Why does God permit evil????

Well, this is just verbal. If you think that evil is only done by people, it doesn't matter. We'll just distinguish between Evil(1) and Evil(2). Evil(1) is intentional evil, and Evil(2) is just very bad things that happen to people and animals. All right? But there is a lot of Evil(2). Right?

I have to disagree. Evil is an ethical term which implies intent. An earth quake is not evil. It is merely unfortunate for some people.

To apply the term evil is to modify the definition of the term itself. And even then, it could be said that it is not evil if someone dies in an earthquake because they chose to be there. therefore, it was their fault for living or being in a place where an earthquake is possible. Again, implying freewill is the culprit and not God

Aren't there a lot of bad things that happen to people and animals? In particular innocent people and animals? You think it is the fault of people who live in an earthquake zone like San Francisco? What about living in an earthquake zone no one knows is an earthquake zone? And how about little children who live in an earthquake zone? Their death is their fault. Or how about little children who contract cancer? Is that also their fault?

See, this is where we find conflict.

I do not associate blame with this sort of thing. Blame is superfluous and a human adaptation of purpose. Truly, it has no place in something like a natural disaster.

If you want to break it down into blame then yes, I can say it IS their fault for taking the risk of living. The only way to avoid blame is to not exists.

Bad things, again, imply purpose or intent. Unfortunate is not the same as bad.

It was you who talked about fault, and therefore blame. You said that it was the fault of people who lived in earthquake zones that they were killed. But how could it be the fault of little children who did not choose to live anywhere? And, how could it be the fault of people who did not know they were living in earthquake zones? Are you serious about the risk of living? So, that means that if you get cancer tomorrow it is your fault for taking the risk of living?

If an earthquake killed a few dozen cockroaches and millions of archaic microbials before we ever came along, is this evil?

What would make you think this, even if there is a God?

I have just had a awfully evil fart, well my wife tells me its evil. I cant believe im debating earthquakes as evil..

Bad things, again, imply purpose or intent.

What does evil refer to? It refers to physical pain, and mental suffering. Though a great deal of pain and suffering are caused by the human capacity for moral wickedness, a great deal more is caused by natural disasters.

Rather than describe God as benevolent, I think the point is better made when God is defined as morally perfect. Is it morally perfect of God to create a world where thousands upon thousands of people die as a result of famine, drought, earthquakes, the list goes on etc, if God had the power and the knowledge to prevent such? The fact that there is evil in the world logically precludes the claim that God is omni-everything, because logically God could have prevented it.

If your willing to make a case for mitochondria, bacteria and what not so be it. But as I have defined evil, your reductio to the absurd doesn't follow.

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's positio

If God created the world and God is omni everything, then God intended to create the best of all possible worlds. The fact theists claim that universe is itself is telelogically ordered by God's will alone, implies God is intentionally responsible for how the universe functions. Is God's intentional ordering of the universe and the evil that is a function of that order, not morally wicked by your reasoning?

Rather than describe God as benevolent, I think the point is better made when God is defined as morally perfect.

Is it morally perfect of God to create a world where thousands upon thousands of people die as a result of famine, drought, earthquakes, the list goes on etc, if God had the power and the knowledge to prevent such?

What does evil refer to? It refers to physical pain, and mental suffering. Though a great deal of pain and suffering are caused by the human capacity for moral wickedness, a great deal more is caused by natural disasters.

Not convinced this is the best of all possible worlds? Leibniz seemed to think so, since God is omni everything, and if God is a logical being, then it would be rational to do so. Hence the problem of evil.

Read my posts more carefully

What I am saying is that I do not associate blame. At all. We all make choices and they set forth a chain of events. Cause and effect.

What I was saying is that IF you wanted to associate blame then it was their own fault.

If I got cancer tomorrow, it is likely going to be attributed to something I ate or smoked or drank or my lifestyle or the place I live, the air I breathe or one of a million other factors. I could blame God but what good would it do? That is incredibly inefficient.

It is true, the only way to be sure about the events of your life is to stop living it.

Again, evil is not pain and suffering. These things are not evil but unfortunate. However, without these then free will would be meaningless. If nothing we ever chose to do resulted in negative consequences, there would nothing for us to choose from. The fact that negative consequences CAN and DO occur is what qualifies free will.

Again, you are assuming knowledge of God as well as knowledge of the order of the universe. unless you can substantiate this claim, I am going to have to call you out as assuming knowledge.

A being which exists outside of time cannot be held to our understanding of nature. Especially human nature.

Unfortunate? I disagree. Read the Bible again, it is loaded with the stark realism of evil. How else is evil described other than physical pain and mental suffering? If these things are merely unfortunate, and God created the world in an intentional manner with the power to do otherwise, I have even less reason now to believe such an entity exists.

But then you say without physical pain and mental suffering free will would be meaningless. So on that account, physical pain and mental suffering is a necessary criterion for defining our moral standards, and in the case, the condition of evil. And if there is such a criterion, we can obstensively define evil as physical pain and mental suffering. So it seems to me you have only re affirmed what I have been saying all along.



Straw man. I'm not assuming the universe is ordered, I think it just is. It's theists whom assume the universe is ordered as created by God. Would it be logical to create a universe that was completely random with no regularity whatsoever? According to the principle of parsimony, wouldn't God do what is the most simple and best thing to do?

