Why does God permit evil????

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;122612 wrote:

...earthquakes cause great evils (look at television) and no one, including God, prevents them. It is just a fact.

Do earthquakes need a God to make them?

2 Replies

@QuinticNon,

QuinticNon;122613 wrote:

Do earthquakes need a God to make them?

No. ....................I don't think so. What has that to do with it?

0 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

earthquakes (cause) great evils (reaction)

Chaos allows cause and reaction. Thus Chaos is the cause for great evils. So either Chaos has a Mind, or Evil doesn't require a Mind, therefor becoming a fundamental property of the universe.

As I said, Matter is Entropy.

So to all, I think we have two different types of Evil here...

1 - Evil such as deception bringing benefit at the expense of another's pain and suffering. Requires sentience.

2 - Evil as manifest through natural causes that result in pain and suffering, with no inherent benefit to the natural causes that caused it. No sentience required, except for the sufferer.

Does this not require a qualifier question?

Is Evil Intended, or Is Evil Endured? Is it transmitted or received?

1 Reply

@QuinticNon,

QuinticNon;122620 wrote:

earthquakes (cause) great evils (reaction)

Chaos allows cause and reaction. Thus Chaos is the cause for great evils. So either Chaos has a Mind, or Evil doesn't require a Mind, therefor becoming a fundamental property of the universe.

As I said, Matter is Entropy.

So to all, I think we have two different types of Evil here...

1 - Evil such as deception bringing benefit at the expense of another's pain and suffering. Requires sentience.

2 - Evil as manifest through natural causes that result in pain and suffering, with no inherent benefit to the natural causes that caused it. No sentience required, except for the sufferer.

Does this not require a qualifier question?

Is Evil Intended, or Is Evil Endured? Is it transmitted or received?

Is this supposed to be a reply to my reply to your question about whether earthquakes need God to cause them? If it is, I don't see why it is.

0 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

In other words, is it mandate that Evil require sentient intentions, or is Evil only dependent on the one enduring pain and suffering?

Sentient Intentions, or Sentient Endurance?

---------- Post added 01-25-2010 at 07:57 PM ----------

kennethamy;122623 wrote:

Is this...a reply... about...cause? ...I don't see why it is.

I'm putting that aside for a moment to consider if we're even talking about the same Evil.

Is Evil Sentient Intended, or is Evil Sentient Endured? And why?

2 Replies

@QuinticNon,

QuinticNon;122624 wrote:

In other words, is it mandate that Evil require sentient intentions, or is Evil only dependent on the one enduring pain and suffering?

Sentient Intentions, or Sentient Endurance?

I don't think I understand your question, but since I think that most evil things involve suffering and pain, I think that most evil things require sentience. But, in any case, pain and suffering are evil things. (But, look, if you want the word, "evil", I'll make you a present of it. I'll just take the words, "pain" and "suffering". And now my question is why doesn't God prevent pain and suffering? Never mind "evil". It is all yours).

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;122627 wrote:

And now my question is why doesn't God prevent pain and suffering? Never mind "evil". It is all yours).

Because pain and suffering are not evil.

1 Reply

@QuinticNon,

QuinticNon;122624 wrote:

In other words, is it mandate that Evil require sentient intentions, or is Evil only dependent on the one enduring pain and suffering?

Sentient Intentions, or Sentient Endurance?

---------- Post added 01-25-2010 at 07:57 PM ----------

I'm putting that aside for a moment to consider if we're even talking about the same Evil.

Is Evil Sentient Intended, or is Evil Sentient Endured? And why?

Since we can never know a sentient beings intentions... we're just not alive long enough to be able to understand... Based on that Evil would be endured, we only ever experience the results never the intentions... (sry a bit repetitive).

If that is in fact the case... than "God" has no business in the question since it is our disillusioned minds that have created the idea in the first place. So does evil even exist outside of the human psyche? Is it just another way for us to rationalize difficult things that we have to endure? If that is the case then again, God has no place in the discussion...

