The Problem of Evil.(Theodicy)

Nicholas Deka said:

So that's a "No, God can't choose to hate me". Is His love for me inferior in some way to the love I'm supposed to feel for Him even though He can't choose?

I picked "hate" as a specific example because "God is love". Are you saying that God wants us to love Him, but He might be incapable of love? That seems pretty out there as a theory.

Click to expand...

How do you define "Love"? Is it an emotion? A feeling? A chemical reaction in the brain? Love is a verb. It is a choice. Love is any action in which you put others ahead of yourself. In God's case, He chose to love you because He chose to create you for that very purpose. An your created purpose is to love Him in return. Because "Love" is not an emotion, an omniscient being is capable of choosing to love, however, choosing not to love is a contradiction for an omnibenevolent being. I mentioned earlier in my paper, I hope you read it, that the love shared between the triune God is perfect and meaningful, however seemingly unavoidable. Again, God made his choice to love you because He chose to create you. You have a choice to love God because the existence of evil makes that choice possible. If life was perfect and void of the existence of evil, regardless of free will loving God would be inevitable because there would be absolutely no reason not to. This is why it is possible to have free will in heaven and spend eternity never using it for sin and evil.

But you are right, God is Love. But He is also Holy, Righteous, and Just. But just like any other judge, God can display mercy and wrath apart from emotion. Now, this "theory" is one which came about from the early philosophers who followed a plato in their belief that emotion was not a virtue that is beneficial. In fact, the Greek word 'πάθημα' or 'pathéma' means suffering. This is where the word "passion" comes from as in "The Passion of the Christ." The point that I am trying to make is that before God is loving, merciful, and kind, He is Holy, Righteous, and Just. God loved every soul that has ever been thrown into hell more that you and I could imagine. But they are in hell because they made that choice. They wanted to be apart from God's goodness, so they will spend eternity in darkness away from the light of God's goodness. God loves you too much to force you to spend eternity with him. But returning that love is a choice that God wants you to make. A choice that you can only make if you had the option of choosing evil. After you die, that choice is final and if you chose life with God, the existence of evil becomes unnecessary.

No Username Found said:

Since God is love, he cannot force himself on anyone against their will. Forced love is not love; it is rape. And God is not a divine rapist. Love must work persuasively but not coercively.

Click to expand...

No Username Found said:

How do you define "Love"? Is it an emotion? A feeling? A chemical reaction in the brain? Love is a verb. It is a choice. Love is any action in which you put others ahead of yourself. In God's case, He chose to love you because He chose to create you for that very purpose. An your created purpose is to love Him in return. Because "Love" is not an emotion, an omniscient being is capable of choosing to love, however, choosing not to love is a contradiction for an omnibenevolent being.

Click to expand...

There's the key. Did God choose to love us if He is incapable of not choosing to love us?

If He did, then humans can be created in such a way that they choose to love God without being capable of not choosing to love God.

Malachi 1:3 ; Romans 9:13. (How many posts before someone says "that doesn't mean what it says?)

Below are some of the problems I have with the points you made.

No Username Found said:

A non-world is not better than some world. Nothing is not better than something. This is a classic category mistake. Something and nothing have nothing in common, so they cannot be compared. It is not even like comparing apples and oranges, since they both are fruit. It is like comparing apples and non-apples, insisting that non-apples taste better.

Click to expand...

Here you seem to make the mistake of assuming “X” is always better than “non-X”. But I disagree! It all depends on what “X” is. If X is injustice, rape, evil, or even the tortures of Hell, I would prefer non-X over X any day.

No Username Found said:

A non-free world is not morally better than a free world. A non-free world is a non-moral world, since free will is necessary for morality. A non-moral world cannot be morally better than a moral world. Since a non-free world is not a moral world, there is no moral basis for comparison. This too is a category mistake.

Click to expand...

Here you seem to make the mistake of assume the only options are 100% freedom, or 100% oppression. Your freedom to swing your fists ends where my nose begins! Nobody has unrestricted freedom. In the real world, what we call freedom is freedom with restrictions. A moral world is not a world with 100% freedom, nor is it 100% non-freedom but a mixture of both.

No Username Found said:

A free world where no one sins or even a free world where everyone sins and then gets saved is conceivable but it may not be achievable. As long as everyone is really free, it is always possible that someone will refuse to do the good. Of course, God could force everyone to do good, but then they would not be free. Forced freedom is not freedom at all. Since God is love, he cannot force himself on anyone against their will. Forced love is not love; it is rape. And God is not a divine rapist. Love must work persuasively but not coercively. Hence, in every conceivable free world someone would choose to do evil, so a perfect evil-free world may not be possible.

Click to expand...

Here you seem to make the mistake of assuming God’s only options was to make people with the option and desire to sin, or force them to do good and behave perfectly. But if God has unlimited abilities, he could have created man without the desire to sin. Just as I have the ability to cut my finger off with a knife and eating it, I would never do it because the very thought of that repulses me. The same could have been done with mankind, God could have allowed Sin to exist, but create mankind in a way that his desire to sin would be equal to his desire to torture himself. Had he done this, nobody would sin.

No Username Found said:

A world where sin never materializes is conceivable but it may not be the most desirable morally. If evil is not permitted, then it cannot be defeated. Like automobiles, a tested world is better than an untested one. Or, to put it another way, no boxer can beat an opponent without getting into the ring. God may have permitted evil in order to defeat it. If evil is not allowed, then the higher virtues cannot be attained. No pain, no gain. Tribulation works patience. There is no way to experience the joy of forgiveness without allowing the fall into sin. So, a world where evil is not defeated and the higher goods attained would not be the best world achievable. Therefore, while a world where sin does not occur is theoretically conceivable, it would be morally inferior.

