The Problem of Evil

[Dave Ellis]

Who has said God has chosen not to eliminate suffering?

Seeing as suffering still exists, and assuming God had a choice to eliminate it or continue (which he would have that choice if he is all powerful), then it would appear he chose to let it continue.

Christians do not say this. For they believe the exact opposite. That God will eliminate it.

That still is not moral. If you have the option and the ability to end suffering immediately, then you have a moral obligation to do so. To hold back in that situation is hideously immoral.

For example, say your kid was dying of leukemia and you had the power to instantly heal him, and chose instead to let him scream and cry in agony for another few months before you got around to healing him.... there is absolutely no moral justification in that act. If you refused to instantly heal them, then you are a monster.

What omnipotence entails has been a topic of discussion for centuries. A common consensus is that it simply means the ability to bring about any state of affairs logically possible and in accordance with His nature.

And if God's nature is good, and he's all powerful, then instantly eliminating evil would be in line with his nature.... in fact it would be a requirement of it.

God's plan for humanity includes the existence of evil. No Christian finds this troubling. Nor does it mean that God is not omnibenevolent. It simply means that He has at least one morally sufficient reason for temporarily permitting it.

Nonsense, if he is the ultimate pinnacle of what it means to be good, then he would never choose evil to exist, or hurt us. There is no moral justification to do so either.

 

[com7fy8]

"Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am tempted by God'; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone." (James 1:13)

So, God is omnipotent, but not by the definition which certain people dictate to be the definition. Because He "cannot be tempted by evil".

And it is good that evil cannot control Him.

But can God take the spirit of evil out of existence? There is "the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience," we have in Ephesians 2:2. It is apparent that God has not taken Satan's evil spirit out of existence. So, I consider this is because He can't, or He would have. However, He is able to move that evil spirit and Satan to the flaming sewer which burns with fire and brimstone, and now He is in the process of doing this.

So, it is good and wise to take advantage of all He is succeeding at doing, instead of only arguing about what labels to give Him.

And if you dictate that "moral" means He has already gotten rid of all evil, then of course He is not what you dictate "moral" to mean. But you are not His judge

"But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God" Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, 'Why have you made me like this?'" (Romans 9:20)

God is managing all things, in His all-control. And Satan and his evil is on its way to the flaming sewer which burns with fire and brimstone . . . with his cruel things of worry and other torment. So, it is wise to get with Jesus so we are free from this filth which is going to the flaming sewer > delivered "from the power of Satan to God" (in Acts 26:18).

"'Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.'" (Matthew 11:28-29)

So, it is wise to get all Jesus can share with us, instead of only putting labels on God. You can call Him "moral" or "omnipotent" or not, but He is the One who is delivering us from evil and only He can.

 

[abacabb3]

If he has the power to eliminate suffering and chooses not to, then he automatically loses all claim to benevolent benevolent or perfectly moral.

That is irrational if the universe is better off with some degree of suffering than without. You would have to demonstrate that the absolute non-existence of suffering is preferable, which you cannot.

If evil is required, that's because god chose it to be a requirement. That also automatically disqualifies him as an ultimately benevolent figure.

This is not really an argument, it just restates the former assertion. Again, what you need to demonstrate that the complete absence of evil is actually a better way to create the universe. Again, being that you aren't working from the omniscient viewpoint, and theoretically God is, you have a real uphill to climb on that one.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Once again, that is not what omnipotence means when it is used as an attribute of God.

For example, God cannot cause Himself to cease to exist. God cannot lie. God cannot make a stone too heavy for Himself to lift etc. etc.

He cannot create a married bachelor...etc. etc.

This in no way means He is not omnipotent.

You can't change what a word means just so you can apply it to your idea of god. Omnipotent, no matter the context, means without any limits, can do literally anything, and if you use it to mean anything else, it isn't a correct use of the word.