1 Reply

@QuinticNon,

QuinticNon;122628 wrote:

Because pain and suffering are not evil.

O.K. I have already made you a present of the term, "evil". Enjoy it. Now for my question: why does not God prevent the pain and suffering of (say) an innocent child?

1 Reply

@maximaldc,

maximaldc;122630 wrote:

...God has no place in the discussion...

Precisely! This entire question is a Straw Man argument. It presupposes that God is needed to explain any of it. Take God out of the argument, and the only thing that would change is people asking this question. This very question depends upon the existence of a God to prop it up.

2 Replies

@QuinticNon,

QuinticNon;122634 wrote:

Precisely! This entire question is a Straw Man argument. It presupposes that God is needed to explain any of it. Take God out of the argument, and the only thing that would change is people asking this question. This very question depends upon the existence of a God to prop it up.

Well, I don't know about that. Innocents suffer every day (look at TV). God is supposed to be all powerful, and God is supposed to be all good and loving. So why doesn't God prevent the suffering of innocents? Has either of you a reply to that?

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;122632 wrote:

...why does not God prevent the pain and suffering of (say) an innocent child?

Oh dear friend there are so many reasons why. They hail from schools of ancient philosophy as well as world wide religious doctrines. The key is finding one of those many answers that you will accept. The answers will not make you accept the reasons, it can only offer reasons.

Reasons that I found somewhat lacking, and thus sending me to find my own reasons. The reasons I found beg us to define and agree upon what is a God, what is Evil, and even challenges notions of "permit" and "why". We've spent the past three pages just trying to isolate what Evil is... something we can agree upon in order to communicate better.

That's why my personal reasons for "why God" questions are modeled from Information Theory. I try to break God down to Truth... or Signal, Intentions... and then look at the whole Evil, Satan, Deception as forms of Information Entropy that prevents the Truth/God/Signal from being received.

The suffering child from Birth Defect is suffering a transcription error to her genetic code (Truth), because of Entropy (Evil) produced by heredity, alcohol, drugs, legacy disease mutations. These mutations are Noise on the Line preventing the correct mutations to manifest.

As to the suffering child at the hands of a Molester. It is the Molester that suffers first. The Molester is not getting the True signal from what his humanity was intended for. It has been compromised in some whay that Noise of Life (Entropy) has altered his essence as a person. Perhaps his Entropy comes in the form of his own child abuse, drugs, television, the occult, too much sugar... something, some Entropy is preventing the True/God/Info/Signal from being received.

The resulting suffering of the molested child is fallout from a previous sickness. We are wise to not let it become a further sickness by not addressing the first cause. As well, here is where an opportunity to "Do Good" in the face of Evil arises. That molested child is a child of True/God/Info/Signal... Would we not be "Doing Good" to acknowledge that signal, and in love, compassion and selflessness, recognizing that "Doing Good" means "Receiving Good" to the one it is "Done" to? To the degree that child endured the Evil (Entropy) of another, shall we not shower her with tenfold opportunities for us to do good and for her to know good (from many others) in a way she may never have realized. In a way that none of us could realize unless we had suffered the very tragedy that she endured.

And lastly, the biggest reason that God could allow the innocent child to suffer, is that perhaps he knows more about reality and what living is than we give him credit for. If indeed, it is an innocent child, where is that child more comforted, in the realm of chaos and flesh, or in the realm of eternal comfort and love?

There is a good argument to claim that this very physical realm is the actual hell of religious proportions. Shall you call it Evil if someone leaves it?

1 Reply

@QuinticNon,

QuinticNon;122613 wrote:

Do earthquakes need a God to make them?

If God created the world, and earthquakes are a feature of the world, then the answer is Yes.

0 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

If... and only if.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;122603 wrote:

You can, of course, assert whatever you like. But that assertion is simply false. People do assert that disease or starvation is evil, because they result in pain and suffering. Why should they not. Why cannot something be evil because it causes evil, whether or not it is intended?

