Why God allows evil

MyChainsAreGone said:

• Evil exists.

This statement is a statement of morality. It presumes that some actions are good, and some are evil. That means there must be a measure by which the morality of an action may be discerned. The statement by itself is one that makes no sense at all without an ultimate determiner of morality. And if you are indeed an atheist, then you cannot truly believe that evil exists. In fact, you even declared that there's no such thing as "moral absolutes." Yet, to say "Evil exists" is to declare a moral absolute.

If you intend to prove by the existence of evil that God cannot exist, you're faced with the logical problem that you need an ultimate measure of morality (God) in order to even postulate that evil itself exists! This is an impossible moral dilemma. And you cannot prove the non-existence of God by offering a concept that requires His existence to even postulate.

Click to expand...

I think it's clear that I am talking about things like the holocaust, things which most people agree are evil. I get what you're saying about there being no objective standard by which to say something is evil, but that doesn't mean that we can't make subjective judgements.

Still, you're making the argument that without some way of determining exactly what is evil, we can't tell anything, which isn't true, and you are also assuming that the only way we can determine what evil is is to invoke God. But how does God serve as a yardstick by which morality can be measured? Does God do things because they are good? In which case, how does God determine if they are good? Or are things good because God does them, and does that mean murder and rape would be good if God did those?

• God allegedly wants there to be no evil.

This is reasonable. But your mistake is in presuming that this is the ONLY thing God wants... or that it is the most important thing that He wants. You're assuming that if He opposes evil conceptually--at all--that He must act to stop it... else you prove that "God is evil" because He doesn't "prevent evil." But that assumption is incorrect.

Yes, God wants there to be no evil.

But God also wants there to be volitional beings populating this universe... beings who make real choices. And God wants that more than He wants to prevent evil. How do I know that? Because of the very same observations that you are making... If God does not stop people from doing evil things, then there must be something else more important to Him than that result... something that He would lose if He were to intervene and "prevent evil." God wanted us to make our own choices. He wants us to make choices for good--for love--to be sure. But absent the capability to choose wrongly, we do not actually have the capacity to choose rightly.

This is a scenario that you are not even considering. You have unilaterally determined that the most important thing God could possibly want to do is to "prevent evil."

I would suggest that you do not understand the heart and motivation of God enough to jump to that conclusion... therefore, your logical conclusions about what it means (that He doesn't prevent evil) are fundamentally flawed.

Click to expand...

Are you able to suggest something that God views as so important it is worth the evil we have in the world to have it?

And isn't what you are saying here just as easily explained by saying, "We see evil in the world, so I have to assume there's something God cares about more than stopping evil, because if I don't make that assumption, I can't explain why evil exists"?

• The things we would expect to see in a world where God wants to prevent evil do not exist.

Yet.

The Bible speaks prophetically about the "end" of the world as we know it. At that time, full justice will be realized. The Bible teaches that all who ever lived will be made alive again, and they will face God as their Judge. Furthermore, the Bible promises that there is more "life" beyond this life here and now... and that will last for eternity... one that is free from evil... on that offers a much longer perspective than the "here and now."

As Paul the Apostle declared, "
For I consider that the sufferings of this present time [evil] are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us." (Romans 8:18)

So... the world where God prevents evil is going to be a reality... it just isn't... yet.

Click to expand...

Claiming that it will all be better at some vague point in the future is not very convincing.

• Therefore, either the fact of evil existing or the assumption that God wants to prevent it is wrong.

Correct.

The assumption that God wants to prevent it--[as His primary priority and intent]--is wrong.

God's plans, His purposes, His perspective are bigger than we can fully know, because HE is bigger than we can fully know.

Click to expand...

As I've said before, this argument basically boils down to, "I know it doesn't make sense, but just believe it anyway." It insists we be satisfied with ignorance and tells us to stop trying to understand things. I could never do that.

Michael Collum said:

God allows evil into the world for the sake of the good. The parable of the wheat and the tares indicates, in order to pull out all the weeds, all the good fruit bearing plants would be pulled as well ... so it's left this way until the time of the judgment.

Click to expand...

Interesting. How is it that God cant remove Godless people? People die every day.

MyChainsAreGone said:

• Evil exists.

This statement is a statement of morality. It presumes that some actions are good, and some are evil. That means there must be a measure by which the morality of an action may be discerned. The statement by itself is one that makes no sense at all without an ultimate determiner of morality.

Click to expand...

