Why does God permit evil????

Fire engines are not red. What color do you think they are. Why can't a fire engine be a case of something red without being essentially red? Why do you think that when I say that something is red, I am saying that it is synonymous with red, and not that it is a case of a red thing. "Is" has other meanings than "identical with". Where on Earth did you get this "purity of the immaterial realm" from?

Sin? Uh, the sin of man did not exist until Eve tasted the fruit. She expressed her Free Will. She disobeyed God. What Puppet disobeys its Puppet Master?

---------- Post added 01-30-2010 at 03:26 PM ----------



Color can be Red. FE are FE. FE can be mixed with Color, but FE is not Color.



Because that's the world we live in. FE do not require Color to be FE. Color does not require FE to be Color. Mixing them doesn't change that.



I understand what you mean. I do really. But your wording (as is common unto all people) does seem to suggest that Red and FE are synonymous, OR, that FE requires Red to be FE, OR that Red requires FE to be Red... none of which are true.



Sure, "is" can also imply that two agents have been mixed together, creating an entirely new agent... Thus Yellow FE are different than Red FE... and this all depends upon Red being Red and only Red, Yellow being Yellow and only Yellow, and FE being FE and only FE.



Are we not discussing an all powerful Perfect Being that dwells in a Pure realm? Is not that realm an Immaterial realm? Did I not make a case that God created a separate imperfect (impure) realm to allow imperfect (impure) entities to exist? Did I not claim that as the Big Bang... the birth of the Physical realm of energy and matter... where EVERYTHING is an impure mixture of EVERYTHING else? Did I not note this Material realm as Entropy... Noise? Did I not equate that with Evil?

But Entropy itself is not Evil. Evil is the belief that Entropy has any meaning whatsoever beyond what Humans assign to it.

Pain/Suffering can be a source of greater good, I'm in agreement with that. And it is indeed perfectly reasonable to deny that a perfectly good God would desire to eliminate all suffering. Still how can this explain the amount of suffering in the world and the fact that in many cases this pain/suffering does not seem to produce a greater good (e.g. seem to be gratuitous suffering)? How can free will or God acting for a greater good explain the death of newborn babies/very good people due to deadly viruses, cancer and many other types of natural disasters? The answer it's not at all obvious, if a God does exist he acts in ways which we cannot really understand.
　
　


The incompatibilist interpretation of free will has many conceptual problems, the most important for this subject being of how could God create 'Agents who would thus be capable of making their own "plans"', the incompatibilist free will rather suggest that the roots of consciousness are completely separated from God.

I don't find my wording misleading. Butter is yellow (But butter is not the same as yellow). Jon is intelligent. But Jon is not the same as intelligent. Lions are ferocious, but lions are not the same of ferocious. No one is misled except, it seems, for you. And event if it were misleading (because someone mistook the 'is' of identity for the 'is' of predication. so what? That does not erase the distinction between them just because someone is confused.

First off, if you are granting a perfectly good God then the answer would seem self evident in that a perfectly good God would only allow that which was unavoidable towards His ends.

Second, we are in no position to give a reasonable answer for this. However, simply because we cannot see the explanation does not mean that one does not exist. Consider this quote:

What this illustrates is that, while we may not be privy to the long term effects of any individual circumstance or action, there are unseen effects nonetheless. So to presume that there is no purpose for the death of a newborn is to presume something which cannot possibly be known. The effects of such events may not be felt in time for hundreds of years for all we know. May I also remind you that since we are granting a tri-omni God to begin with we can safely assume that what is eternal is more than likely the overriding concern vs. corporeal needs.

Agreed. I'm just making note of the distinction.

---------- Post added 01-30-2010 at 11:28 PM ----------



Very nice.



Why "all"? Why not any? If in fact P&S can lead to any type of goodness, why then would a "perfectly good God" deny Humans of any goodness by relieving any suffering whatsoever? Doing so would deny Humans of the small shred of goodness that may have arisen because of P&S.

Could it be that P&S are not related to Goodness or Evil in any way? P&S may be unfortunate. They may be horrible and unwanted? but other than Man's subjectivity, what relates them to Evil or Goodness?

Traditionally, this argument is directed at the Christian religion. Yet that religion clearly allows God's own Son to know suffering as well. That God did not relieve the P&S of his tortured Son, nor did he relieve every P&S of the enslaved Israelites. Christ's disciples also endured P&S.



Your statement reveals your predilection that P&S are in some way mandatory for Good & Evil to manifest. Revealed in your comment:
"?in many cases this pain/suffering does not seem to produce a greater good?" as if P&S is a machine that produces Good or Evil.