Most sources that I have found have, as the first definition of "evil": "Morally objectionable behavior." or "Morally bad or wrong", or something similar. My assertion was regarding the definition of "evil". To apply the word "evil" to any event or force which causes suffering is to rob the word of the specificity of its meaning. We might as well be saying "un-cool", for the lack of clarity of definition that you are suggesting.

"Evil", even as it is being used in this thread, has a moral connotation. Many of the posts here have the underlying implication that God has committed an immoral act when He "causes or allows", say, an earthquake to occur. That implication is strengthened through the moral connotation of the word "evil" in this context. There is no such added conotation if we are talking about whether it is "just", or "loving", or (etc.) of God to "cause or allow" events that lead to pain and suffering. We might discuss whether one could consider God to have committed an evil act by causing or allowing a disaster to occur, but it is linguistically incorrect to broaden the term "evil" to include the pain and suffering itself.
(My personal belief is that God is the originating authority for determining whether an act is good or evil, but that is not germane to this post.)
I stand by what I said in my earlier post: pain, suffering, fear, and other such conditions may result from neutral events, such as an earthquake, or from a morally reprehensible action such as setting off a bomb, but the conditions themselves are not evil. Actions of beings which can distinguish right from wrong are evil if they cause such conditions.

1 Reply

@1CellOfMany,

1CellOfMany;122647 wrote:

Most sources that I have found have, as the first definition of "evil": "Morally objectionable behavior." or "Morally bad or wrong", or something similar. My assertion was regarding the definition of "evil". To apply the word "evil" to any event or force which causes suffering is to rob the word of the specificity of its meaning. We might as well be saying "un-cool", for the lack of clarity of definition that you are suggesting.

"Evil", even as it is being used in this thread, has a moral connotation. Many of the posts here have the underlying implication that God has committed an immoral act when He "causes or allows", say, an earthquake to occur. That implication is strengthened through the moral connotation of the word "evil" in this context. There is no such added conotation if we are talking about whether it is "just", or "loving", or (etc.) of God to "cause or allow" events that lead to pain and suffering. We might discuss whether one could consider God to have committed an evil act by causing or allowing a disaster to occur, but it is linguistically incorrect to broaden the term "evil" to include the pain and suffering itself.
(My personal belief is that God is the originating authority for determining whether an act is good or evil, but that is not germane to this post.)
I stand by what I said in my earlier post: pain, suffering, fear, and other such conditions may result from neutral events, such as an earthquake, or from a morally reprehensible action such as setting off a bomb, but the conditions themselves are not evil. Actions of beings which can distinguish right from wrong are evil if they cause such conditions.

I agree. I define evil an an objectively morally unjustifiable desire or intent. I add in the term objectively, to which I anchor God as the source of objective morality, to remove from the definition of evil any subjective ability to construe what is right and what is wrong.

Consider this....someone can desire to do evil but they have no control over how the other person will perceive it.....You can say something mean and they may not notice and take it as a compliment...you may hit someone and they will derive pleasure from it(masochist). The bottom line is someone can desire to do evil but has no control over the other persons perception of pain or suffering

0 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

kennethamy surrendered the term Evil a few posts back. I think we're all in agreement that pain and suffering are not equatable or synonymous with Evil.

1 Reply

@QuinticNon,

QuinticNon;122641 wrote:

That's why my personal reasons for "why God" questions are modeled from Information Theory. I try to break God down to Truth... or Signal, Intentions... and then look at the whole Evil, Satan, Deception as forms of Information Entropy that prevents the Truth/God/Signal from being received.

As to the suffering child at the hands of a Molester. It is the Molester that suffers first. The Molester is not getting the True signal from what his humanity was intended for. It has been compromised in some way that Noise of Life (Entropy) has altered his essence as a person. Perhaps his Entropy comes in the form of his own child abuse, drugs, television, the occult, too much sugar... something, some Entropy is preventing the True/God/Info/Signal from being received.