 

[Loudmouth]

That is irrational if the universe is better off with some degree of suffering than without. You would have to demonstrate that the absolute non-existence of suffering is preferable, which you cannot.

What is Heaven like? Does it have suffering? Is it better than life on Earth?

 

[Dave Ellis]

That is irrational if the universe is better off with some degree of suffering than without. You would have to demonstrate that the absolute non-existence of suffering is preferable, which you cannot.

Sure I can. Suffering is defined as "the state of undergoing pain, distress or hardship"

1) Suffering is always less preferable than Joy, or at least a neutral state between the two
2) Eliminating suffering will leave only joy, or a neutral state, making the universe far more preferable for those who inhabit it.
3) Therefore, a universe without suffering is a preferable universe to live in.

Well, that was easy....

This is not really an argument, it just restates the former assertion. Again, what you need to demonstrate that the complete absence of evil is actually a better way to create the universe. Again, being that you aren't working from the omniscient viewpoint, and theoretically God is, you have a real uphill to climb on that one.

Not at all. Both Christians and Atheists would at least agree that evil is "bad". If you eliminate all the bad from the universe, you'll be left with a completely good one.

If you're in a state of pure goodness, that's better than being in a state of half evil, half good. It's not that hard to figure out.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Seeing as suffering still exists, and assuming God had a choice to eliminate it or continue (which he would have that choice if he is all powerful), then it would appear he chose to let it continue.

God permits men to commit evil acts =/= God is not omnibenevolent.

That still is not moral. If you have the option and the ability to end suffering immediately, then you have a moral obligation to do so. To hold back in that situation is hideously immoral.

God's plan for humanity entails that evil is permitted for a duration. This does not equate to Him being immoral.

For example, say your kid was dying of leukemia and you had the power to instantly heal him, and chose instead to let him scream and cry in agony for another few months before you got around to healing him.... there is absolutely no moral justification in that act. If you refused to instantly heal them, then you are a monster.

What if in not healing him, some greater good would arise that would be the direct cause of others being prevented from suffering in the manner he suffered?

In that scenario, it would be immoral to make the many suffer just so I could alleviate my kid's pain.

And if God's nature is good, and he's all powerful, then instantly eliminating evil would be in line with his nature.... in fact it would be a requirement of it.

Why?

Nonsense, if he is the ultimate pinnacle of what it means to be good, then he would never choose evil to exist, or hurt us. There is no moral justification to do so either.

How do you know God has no reason for allowing evil?

Seems you would have to be omniscient to be able to truthfully know that.

Are you God?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

You can't change what a word means just so you can apply it to your idea of god. Omnipotent, no matter the context, means without any limits, can do literally anything, and if you use it to mean anything else, it isn't a correct use of the word.

You have a citation for this?

The reason I ask is because your statement is demonstrably false and I can show you why if you like.

 

[abacabb3]

What is Heaven like? Does it have suffering? Is it better than life on Earth?

In Scripture, heaven is bordered by a lake of fire. Just saying.

 

[abacabb3]

If he has the power to eliminate suffering and chooses not to, then he automatically loses all claim to benevolent benevolent or perfectly moral.

I already explained to you, without you demonstrating the necessity for there being an absence of evil in order for their to be an overall better existence, you logically cannot make that claim. I fell like I am talking to religious zealots who cling onto the tenets of their beliefs in opposed to logic. Your beliefs on evil are anthropocentric and dogmatically assume evil in its non-existence entirely is preferable. I honestly don't see how you can logically substantiate such a claim.

He is defined as all powerful, that means he could choose whatever he wants for running the universe. If evil is required, that's because god chose it to be a requirement. That also automatically disqualifies him as an ultimately benevolent figure.

If the universe is better with evil than without it, then God commits evil by not permitting its existence.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I already explained to you, without you demonstrating the necessity for there being an absence of evil in order for their to be an overall better existence, you logically cannot make that claim. I fell like I am talking to religious zealots who cling onto the tenets of their beliefs in opposed to logic. Your beliefs on evil are anthropocentric and dogmatically assume evil in its non-existence entirely is preferable. I honestly don't see how you can logically substantiate such a claim.