Please rethink notions of Good and Evil. Neither are necessary byproducts of P&S. I can commit either Good or Evil merely with a thought from my mind. And my thoughts do not require anyone to endure P&S. Left as thought alone, at most, Good Thoughts benefit the thinker only. Evil Thoughts are detrimental only to the one who Thinks them. No P&S nor Tragedy required for Good and Evil to exist. Good and Evil are nothing more than Thoughts from a Mind.

Pain and Suffering are unrelated to Good and Evil. We are wrong to conflate them as interdependent.



On the surface, it doesn't. That's why I'm glad you said:



It may not be obvious, but it doesn't mean we can't understand. I have previously explained in great detail how this can be so?

From the Judeo/Christian perspective of the Bible (which is what we typically associate this paradox with), and with the Science of Information Theory.

I wish I could shorten this, but it is much too deep and involved to be brushed over quickly? so? again?

A Perfect Being can allow Imperfection to exist. This may in fact be a unique qualifier to be called a Perfect Being. But that does not suppose that a Perfect Being will allow Imperfection to exist within a Perfect Realm. Otherwise, it would no longer be a Perfect Realm. A Perfect Realm is Pure. It cannot be tainted with Imperfection.

God created Lucifer and all Angels in the Perfect Realm of Heaven. Though created by God, they were still Imperfect. God did not create them as other Gods. He created them as Angels, and as Angels, they were created as Perfect Angelic Beings. A Perfect Angelic Being is created with the capacity for Free Will, and Lucifer was created with that capacity. Lucifer rebelled by embracing Pride (an expression of free will). A Perfect Creation does not necessarily have the power or omnipotence of a Perfect Being. Perfection has nothing to do with Power.

God could have killed Lucifer right then, but he did not. Supposedly, God kicked Lucifer out of Heaven? But where to kick him out to?

______________________________________

The Big Bang was the creation of the Material Realm of Energy and Matter. A Perfect Creation to house a Perfect Fallen Angel. We have no evidence of any Materialism existing before the Big Bang. We have no evidence of any Space or Time existing before the Big Bang. Thus, only the Perfect Immaterial Realm sans Energy, Matter, Space and Time existed before the Big Bang. This is why I consider all Energy, Matter, Space and Time as Entropy working against a Perfect Immaterial Realm.

The Big Bang was the very creation of the Material Realm that allowed Lucifer to have a "Place" to be kicked out to. Lucifer lives, but he does not live in God's Perfect Realm of Heaven. Do we dare suggest that the Material Realm is within the Immaterial Realm of Heaven, like a Room is within a House? Perhaps that can suffice as an analogy, but I do not personally believe that an Immaterial Realm fits common notions of within or without.

But Lucifer is stuck. In his new realm of physical energy/matter (Chaos), he still has no vehicle to express himself and thereby exercise his free will of Pride. What existence is that? None at all? Chaos was created as the realm for Lucifer to exist. The Properties of Chaos suggest that "Anything Goes". But Lucifer is not a physical Being. He is a non-Physical Being that was excommunicated into a Physical Realm. How may he express himself?

Therefore God, for the Greater Good of Lucifer, created a caveat? That caveat was physical life. Physical Life is the only tool Lucifer has to express himself. Yes, I know it sounds preposterous, but Physical Life was created as a tool for the Greater Good of Lucifer. He has his own realm. He does not taint the purity of the Immaterial Realm. And he has the vehicle of Physical Life for expressing himself. The creation of a Material Realm is the Perfect solution from a Perfect Being for the Greater Good of a Perfect Fallen Angel.

Stick with me because here is where it gets interesting?

Information is the only thing that separates Physical Life from mere Energy and Matter. Information is what makes a Lion a Lion and not a rock. Information is the common principle to all Physical Life. No Information = No Life.

Information is Immaterial? and thus, a product from the Immaterial Realm. Yes, Mankind is a hybrid Life Form, consisting of Energy, Matter, and Information. Yes, we are conceive in an Immaterial Realm yet we physically exist in a Material Realm. Information is always a thought from a mind. It has no physical form. Yet we know it exists. How then can we know of the existence of Information?

Answer: CODE (Language)

Language is a physical tool. It is Material. We use that Material Tool to express Immaterial Information. Code is the Medium. Information is the Message. They are not the same things. One can only express the other. The Medium is NEVER the Message. Believing otherwise is believing that Entropy has something to say. That belief is pure Evil.

As I said, Language is a Material Tool we use to express Immaterial Information. God and Lucifer are Immaterial Beings. I suggest they are beings of Pure Information. Humans use Language to express BOTH God and Lucifer into the Material Realm. Thus, Humans are the mechanism allowing an Immaterial Lucifer to be expressed into the Material Realm that was created for him.

