's omnipotence". It clarifies the point. It does not show that God is "illogical" (whatever you may mean by that).

0 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

I see that this discussion has grown at the rate of about a page per day since its inception. I beg your pardon for not reading all the previous posts, but I am going to jump in as one who has held his peace from the beginning, but now has a turn to speak:

I will start with the proposition that God is Omnipotent, Eternal, All Knowing, All Wise, and the Loving Creator and Lord of all.

I add the proposition that the reality of God is as far beyond our comprehension as the reality of a painter is beyond the comprehension of the pictures that he has painted.

Next, I wish to suggest that God has given us scriptures to inform us what actions of ours are good, and what sorts of actions are evil. What I am saying is, that it is for us as humans to learn

1 Reply

@1CellOfMany,

1CellOfMany;121912 wrote:

I see that this discussion has grown at the rate of about a page per day since its inception. I beg your pardon for not reading all the previous posts, but I am going to jump in as one who has held his peace from the beginning, but now has a turn to speak:

I will start with the proposition that God is Omnipotent, Eternal, All Knowing, All Wise, and the Loving Creator and Lord of all.

I add the proposition that the reality of God is as far beyond our comprehension as the reality of a painter is beyond the comprehension of the pictures that he has painted.

Next, I wish to suggest that God has given us scriptures to inform us what actions of ours are good, and what sorts of actions are evil. What I am saying is, that it is for us as humans to learn

What of the evil that is not a characteristic of human actions, like the suffering caused by the Haitian earthquake? Why does that exist?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;121913 wrote:

What of the evil that is not a characteristic of human actions, like the suffering caused by the Haitian earthquake? Why does that exist?

He explained that in his post. And I agree...natural disasters are not intrinsically evil.

1 Reply

@Amperage,

Amperage;121914 wrote:

He explained that in his post. And I agree...natural disasters are not intrinsically evil.

I don't know what you mean by "intrinsically evil", but it doesn't matter since natural disasters cause great evil. As you can see on today's TV. Wy can't something can be evil without being intrinsically evil? When the brakes on a car fail, that isn't (I guess) intrinsically evil. But when a mother of two, and her childen die in the resulting crash, that seems to me an evil. Doesn't it to you?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;121917 wrote:

I don't know what you mean by "intrinsically evil", but it doesn't matter since natural disasters cause great evil. As you can see on today's TV. Wy can't something can be evil without being intrinsically evil? When the brakes on a car fail, that isn't (I guess) intrinsically evil. But when a mother of two, and her childen die in the resulting crash, that seems to me an evil. Doesn't it to you?

it seems a tragedy to me. I have never once heard about someone getting in a car crash and thought that that situation was "evil". Sad, yes. Unfortunate, yes. Tragic, yes. But evil, no. Pain in and of itself is neither evil nor good.

1 Reply

@Amperage,

Amperage;121918 wrote:

it seems a tragedy to me. I have never once heard about someone getting in a car crash and thought that that situation was "evil". Sad, yes. Unfortunate, yes. Tragic, yes. But evil, no. Pain in and of itself is neither evil nor good.

Well, most people think that suffering and pain are evils, and especially those who suffer and are in pain. You simply have a special use of the term "evil" which covers only moral and intentional evil. But the problem of evil concerns not only moral and intentional evil, but non-moral and non-intentional evil. In other words, as one writer puts it, "why does God allow bad things to happen to people?" Perhaps you don't think it is bad to suffer pain and anguish. But most people do think so, and they would like to know why a good and powerful God allows pain and anguish. Especially (but not only) to innocents like children. So, if you like, you can keep the word, "evil", and I will take the notion of "bad things" for myself, and pose the problem of bad things, and ask this question: why does an all powerful and all good God allow bad things (like suffering and anguish) happen to people? (Notice, I have not used the term, "evil". I have made a present of it to you) So, can we address my question?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;121920 wrote:

Well, most people think that suffering and pain are evils, and especially those who suffer and are in pain. You simply have a special use of the term "evil" which covers only moral and intentional evil. But the problem of evil concerns not only moral and intentional evil, but non-moral and non-intentional evil. In other words, as one writer puts it, "why does God allow bad things to happen to people?" Perhaps you don't think it is bad to suffer pain and anguish. But most people do think so, and they would like to know why a good and powerful God allows pain and anguish. Especially (but not only) to innocents like children. So, if you like, you can keep the word, "evil", and I will take the notion of "bad things" for myself, and pose the problem of bad things, and ask this question: why does an all powerful and all good God allow bad things (like suffering and anguish) happen to people? (Notice, I have not used the term, "evil". I have made a present of it to you) So, can we address my question?

and what question is that exactly? why did God create natural disasters?