If the universe is better with evil than without it, then God commits evil by not permitting its existence.

The problem he is having is rooted in a misconception of the divine attributes.

I have seen this problem in many who have not researched them.

Many think omnipotence means the ability to do anything and everything which is clearly false.

Many think that omnibenevolence entails not being able to create a world wherein evil is permitted for a duration.

I think the remedy, or at least the only thing that we are obligated to do is show what these words really mean and how they apply to the question of evil.

Good response though. I like the sound reasoning. Very good!

 

[Dave Ellis]

God permits men to commit evil acts =/= God is not omnibenevolent.

That's a red herring, and you should know that as I've corrected you on that point before. The question is, are you being wilfully dishonest or not?

To clarify, my argument has nothing to do with god permitting evil acts (however an argument still could be made using the formatting in your reply).

My argument is god creating people that he knows will commit evil acts and spread evil is by definition enabling evil to gain a foothold in the world.

If you are enabling evil, then you are not omnibenevolent.

God's plan for humanity entails that evil is permitted for a duration. This does not equate to Him being immoral.

Yes it does.

For example, if I had the power to create complex life like on mars however I wanted to and could foresee how it will act for the rest of time,I would be faced with a choice. Two options I would have are as follows:

1) I could decide to create a world in which there will be widespread and repeated genocide, torture, rape, slavery, disease, murder, famine among other calamities

or,

2) I could create a world in which disease will never exist, food and water will be plentiful and it's inhabitants will want to peacefully coexist with each other in every regard.

Other choices would be possible on a spectrum between the two (i.e. a world which is better than what we have, but not perfectly good), or beyond the two (i.e. a world more evil than we currently have). However, for the purposes of the point, those two choices I listed are two choices that would be available to me.

If I, or any other human decided to create world #1 over world # 2 simply because it was the plan I had in mind, I would rightly be called an immoral monster. Any moral being would choose to create world #2.

And note, free will does not enter into this argument anywhere. He simply knows how the various world designs are going to turn out no matter what choices he makes in regards to their design. Anyone in every universe will have an equal amount of free will.

Your god chose world #1. I would label any human who made that choice as immoral, and as such, I shall label your god the same way.

What if in not healing him, some greater good would arise that would be the direct cause of others being prevented from suffering in the manner he suffered?

In that scenario, it would be immoral to make the many suffer just so I could alleviate my kid's pain.

And that's irrelevant because the benefit gained by your kids suffering could be granted to us in another way by an all powerful being that does not require suffering. In short, the only reason suffering would be required to gain certain knowledge is because god designed things to work that way.

If he's all powerful, then it doesn't have to be that way.

For example, he could give us all of the knowledge by say.... eating a fruit or something? It seemed to work for good and evil.

Why?

Because if you are good, then you have a desire to see evil acts never get committed. I am not all powerful, however I do what I can to prevent evil as best as I can because I am a good person.

If I was all powerful, and perfectly moral, then I would have a moral obligation to end evil right now.

How do you know God has no reason for allowing evil?

I don't, that's not my argument. I'd say if your god actually does exist, then he obviously has a reason for evil to exist, because evil does exist. However, your god is either not moral or omnibenevolent or all powerful. He could have one or two of the characteristics, but not all three.

Seems you would have to be omniscient to be able to truthfully know that.

Nonsense. Omniscience is not required to point out basic contradictions like I have above.

Are you God?

No, I don't believe god exists. Therefore, I do not believe I am god. That's a rather silly question to ask an atheist.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I already explained to you, without you demonstrating the necessity for there being an absence of evil in order for their to be an overall better existence, you logically cannot make that claim. I fell like I am talking to religious zealots who cling onto the tenets of their beliefs in opposed to logic. Your beliefs on evil are anthropocentric and dogmatically assume evil in its non-existence entirely is preferable. I honestly don't see how you can logically substantiate such a claim.