THIS allows your question to be answered? Your question requesting an explanation why "the death of newborn babies/very good people due to deadly viruses, cancer and many other types of natural disasters"? is found at the event of the Biblical Fall of Adam and Eve.

We find ourselves at the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. God warned against tasting that fruit? "For surely you will Die"?

Genesis 2:17
"but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

Fair Warning to Adam?

This knowledge, the Knowledge of Good and Evil, is also the knowledge of Shame. For after Adam was warned, God created Eve as his companion. They were naked and not ashamed.

Genesis 2:25
"And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed."

Eve also knew of the Forbidden fruit. For as she spoke with Lucifer, she told him of God's warning.

Genesis 3:3
"but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said: Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."

God was speaking of Physical Death. Yet Lucifer also had something to say about it?

Genesis 3:4
"And the serpent said unto the woman: 'Ye shall not surely die;"

Lucifer was speaking of Spiritual Death.

Genesis 3:5
"for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil."

Lucifer was tempting Eve with the very same Evil that Lucifer created. That Evil being? to "be as God"? Pride.

Genesis 3:6
"And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat?"

Good? Food? Wise? Get it? Knowledge of Good and Evil is Wisdom Food. With Wisdom comes Knowledge of DEATH. My dog has no Wisdom of Death. He doesn't know he can die. But Humans now know they can die.

Genesis 3:7
"And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig-leaves together, and made themselves girdles."

Thus with Knowledge of Good and Evil came knowledge of Shame. Why not? It makes perfect sense. Since Evil was created in the Pride of Satan, and Pride is the antonym of Shame, then obviously Adam and Eve were both knowledgeable of Shame as well.

Pride and Shame are the stepchildren of Lucifer's creation of Evil.

But isn't it interesting that Knowledge is synonymous with Information. As I said, God and Lucifer are Beings of Information. This Knowledge IS a direct union with the Information Beings of God and Lucifer.

knowl?edge n
1. general awareness or possession of INFORMATION?
2. clear awareness or explicit INFORMATION?
3. all the INFORMATION?

Encarta? World English Dictionary ? 1999

Thus, the Greater Good (to this point) is that Humans KNOW the essence of both God and Lucifer. An infusion of essence has taken place, and we Humans are fused into union with both God and Lucifer.

I believe that historically, the Fall in the Garden of Eden is the very moment when Written Language was invented. The birth of Dualism. The very moment when Image/Object relationships were discovered. It is a defacto inheritance from the Physical Realm of Energy and Matter. Since Information is Immaterial, and can only be expressed into our Material Realm upon a Code, and Code is a Material Object, then Knowledge of Good and Evil must be the byproduct of the invention of Written Language.

Yes, tasting the Fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is nothing more than the invention of Written Language. Funny how they both supposedly occurred around 6,500 years ago. Before that was only Spoken Language. No Image is created with Spoken Language.

Genesis 3:22
"And the LORD God said: 'Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever."

God is speaking to Lucifer about another Tree in the Garden. The Tree of Life. Telling him that unless we Humans put fourth our hand (unless we reach for it) and eat of it, then we cannot live for ever. God is obviously speaking of Spiritual Life.

The Knowledge of Good and Evil is Knowledge of "the death of newborn babies/very good people due to deadly viruses, cancer and many other types of natural disasters". My dog doesn't have this Knowledge. To him, my dog, these things don't even exist.

But as you say: "The answer it's not at all obvious?"



Correct. First being that Incompatibilist suggest that our world is a simple byproduct of the Determinism of Chaos? simple cause and reaction. They do not allow for Chaotic Determinism to be the product of Creation. They see no difference between Cause/Reaction and Thought/Action. Unfortunate, for it should be obvious that anything with a Code was Authored and that anything Authored needs a sentient Being to Author it. They see no difference between a rock and a Man. Man can Author. They also disregard the Genetic Code of DNA as anything noteworthy.

Our Physical Realm is indeed one of Chaotic Determinism. But that great PinBall Machine was created by an Author to be that way. And proof of such is a small quantity of Sentient Authored Information induced upon our physical realm to create Life. Chaotic Determinism cannot author code. Only sentient Authors can author code. Thus DNA is proof of a sentient Author.

Chaos and Thought are quite Compatible. But they are absolutely in no way the same. Thought/Action is not reducible to Cause/Reaction.

Actually what it points out clearly is that you get the same results if no god exists. Bad things happen, without a rescue attempt because there is no being there to do any of the rescuing.

