Why does God permit evil????

You are placing human values to these stories. This god , the question describes, is all powerful, he can do anything he wishes. You continue to place lesser values to his supreme power. If you wish to make him less than all powerful, I will comprehend your inadequate god. Will you lessen his ability on everything else or will you return him his all powerful ability, when it suits your argument. Did he decide our purpose ? our evil intention? our fallability? our weaknesses ? Did he create imperfection and then by degrees, by trial and error, attempt to create perfection...Just a bit bazaar for an all powerful god. Maintain this all powerful god by all means but dont describe him as something less than powerful. HIS NOT LOGICAL.

God is all powerful. But he is all-good, too. And He is inclined to make this the best of all possible worlds. Is the best of all possible worlds a world that contains no evil? But what if a world which contains no evil contains less good than a world that contains evil in it? For instance, a world that contains charity for the victims of the Haiti earthquake must contain victims of the Haiti earthquake. So. should God choose a world that contains charity for the victims of the earthquake; or choose a world that does not contain the victims of the earthquake, but does not contain charity for the victims of the Haiti earthquake? Have you a reply? (Remember, no victims, no charity for the victims).

You are not an all powerful parent let alone a god. If you had that ability you would been able to secure him that knowledge without his pain.

Not if the pain is part and parcel to the knowledge. It's not the same knowledge, one with pain and the other without. Shall I not let him be free to learn for himself?

Anything less is programming. Shall I program my son to be the way I want him to be? Is that a son? Or is that a robot that I programmed?

We are not robots. We have the right to learn from our mistakes and use that knowledge to improve ourselves for whatever desires we express. What robot can express himself with the programming of another? We are alive. Robots are not.

...what purpose do we serve. ITS NOT LOGICAL.

For you to have your charity, a child must die alone, crying with no hope of rescue. A mother must weep and live in desperate despair of her child's suffering. I give you a choice that childs suffering, that mothers grief or your wonderful act of charity? You dont need to kill a little child to know I would give my shekels, would you give your life for that child? I find the argument just a little sickening.

For instance, a world that contains charity for the victims of the Haiti earthquake must contain victims of the Haiti earthquake. So. should God choose a world that contains charity for the victims of the earthquake; or choose a world that does not contain the victims of the earthquake, but does not contain charity for the victims of the Haiti earthquake? Have you a reply? (Remember, no victims, no charity for the victims).

We serve the purpose of a being that we could not possibly understand the purpose of.

For decades, I have been attempting to teach my dog why I tie my shoe. He's an old dog now, and soon to die I'm sure. But on the day of his death, he will have no more greater understanding of why I tie my shoe than the day he was born. He simply doesn't have the capacity to understand my answer, even if he is smart enough to wonder about the question.

What will the gnat say to the sound of a thousand singing strings?

It can't be that simple. Otherwise, the more earthquakes there are, the more charity, without limit. If there were such a direct relationship, then this could not logically be the best possible world, since one could imagine a world with even more disasters, and hence more charity.

If all the existing evil produces good, one needs to ask why more of the same evil would not produce more of the same good.

It can't be that simple. Otherwise, the more earthquakes there are, the more charity, without limit. If there were such a direct relationship, then this could not logically be the best possible world, since one could imagine a world with even more disasters, and hence more charity.

If all the existing evil produces good, one needs to ask why more of the same evil would not produce more of the same good.

If all the existing evil produces good, one needs to ask why more of the same evil would not produce more of the same good.

I don't know what you are driving at, but the fact is that unless there is suffering, there can be no sympathy for suffering. That is a matter of logic. Now you may choose not to have the suffering nor the sympathy. But then, of course, you are not omniscient. But one thing neither you nor God can do is to have the sympathy for suffering, but not have the suffering.

Arr we have it last , the last resort of the faithful, the answer that has no reasoning but in blind faith..We poor mortals can not understand gods mind, his beyond our comprehension, im too thick to understand...is that the best you can do ? compare me with your ignorant dog? Be off with you...you have relinquished your right to debate..

---------- Post added 01-24-2010 at 04:57 PM ----------

Rightly so and I wonder why he chooses the same poor fools to encourage our generosity.

It's called Boundary. There are boundaries present between emotions. "More of the same good" as you call it, might take the essence of charity to its limits, shifting it suddenly to the essence of jubilation.

Human emotion must have limits and boundaries to even exist. It's what allows tautology of emotion to build and evolve from fancied to affectionate, to adoration and onward to love... perhaps to lust, then betrayal, and revengeful then deceptive.

...is that the best you can do ? compare me with your ignorant dog? Be off with you...you have relinquished your right to debate..

You may have read some of my posts, since I pointed out over and over again that whether the good compensates for the evil necessary for the good is, indeed, a matter of faith. All the mortal can see is that the evil can be logically necessary.

Rhetoric , when all else fails. You express your blind faith and I will deny an ignorant faith for its arrogant stupidity.

The alternative is for you to "compare" yourself to God. Which is the greater ignorance?

Well if you can logically believe that suffering equals belief in god, .

Who is the mortal man waiving "arrogant stupidity" to suppose he knows the mind of a God?