If the universe is unordered, that is, it simply just is, then the obvious conclusion is that we have no reason to believe that God created the universe in the first place. For if there is no reduction to a first cause, then we have absolutely no reason to believe that first cause is God. Thus the problem of evil is a non-starter since we need not worry about attributing evil in the world to God. How would you address that?

Why do you assume God has anything to do with morals at all - that is, why do you think he's morally X, or not morally X? Isn't it possible that God does not 'look out the same window' as we humans do and transcends the concept of morality? Perhaps morality and the whole spectrum of good and evil have never had anything to do with God.

See, this is one of my main concerns, and I see this quite often. You only mention "people" here, which, I'm assuming, you mean by this humans. Never do you mention any other specie, creature, microbial or insect. Why? Why are humans so special that only the death of them would be considered evil by God?

Evil refers to moral wickedness. Today I scraped my knee while playing basketball, and there was mental and physical pain involved. This is evil? I have to agree with xris and Icon that we're abusing the word here. Clearly not all pain is evil. Some pain has absolutely nothing to do with evil.

What other worlds are there? Are you referring to the multiverse theory which is, I believe, tied into string theory?

The problem of evil is contrived, like most problems are. The argument assumes God is "perfectly good" but I don't even know what that means. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "logical". What does logic have to do with good or evil?

Lastly, not everyone has the same notion of God, and there are many notions which do not flirt with these "omni-" properties. "God" would have to be clarified for any meaningful discussion to arise. I've been using the term here because I think I have a grasp on what you mean by it, but really, I'd need further clarification to continue speaking about "God" with you.

The problem of evil is contrived, like most problems are. The argument assumes God is "perfectly good" but I don't even know what that means. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "logical". What does logic have to do with good or evil?

.

The fact still is that if you get cancer it is not something that is intentional. And that is the point. You did not intend to get cancer, and you did not get it by anyone intentionally giving it to you. And even if it was caused by your smoking, that does not mean that it was intentional that you contracted cancer. You intentionally smoked, but that does not mean that you intentionally contracted cancer. And, if you intentionally live in an earthquake zone, that does not mean that you intentionally were killed by an earthquake. Nevertheless, it was a very bad thing that you contracted cancer. I suppose you agree with this. Now, one meaning of evil is, "a very bad thing". And since a very bad thing happened to you when you got cancer, something evil happened to you when you got cancer. The rest, about being sure, and so on, is irrelevant.

Unfortunate? I disagree. Read the Bible again, it is loaded with the stark realism of evil. How else is evil described other than physical pain and mental suffering? If these things are merely unfortunate, and God created the world in an intentional manner with the power to do otherwise, I have even less reason now to believe such an entity exists.

But then you say without physical pain and mental suffering free will would be meaningless. So on that account, physical pain and mental suffering is a necessary criterion for defining our moral standards, and in the case, the condition of evil. And if there is such a criterion, we can obstensively define evil as physical pain and mental suffering. So it seems to me you have only re affirmed what I have been saying all along.

Straw man. I'm not assuming the universe is ordered, I think it just is. It's theists whom assume the universe is ordered as created by God. Would it be logical to create a universe that was completely random with no regularity whatsoever? According to the principle of parsimony, wouldn't God do what is the most simple and best thing to do?

If the universe is unordered, that is, it simply just is, then the obvious conclusion is that we have no reason to believe that God created the universe in the first place. For if there is no reduction to a first cause, then we have absolutely no reason to believe that first cause is God. Thus the problem of evil is a non-starter since we need not worry about attributing evil in the world to God. How would you address that?

I do not agree with that. I knew the risks while I smoked. Therefore I did it to myself. It is not a very bad thing. It is a consequence of an action; and effect of a cause.

And what does moral wickedness refer to? There is a substantive moral difference between you scraping your knee and a family of deer burning alive in a forest.

This is not an empirical question, it is a logical claim. We are referring to this world as logically God's best creation. If another possible world existed that was better than this one, (say no natural disasters), then we would not inhabit the best possible world. Logically, this is a contradiction with God's power.

Sure enough. This argument is based on the traditional JCI definition of God of being infinitely perfect in all ways.

Problem of evil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But you did not intentionally contract cancer, did you? And cancer is a bad thing however it is caused. Don't you agree?

Yes, I'm aware of it, but it makes no sense to me. I have no clue what "perfectly good" means, and thus have no clue what the first premise refers to. "Perfectly good" is a bit vague, no? Seems to me it could be up for interpretation.

No. I do not agree that Cancer is a "bad" thing. I think it is an unfortunate thing. Though I did not intentionally contract it, I knew that the risk was there and took the action anyway. This is the exact same thing, from a fault stand point, as intentionally causing it to myself. I knew it could happen, I did it anyway. If the possible result occurs, fault falls on me for taking the action.

Good and bad do not come into the picture. Simply cause and effect.

What does how cancer was contracted have to do with the fact that it causes suffering and death? You don't think that a painful death is a bad thing?
Even if you intentionally gouge out your eyes, that does not mean that it isn't a bad thing for a person's eyes to be gouged out. Where did you get that idea?

Why not just take it at face-value as meaning that God would never do evil, and would prevent all evil if He could?

It is a problem that Job wrestles with in the Bible. That John Milton wrote Paradise Lost to deal with. And that Dostoyevski wrestles with in his, The Brothers Karamazov.