According to one thing I read that since the universe is governed by the four fundamental forces of physics, and since the universe would not exist in a way that would sustain life had those forces not been balanced exactly as they are, then the only other option would be no universe. All natural disasters can be explained by those 4 forces which govern the universe. A world could not logically exist in this universe in which it was not subject to those physical laws

Quote:

Earthquakes are good! - When the earth was first created, it was molten and the surface was uniform in height. As water was delivered to earth (through the accretion process described above) and condensed, the planet became a waterworld - completely covered by a global ocean. Tectonic activity resulted in giant earthquakes and volcanoes that formed land masses over the earth. In addition, without continuing tectonic activity, the land masses would have returned to the ocean through erosion. Getting rid of the water cycle (to prevent erosion) is not an option, since fresh water is required for life. So, not only is the underlying cause of tectonic activity required to shield the earth from radiation, but the process itself is required for the formation and maintenance of continental land masses. It turns out that the number and strength of earthquakes is significantly less now compared to when the earth was first formed.18 This is primarily due to the reduction of radioactive materials in the earth (estimated to be one-fourth of what it was when the earth first formed19). So, one could say that God has reduced the suffering caused by earthquakes to the minimum level required for the existence of advanced life on earth.

Earthquakes and civilization - Despite the fact that earthquakes can be disruptive to civilization, 13 out of 15 of the first civilizations developed in the vicinity of earthquake fault zones (with the exceptions being ancient Egypt and China).20 Scientists have speculated that plate boundaries often have ample water supplies that might have attracted early settlers, and that volcanoes help create rich soils. Obviously, earthquakes could not have been that detrimental to human beings if the vast majority of ancient civilizations developed in proximity to active faults.

1 Reply

@Amperage,

Amperage;121924 wrote:

and what question is that exactly? why did God create natural disasters?

According to one thing I read that since the universe is governed by the four fundamental forces of physics, and since the universe would not exist in a way that would sustain life had those forces not been balanced exactly as they are, then the only other option would be no universe. All natural disasters can be explained by those 4 forces which govern the universe. A world could not logically exist in this universe in which it was not subject to those physical laws

No. That is not the question. The question is exactly as I worded it. Why does God allow bad things to happen to people? That might just be asking why God allows people to suffer from natural disasters, but not necessarily. The point is that nothing is changed or gained by limiting the term "evil" to moral and intentional evil, and refusing to call non-moral and non-intentional evil by the name, "evil". It is only a notational change. The question remains. God might have made a world in which there was no suffering, or a world in which there was less suffering, or even, no world at all. So, we return: why did God make a world at all, and why did God make a world with suffering and pain in it, and this amount of suffering in it? Consider: at least one innocent person died yesterday in Haiti. Could God have saved even that one innocent person? If the answer is, yes, then you have to ask, well, why didn't He, then? And, if the answer is, no, then you have to ask, how come?

2 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;121926 wrote:

No. That is not the question. The question is exactly as I worded it. Why does God allow bad things to happen to people? That might just be asking why God allows people to suffer from natural disasters, but not necessarily. The point is that nothing is changed or gained by limiting the term "evil" to moral and intentional evil, and refusing to call non-moral and non-intentional evil by the name, "evil". It is only a notational change. The question remains. God might have made a world in which there was no suffering, or a world in which there was less suffering, or even, no world at all. So, we return: why did God make a world at all, and why did God make a world with suffering and pain in it, and this amount of suffering in it? Consider: at least one innocent person died yesterday in Haiti. Could God have saved even that one innocent person? If the answer is, yes, then you have to ask, well, why didn't He, then? And, if the answer is, no, then you have to ask, how come?

If you are not talking about something that is moral or intentional then you are talking about something that is neither good nor bad in and of itself.

I will borrow a quote from another poster on this site because I thought it was good way to answer that question. God created all things so that all things could know God.

1 Reply

@Amperage,

Amperage;121930 wrote:

If you are not talking about something that is moral or intentional then you are talking about something that is neither good nor bad in and of itself.

I

All right. I'll accept that. How does that make a difference? Why does not God allow what is not bad in itself, but bad, anyway? (Although I have to say that pain and suffering seem to me bad in themselves, although they may have some good effects). The question is why God allows pain and suffering. (It is not the words that matter. It is what they refer to that matters. So, changing words makes no difference unless you are pointing to a difference in things). So, why does God allow pain and suffering, especially to innocents? Your turn.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;121932 wrote:

All right. I'll accept that. How does that make a difference? Why does not God allow what is not bad in itself, but bad, anyway? (Although I have to say that pain and suffering seem to me bad in themselves, although they may have some good effects). The question is why God allows pain and suffering. (It is not the words that matter. It is what they refer to that matters. So, changing words makes no difference unless you are pointing to a difference in things). So, why does God allow pain and suffering, especially to innocents? Your turn.