Let's put it this way. If you are standing next to a lake, watching a person drowning, are you just going to stand there and do nothing? If you do nothing and they drown, what does that make you? A benevolent person? No. So the only way that god could be considered benevolent is that god has no idea what is going on. If god chooses to do nothing about suffering then god can not be benevolent.

But you are not arguing for a benevolent god. You say that god is both the rewarder and punisher and sometimes unjustifyer. Meaning sometimes bad things happen for no good reason. If there is a plan behind it, then it is a very convoluted plan that lacks consistency. So that can't be the case either. However; going back to your firmly held thought.

You have the same result without a god, that you are protesting that god's behavior is. Chaos, no consistency, strange things happen and it is as if no one is paying any attention.

I made the same point earlier. That's why we can attribute Evil to Mankind alone and not hold God responsible for creating it or interfering with our free will to express it.

Your notation is exactly the reason why I claim this OP as a strawman question setting God up as the presupposed landlord over our free will. Take God out of the Q and the Q falls on its face.

The real question should be... "Why does Evil exist?" or "Why does Man permit evil???"

It has nothing to do with God except for his graciousness allowing us to express ourselves... even if that expression is Evil.

It was merely an illustration about the presumptuous nature of claiming to know the real meaning behind events/the end-all-be-all effects of an event which we clearly cannot. So going back to my "firmly held thought", where did I say this was how God operates(chaos)? The point was to show that what may seem innocuous or insignificant need not be. There is a reason for everything.
So please read carefully before presuming things about my argument which I do not claim.

I can only go on in information in front of me so I'd try to help. However, God does not reason like men, He thinks of eternity. Taking all of eternity into consideration would obviously hold some weight. There may be reasons beyond my understanding or beyond my scope of reference which God takes into account. So for anyone to throw a scenario where I have to save someone and then for them to try and create a corollary to God and the world is just fallacious. You are once again making a presumption to know the purpose for something which you clearly can not know.

Oh but I am. God is all-loving. What I'm saying is that if it's brought on by God(and yes, pain&suffering can be brought on by God), then there is a good/justified reason.

If by convoluted you mean intricate then yes I agree. I don't see how you could possibly back up your argument about consistency. Even taking in all of recorded history, in comparison to potential history to come and all of eternity it would be like trying to determine a baseball players lifetime batting average based off one pitch.

The thought I was referring to was the one you made about god not interfering or if god does interfere it is so subtle that we would mistake it as something natural. In other words saying he doesn't interfere unless it is something we would have seen naturally. You are trying to have both sides without actually admitting to the problem with that reasoning. I was pointing out the problem with the reasoning.



So funny that you use this argument on me, when your own argument is subjected to the same statement.

"You are once again making a presumption to know the purpose for something which you clearly can not know."

Alright then everything about god, falls into this same statement. Everything that you believe is subject to this statement. What you believe god is doing, has done, will do, or hasn't done is all pure presumption as well as his own existence. You are presuming he exists yet completely ignore your own statement. You don't see the contradiction in your statement?



This is a presumption as well. You are assuming this to be the case because you want and need it to be the case but you have absolutely no way to verify if it is the case.



Actually the funny thing is, that is exactly what baseball statistics does but I'll let it go because that is not what I was talking about anyways when I said lack of consistency. I was referring to a reactionary behavior or the way in which a choice is weighted or made. But you like to use the argument that gods behavior can not be known, alright then I will accept that argument only if you accept the same argument that god can not be known at all. Not known to be good or bad, not known period. The only thing that can be known is that it is just some vague concept in the minds of humans. If you can't give that statement then your own statement is also not valid.

This discussion is like the search for the Holy Grail. All we have is old scriptures which survived destruction, true? I mean we 1/2 read the bibble, brows through the Q?ran and think we have a general ID of how IS.

Sorry, I was speaking for myself. I just don't believe God=Logic

If you dont accept that the question is illogical then you will continue this thread forever....

Who thinks that god is not capable of creating the perfect person ? a person with great knowledge and great moral value, imbued with the ability to understand suffering , free will and all aspects god wishes for humanity to obtain so that he can stand next to him with equality of values. Who will deny god this ability?

Many people would deny that a person can have free will, and yet be perfect so that he is not tempted to do wrong. They might even argue that a perfect person would be a contradiction, and therefore, a logical impossibility, like a triangle with five sides.

But the question does not pose impossibilities, it does not restrict gods power. If you claim God cant do as I suggest , just say so. From a religious perspective Gods aim for mankind is perfection, do you deny that to?