This "signal vs. noise" or "order vs. entropy" theory of the nature and origin of good and evil is very interesting. I wonder how long you have been applying it and how useful it has been for your own understanding.

The information theory seems to echo one of my favorite quotes from The Hidden Words of Baha'u'llah: "O SON OF BEING! Love Me, that I may love thee. If thou lovest Me not, My love can in no wise reach thee. Know this, O servant."
To me this quote implies that we need to choose (perhaps even from moment to moment) to receive the signal. The carrier of that signal is God's Love. God's guidance, support, inspiration, detachment from this world, preparation for the next world, and all else that He provides when we chose to love Him is the signal itself.

0 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

Which of course explains the paradox of why God could allow pain and suffering... because they are not inherently Evil and have the capacity to also lead to Good.

I propose this question as a straw man setting up God as the only leg that can prop it up in the first place. We don't need God to ask why Evil exists. This question eats itself and all who pursue it.

---------- Post added 01-25-2010 at 10:29 PM ----------

1CellOfMany;122651 wrote:

This "signal vs. noise" or "order vs. entropy" theory of the nature and origin of good and evil is very interesting. I wonder how long you have been applying it and how useful it has been for your own understanding.

Over seven years now, I've applied Information Theory to every question of existence and God there is.

It's helped understanding of many things. It explains everything to my satisfaction. It's all about entropy and separating the medium from the message. Good and Evil... it's simple.

It leads to support for any religion based upon principles of The Word or The Way and confirms that not only Life itself must be authored, but we continue to author beyond our initial programming. We are the A.I.

Information Theory has also unwittingly unveiled common scientific support for mysticism and folklore, for some believe that Information is everywhere... when in fact it is not (at least it cannot be proven). Yet when mathematicians and cosmologists claim the "Laws of the Universe" as somehow being "given" to us by the cosmos, they also lend credence to ideas of talking trees, clever clouds and burning bushes that give instructions to birth a violent nation.

1CellOfMany;122651 wrote:

The information theory seems to echo one of my favorite quotes from The Hidden Words of Baha'u'llah: "O SON OF BEING! Love Me, that I may love thee. If thou lovest Me not, My love can in no wise reach thee. Know this, O servant."

Before reading your meaning, I'll present mine... Love (to give of oneself to another) can take the form of Transmitting and Receiving. A communication protocol has been established and it depends upon two sentient entities "giving themselves" to one another... they offer Love to one another.

Beyond that offering, the Truth may be Transmitted and Received. It is only Entropy that may prevent that. Entropy in the form of a loud bus driving by, or Entropy from a jaded and judgmental heart. Yes, the Ego is a form of Entropy that can affect the pure communication protocols established in Love.

1CellOfMany;122651 wrote:

To me this quote implies that we need to choose (perhaps even from moment to moment) to receive the signal. The carrier of that signal is God's Love. God's guidance, support, inspiration, detachment from this world, preparation for the next world, and all else that He provides when we chose to love Him is the signal itself.

Understood and that's very hard to disagree with. There is nothing to disagree with there... but there is more there, than meets the eye.

Choosing "to receive the signal" requires some special equipment. We need a communication protocol, a language, a message, a receiver, error correction, redundancy... not to mention the required transmitter.

"The carrier of that signal is God's Love". Well, that's a nice thought, and it very well could be true, but signals are only known to exist by the presence of a physical medium to express them upon. Aside from code, I know of no other physical medium to express thoughtful intentions. Basically, if there is no code, there cannot be a signal expressed to humans. And where there be code, there be the thoughtful intentions of an author.

Yes, DNA is a code. And again yes, all codes have sentient authors. There is much to benefit by practicing the interdisciplinary applications of Information Theory upon many branches of science. It reveals the dogma of science in the process.

0 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

I don't believe God is a friendly Santa. Humankind has it's own responsability on Earth, we have to learn from our mistakes. Last month a Japanese businessman died of old age, after surviving both atomic-bomb attacks. I think developing such weapons is pure evil.

1 Reply

Why does God permit evil????

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know