Well what is pain used for? pain is a means of letting us know when we are doing damage to ourselves. Pain is a necessary part of growth. This is why pain is not bad.....in fact one might say it's good if anything.

If we did not feel pain we would injure ourselves quite often to the point of irreparable damange

1 Reply

@Amperage,

Amperage;121933 wrote:

Well what is pain used for? pain is a means of letting us know when we are doing damage to ourselves. Pain is a necessary part of growth. This is why pain is not bad.....in fact one might say it's good if anything.

If we did not feel pain we would injure ourselves quite often to the point of irreparable damange

Yes. Pain has some extrinsic value, as you say. But in itself (intrinsically) pain is bad. So, the question is why when a child suffers from pain, God allows the child to suffer. Could God not prevent the pain of the child? If He could, then why does He not?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;121926 wrote:

No. That is not the question. The question is exactly as I worded it. Why does God allow bad things to happen to people? That might just be asking why God allows people to suffer from natural disasters, but not necessarily. The point is that nothing is changed or gained by limiting the term "evil" to moral and intentional evil, and refusing to call non-moral and non-intentional evil by the name, "evil". It is only a notational change. The question remains. God might have made a world in which there was no suffering, or a world in which there was less suffering, or even, no world at all. So, we return: why did God make a world at all, and why did God make a world with suffering and pain in it, and this amount of suffering in it? Consider: at least one innocent person died yesterday in Haiti. Could God have saved even that one innocent person? If the answer is, yes, then you have to ask, well, why didn't He, then? And, if the answer is, no, then you have to ask, how come?

Maybe god does not only allow evil he he activly premotes it because he is intrinsically evil himelf, how about that thought?

If God was all-powerful and all-loving, with free will yet perfectly good, God would create life with similar properties: with free will and perfectly good. Meaning that there would be no human-created evil, and no need for evil, suffering or death in the world in any way.

However, there is evil and death in very great quantities, therefore it holds that if the situation was created by a god, rather than natural forces, then such a god is not omnipotent and benevolent.

Given that such a god exists, it must be malevolent: An evil god, who created life for the sole purpose of watching life suffer. !!!!!!!!!!

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;121935 wrote:

Yes. Pain has some extrinsic value, as you say. But in itself (intrinsically) pain is bad. So, the question is why when a child suffers from pain, God allows the child to suffer. Could God not prevent the pain of the child? If He could, then why does He not?

I would say God allows the pain because of necessity. Also, I will point out that, no, pain is not intrinsically bad. Pain is intrinsically null/void at worst and good at best. When a lion kills and eats a zebra we do not say that the lion is evil or bad or any other negative connotation. There is no value to connotate to the situation at worst and it's a positive at best.

Not to mention that from our frame of reference we cannot know the scope of any given incident or situation. What may seem morally questionable in our frame of reference need not be so given a larger scope of the ramifications. (Think butterfly effect/chaos theory)

Here's a quote from another member of this site

Fil. Albuquerque;121461 wrote:

...Suffering have the purpose of creating the Illusion that everything we old dear can be lost, and in the Idea that it can be lost, We nurture the only reason to old them dear...:a-ok:

1 Reply

@Alan McDougall,

I offer that without Evil, God would not exist. Consciousness/Mind arose to designate the good and the evil, and it is this same capacity which conjures up a God.

0 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;121936 wrote:

Maybe god does not only allow evil he he activly premotes it because he is intrinsically evil himelf, how about that thought?

If God was all-powerful and all-loving, with free will yet perfectly good, God would create life with similar properties: with free will and perfectly good. Meaning that there would be no human-created evil, and no need for evil, suffering or death in the world in any way.

However, there is evil and death in very great quantities, therefore it holds that if the situation was created by a god, rather than natural forces, then such a god is not omnipotent and benevolent.

Given that such a god exists, it must be malevolent: An evil god, who created life for the sole purpose of watching life suffer. !!!!!!!!!!

Rightly so Alan, you cant have a god of contradictions. In my opinion if you want to believe in god he has to be logical. One of those three that describe this god has to be wrong. It might be how we describe god , or evil or that god is not as all powerful as we imagine. The question needs to be refined.

1 Reply

Why does God permit evil????

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know