/sigh.... Look, it's not that hard.

I'll take you through a step by step that will require a little question and answer to demonstrate that you already agree with my argument.

Step 1:

So, I take it you like evil, right?

If the universe is better with evil than without it, then God commits evil by not permitting its existence.

Lucky thing the universe is not better with evil in it then....

 

[abacabb3]

The problem he is having is rooted in a misconception of the divine attributes.

I have seen this problem in many who have not researched them.

Many think omnipotence means the ability to do anything and everything which is clearly false.

Many think that omnibenevolence entails not being able to create a world wherein evil is permitted for a duration.

I think the remedy, or at least the only thing that we are obligated to do is show what these words really mean and how they apply to the question of evil.

Good response though. I like the sound reasoning. Very good!

Thanks Jeremy. Ultimately, we can discuss definitions and such, but logical application of definitions does not prove anything, as I think we can define things that aren't real (i.e. a unicorn is a flying horse with a horn on its head). That's why I merely just expose the dogmatic presumptions the PoEers make without reference to, or sometimes total disregard to, evidence.

 

[abacabb3]

I'll take you through a step by step that will require a little question and answer to demonstrate that you already agree with my argument.

Sure, I'll play that game.

Step 1:

So, I take it you like evil, right?

No, evil is bad, but it is good to have evil.

Lucky thing the universe is not better with evil in it then....

I am not exactly sure what this means, but thank God that He is just and knows what we need better than we do. "For the word of the Lord is right; and all his works are done in truth." (psalm 33:4)

 

[Dave Ellis]

No, evil is bad, but it is good to have evil.

That's self contradictory.

I am not exactly sure what this means, but thank God that He is just and knows what we need better than we do. "For the word of the Lord is right; and all his works are done in truth." (psalm 33:4)

Quoting bible verses at me is not evidence of anything. I can provide you with plenty of Captain Kirk quotes that will be equally as valid.

 

[Levi777]

The problem of evil, when I've discussed the subject on different forums, was put forth by different people according to their agendas. Let me explain.

I believe God is good, all the time. The problem of evil does not negate the goodness of God, for me, due to the following truths:

1) We are eternal creatures. When our physical bodies die, we still go on, to judgment, eternal life or condemnation.

2) Evil, which is termed as "another will", actually reveals the goodness of God. The proponent of the "another will" is a fallen angel by the name of lucifer, or satan. (names not capitalized as a sign of disrespect). Evil, or, another will, is satan's fault. If there is one to hate for this another will, it is satan. Not God.

Now, can God stop evil? I think He does quite often. Can He not stop all evil? Indeed He will, (Keep the eternality of God and mankind in mind) yet the another will must be answered. It must be shown to be truly evil, and the only way for evil to be shown as truly evil, is for the fruit of evil to mature. This then begins to beg the question:

Why does God have to prove anything to anyone? This goes to the essence of God's holiness. He does all according to His own counsel, and the power of His might. He has perfect foreknowledge, and He operates according to that foreknowledge. As such, why then must God prove that another will is indeed evil and worthy of final defeat? The answer is: His character.

God plays fair. Even though He may exercise His will and none may stay His hand, He plays fair. Evil has it's day, yet not without recompense. On that day when God judges mankind, the devil, the fallen angels, and condemns all workers of another will (there is a death without loss of consciousness), He will be seen as completely justified in His condemnation of another will.

And what is the challenge whereby another will is able to operate? Consider the challenge leveled in the book of Job: "Touch his ____ and he will turn and curse You to Your face." That is the challenge, that mankind serves God only for the blessings, and not because He is holy and created all things. We who suffer while faithful to Him reveal His love poured out into human hearts, so much so that regardless of our experiences at the hands of another will, we honor Him.