Well, creating a five-sided triangle is not something God can do, but that does not imply he is not omnipotent. So, it may be that creating a perfect person is also impossible, and does not restrict God's power either. Yes, I am saying that God cannot create a figure with both three sides, and five sides, and, also, may not be able to create a perfect person for the same reason. (Or, can create a perfect person, but could not create one that would logically fit into the best of all possible worlds). It may be that God's aim is for people to be as good as they are capable of being. But I am not an authority on God's aims.

If your not an authority on Gods aims why deny something that most Christians will maintain. Im not talking about five sided triangles , its pentagon not a triangle. If your argument against my logic is the naming of a pentagon , I give up, your not up to speed yet.

In the scheme of gods, its maintained man wil reach perfection and stand in worship of him, forever, if you did not know. Now if this suffering is not to attain perfection what are the trials for? Im afraid with this logic you display, you cant have it both ways.

My argument is that something logically cannot be both a pentagon and a triangle at the same time. Not about the name, "pentagon". Don't you agree that a figure cannot be both a pentagon and a triangle? Could God make a figure that was both a pentagon and a triangle? Why not? In the same way, it may be that something cannot be both perfect and a person, at the same time. I don't know what you mean about denying what Christians maintain.

Well first of all what are you referring to when you say a perfect person? I would have to agree with Xris on this one, it is possible to have a perfect person IF (and the "if" is most important) you can agree on what makes a perfect person. I'll go out on a limb and define it as simply as I can for this argument.

A perfect person is a person who does the correct thing always in any situation.

Now there are a few problems with this definition since, "does the correct thing" is such a vague statement and can be highly interpret not to mention subjective. But as soon as you say relative to a given standard, then by all means it is plausible. What is the standard though?

"c" is a correct response (subjective)
"w" is an incorrect response (subjective)
"i" is indifferent response but carries with it neither "c" nor "w" and could be listed either as being "c" or "w" or tossed out completely. (subjective)
"g" is good (this term reflects "c" and doesn't hold to any standard)
"b" is bad (this term reflects "w" and doesn't hold to any standard)
"e" is error or negotiable or unnecessary. (reflects "i" no standard)
"t" is total actions ever done, either said, thought, or acted out.
"p" is perfection
"n" is imperfection (didn't really need this because anything not perfect would be equal to "n")

c + w + i = t (total of all actions ever done)

(now we need to find out just how good they are by weighing the actions)

t/c = g
t/w = b
t/i = e

(comparatives)

If g < b then the person is more good aligned (note that g must be low number)
If g > b then the person is more bad aligned (note that g must be high number)
If e < (g+b) then the person does a lot of actions that are neither good nor bad. ??

However now here is the whole point of this little run about.

if (t/g) = t (then the person is perfect)

There are a few other ways to do this but I wanted to make it as easy as possible with the least amount of confusion. I could have made it shorter with fewer calculations but it would have been more confusing. Enough said.

This proves that if you can determine what are correct responses for every possible action then you can figure out if a perfect person is possible. (which it is.)

This also takes into consideration free will even though I don't believe free will exists.

Thanks Krumps, my understanding from an untrained philosophers view point is the statement defines the logic. Powerful , not powerful, all powerful. If the term, all powerful, does not determine he is actually all powerful, IE able to do absolutely everything and anything then the definition is incorrect. Powerful might be more correct or nearly all powerful. As soon as you restrict him by putting him into a humanly formed logical existance then you redefine him. Can we ever place a god into a logical conclusive scenario? The two contradict each other.

I cant abide the faithful telling me I have to abide by human logic when debating the illogical.

I disagree with you about an all-powerful God being able to do the logically impossible, but I agree about him being able to create perfect humans. Let's take these two issues separately.

Logically impossible actions

You argue that if God can do absolutely everything, he must be able to do what is logically impossible. In other words - God can create all things; a square circle is a thing; therefore God can create a square circle. But the second premise is incorrect: a square circle is not a thing. The combination of words "square circle" is a contradiction and therefore does not denote anything at all; it is just a meaningless phrase, like "wounded yellow question" or "rainy conversation". It's just words and nothing else.

If God could defy logic, he could make himself omnipotent and non-omnipotent at the same time. He could make himself similtaneously able and unable to defy logic; he could both exist and not exist; he could stop being God while continuing to be God; he could perform an action while not performing it; he could make you believe in him while disbelieving in him; and so on ad absurdum. The whole thing would descend into nonsense.

Human perfection

Here I agree with you. If a person has free will to do good on any particular occasion, he/she can do good on all occasions. If perfection were logically impossible, a dying person who had always done good in the past would be forced to choose evil on the final occasion. But then they would not have free will on that last occasion. Every time they did have free will, they chose right. So they died perfect; so perfection must be logically possible.