Click to expand...

Here you seem to make the mistake of assuming sin is necessary to exist because we need to be tested. Flawed and imperfect people test because we don’t know all the answers. But why would God need to test us if he already knows everything? If the testing is done for our sake, it still isn’t necessary because whatever questions we might have, we can ask God when we get to Heaven. And when you consider such testing results in 95% of his creation ending up in the tortures of Hell, I find such testing immoral.
Also, concerning “no pain no gain”, I find a world where we can get gains without pain is better than a world where pain is required. I find a world where forgiveness is not necessary is better than a world where it is. A world where evil does not exist is better than a world where it exists and has to be defeated.

Soyeong said:

We learn what things are by contrast, so we can't have an understanding of heat without also having an understanding of cold, and cold in the absence of heat. Someone who never experience any change in temperature would not understand heat and cold. The same goes with light and darkness and with good and evil. Evil is not an equal and opposite force to God that is fighting against Him, but is the absence of good.

Click to expand...

Are what? Understood? Possible?

Are you suggesting that apart from evil goodness does noes not or did not exist, or was not possible, or just that Adam and Eve did not understand what is evil until they actually transgressed and consequently fell? Are you suggesting that Adam and Eve could not have known or understood perfect goodness apart from a knowledge of evil?

Soyeong said:

We learn what things are by contrast, so we can't have an understanding of heat without also having an understanding of cold, and cold in the absence of heat. Someone who never experience any change in temperature would not understand heat and cold. The same goes with light and darkness and with good and evil. Evil is not an equal and opposite force to God that is fighting against Him, but is the absence of good.

Click to expand...

The problem with your line of reasoning is temperature and light is objective; everybody agrees on hot, cold, light, and darkness. But good and bad is subjective; what one person calls good, another will see as bad. The two can't be compared.

.

Ken-1122 said:

....But good and bad is subjective; what one person calls good, another will see as bad. The two can't be compared.

Click to expand...

Sure they can, and they necessarily must be compared for the purposes of defining and understanding evil. Literally and actually, it is impossible to determine what constitutes evil apart from a standard of that which is perfectly right (or righteous; in a right way). The converse is not true. This of course is one of the most powerful evidences for the existence of a maximally perfect, moral (righteous) being.

Ken-1122 said:

...But good and bad is subjective...

Click to expand...

And you can demonstrate that claim objectively?

Ken-1122 said:

But good and bad is subjective; what one person calls good, another will see as bad. The two can't be compared.

Click to expand...

There are trans-culturally agreed upon standards of moral conduct.

It literally does not follow that just because there are certain acts that certain people cannot agree on, concerning morality, that there are no objective and absolute moral standards concerning those same acts.

AACJ said:

Sure they can, and they necessarily must be compared for the purposes of defining and understanding evil. Literally and actually, it is impossible to determine what constitutes evil apart from a standard of that which is perfectly right (or righteous; in a right way).

Click to expand...

But because a righteous standard does not exist, good or evil is subjective, not objective.

AACJ said:

The converse is not true. This of course is one of the most powerful evidences for the existence of a maximally perfect, moral (righteous) being.

Click to expand...

But such a being does not exist.

AACJ said:

And you can demonstrate that claim objectively?

Click to expand...

If we assume I cannot objectively prove the claim, it still doesn't take away from the point I made.

AACJ said:

There are trans-culturally agreed upon standards of moral conduct.

Click to expand...

And there are moral standards that are not trans-culturally agreed upon

AACJ said:

It literally does not follow that just because there are certain acts that certain people cannot agree on, concerning morality, that there are no objective and absolute moral standards concerning those same acts.

Click to expand...

It isn't just what can't be agreed upon, it's what can be demonstrated. If it can't be demonstrated to be true, it isn't objective.

.

Ken-1122 said:

But because a righteous standard does not exist, good or evil is subjective, not objective.
.

Click to expand...

That is just a claim; and I dare say, a way for many to alleviate their sin-guilt. You know very well if someone walked up to you, pointed a gun to your face, and threatened to end you, then you would know that would be absolutely wrong. I believe that is true outside of cultural conditioning.

If there is no true standard of righteousness, then the formulation of law is founded only upon "who has the biggest gun" concept and you are unjustified in making any moral truth claims.

Without an absolute standard concerning morality, you would not be enjoying many of the liberties that you now enjoy (assuming you are in the US). You really are sawing at that branch you are sitting on.

Ken-1122 said:

If we assume I cannot objectively prove the claim, it still doesn't take away from the point I made.

Click to expand...

of course it does.

Ken-1122 said:

... it's what can be demonstrated. If it can't be demonstrated to be true, it isn't objective.

Click to expand...

That which is true and thus corresponds to reality is conducive to and necessary for salvation and true prosperity. The only system of morality that is historically demonstrated to be conducive to true peace, liberty and prosperity is only found within the Christian worldview. That is arguing from history. Will you argue against history?

RichardY said:

1) A perfectly good God, would not allow for any ultimate Evil.
2) Man as separate from God, came to know Evil. But is saved through Jesus Christ.
3) Pure Evil as deprivation, does not exist, and that's kind of the point.
4) Possible ways of dealing with No Evil: Gnosticism(Knowledge). Voluntarism(Will as paramount). Self-annihilation.

Curious what people's thoughts are on Evil. Personally I think Evil is a kind of deprivation.

Theodicy - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

Evil only occurs when human's force their brand of goodness on other humans.