This involves the following considerations:

1) The work of Jesus, not just on the cross, but throughout His life on earth, whereby He always did the Father's will.

2) The absolute holiness of God

3) The promise of a "white stone with a new name only he who receives it knows" (Revelation 2:17) and the "name only He knows" of Revelation 19:12. which has to do with autonomy, which is part of God's holiness.

4) I hope this makes sense.

 

[com7fy8]

What is Heaven like? Does it have suffering? Is it better than life on Earth?

There is always more to learn about this. I understand that "Heaven" now is where Jesus is on God's throne, with ones who are loving and praising God. But these in Heaven are spiritual beings, and they have the spiritual nature of God's love. So, Heaven now is where there is only love that is pure and kind and caring in our Father's family caring and sharing way.

But if a person evil were to be brought to Heaven, that one's selfish nature would have the person suffering . . . like how your skin can be burned by fire which could be warming you.

It does say that in judgment there will be people who will be "in the presence of the Lamb" but they will be suffering > Revelation 14:9-10 speak of one who will be "tormented with fire and brimstone", right while that one is "in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb." But ones of Jesus will have His nature which can not be tormented by that fire and brimstone, I understand.

Satan himself was in Heaven, but he in his selfish and evil spirit was not happy with Heaven, but wanted to take it over and change things, we are told; so, I understand it was because of this, that he was cast out "like lightning" (in Luke 10:18).

This shows me how powerful Heaven is, with almighty power to throw Satan out so easily . . . "like lightning". So, even though Heaven has such loving, there is power, too, and judging against all that is evil.

God is almighty . . . like this . . . not the way certain people are dictating that "almighty" means He would have already gotten rid of or stopped all evil. He is mighty enough to control evil, how He decides.

Jesus said He cast out devils "with the finger of God", in Luke 11:20. I see He says "the finger" . . . not the whole "hand".

With God's "little pinky", I see,
He can whip Satan, easily.

So, while He is loving, gentle, and kind . . . this can be like how a mother bear has her babies warmly up to her tummy while she is smacking away a pack of wolves.

Our own nature, then, and our attitude, have so much to do with if we can be effected by evil and can suffer or not. We in selfishness of pride could be in Heaven itself, surrounded by all that loving and thanking God, and still we could be "burnt" about how things are in Heaven. Yet, even in this evil world, we can be "thankful" . . . Colossians 3:15 . . . in God's love and His love's peace ruling in our hearts.

So - -

It's what you make it,
how you take it . . .
just don't you fake it!!

Oh, and by the way . . . we have, in Paul's letter to the Romans > "Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us." (Romans 5:5) This is Heaven's own love being shared with us, by means of God's Holy Spirit who is Heaven's own Spirit of love. So - - - already - - - "in our hearts", we are sampling how Heaven is . . . as much as we have grown in this

This comes with trusting in Jesus to forgive us and reconcile us with God, then how He corrects us and has us learn how to love > Matthew 11:28-30.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

That's why I merely just expose the dogmatic presumptions the PoEers make without reference to, or sometimes total disregard to, evidence.

Evidence?

All the evidence I need is that I live in a world where I suffer, and it would be better if I did not. And that an omnipotent god could have created a world without suffering. And that any coherent definition of "loving" would include the elimination of suffering of your loved ones when possible.

You add those together and you get a god that isn't loving in any meaningful sense of the word. Or, if your definition of god requires the term "loving", one that can not exist.

 

[Loudmouth]

The problem he is having is rooted in a misconception of the divine attributes.

We are told by people that their ailments were cured by God. People claim that God made their cancer go into remission, for example. So why can't God do that for everyone?

Many think omnipotence means the ability to do anything and everything which is clearly false.

We are expecting God to do what people already claim that he does.

Many think that omnibenevolence entails not being able to create a world wherein evil is permitted for a duration.

Does Heaven have evil on random days? Will people in Heaven die of painful cancers?