What you are saying would make sense if morality were “objective”. If you recognize morality is subjective, it make sense that each person determines what they consider evil, which makes each person the determiner of morality. That is why what some people call evil, others do not.

Kylie said:

I think it's clear that I am talking about things like the holocaust, things which most people agree are evil. I get what you're saying about there being no objective standard by which to say something is evil, but that doesn't mean that we can't make subjective judgements.

Still, you're making the argument that without some way of determining exactly what is evil, we can't tell anything, which isn't true, and you are also assuming that the only way we can determine what evil is is to invoke God. But how does God serve as a yardstick by which morality can be measured? Does God do things because they are good? In which case, how does God determine if they are good? Or are things good because God does them, and does that mean murder and rape would be good if God did those?

Click to expand...

Kylie,

Explain to me--without invoking any external standards (like a God)--why you consider the holocaust to be evil.

In the world of nature, is there any other species that operates according to any sort of standard of "morality"?

Doesn't the natural world teach us that "might makes right"?

Kylie said:

Are you able to suggest something that God views as so important it is worth the evil we have in the world to have it?

Click to expand...

I already did.

I said, "Yes, God wants there to be no evil. But God also wants there to be volitional beings populating this universe... beings who make real choices. And God wants that more than He wants to prevent evil."

Do I understand the mind and motivations of God well enough to render some sort of moral judgment against Him and His ways of doing things? Of course I do not.

Do you? Well, you are speaking as if you do, but that is something I suggest you need to reexamine. You are not God. You don't know His mind. Your perspective is not Eternal as His is. You don't even believe He exists... so how could you ever know Him well enough to understand His motives and actions?

It would be like anyone claiming to know how unicorns would act... if they existed! Or what the motivations of Extraterrestrial Aliens would be.

Kylie said:

And isn't what you are saying here just as easily explained by saying, "We see evil in the world, so I have to assume there's something God cares about more than stopping evil, because if I don't make that assumption, I can't explain why evil exists"?

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's a fair summary. But it's not strike against the position.

I cannot see or understand gravity. But hey, I keep falling down towards this planet we live on. And then there's that star out there that we keep going around every year. How does Earth even know that there's a big ball of nuclear fusion 93 million miles away? And why does this planet alter its path through space because of it? I don't know. But the facts are these:

• The sun is out there.
• The earth stays in orbit around the sun.

The facts, I cannot deny. So... there has to be some force causing it... even if I can't fully grasp why or how it works. "Gravity." That's what we call this concept we can't explain. It's the only thing that can reconcile the facts. We can't see it, but the coexistence of the two facts demand that gravity must exist.

The OP of this thread was posted in a forum that assumes the existence of God. Arguing for or against that assumption is not the purpose of this thread. The OP also assumes that evil exists.

So... The facts are these:

• God exists.
• Evil exists.

The facts, I cannot deny. So... there has to be some reason that God does not unilaterally eliminate evil... even if I can't fully grasp why or how He works. There must be a higher, more important thing to God than eliminating evil. It's the only thing that can reconcile the facts. We can't know it directly, but the coexistence of the two facts demand that such a motivation must exist.

The identification and explanation of an "unknown" is not a requirement for us to recognize that an "unknown" must in fact exist.

Ken-1122 said:

What you are saying would make sense if morality were “objective”. If you recognize morality is subjective, it make sense that each person determines what they consider evil, which makes each person the determiner of morality. That is why what some people call evil, others do not.

Click to expand...

And... Since some people call something "evil" and others do not, and we have no objective/external way of determining which person is correct, then there's nothing that we can know for sure is "evil." Therefore, there is no such thing as evil at all.

Is it evil for me to kill my neighbor?

In our country, the "proof" that it is "evil" to kill my neighbor is the fact that the laws say that it is evil, and the Law exacts punishment for the crime.

In other words, the "proof" that killing my neighbor is evil is in something totally external to me and my neighbor. A standards under which we both operate and to which we are both accountable.

The only proof there can ever be that anything is "evil" must be by a measure external and independent of the subjects being assessed by the standard.

Kylie said:

Claiming that it will all be better at some vague point in the future is not very convincing.

Click to expand...

It is also not very convincing to assert or presume that in order for something (the existence of God) to be true, that it has to "make sense" morally right here and right now.

You can never tell who is going to win a marathon by seeing who's in the lead midway through the race. The best runners pace themselves and sprint for the win at the end.

MyChainsAreGone said:

And... Since some people call something "evil" and others do not, and we have no objective/external way of determining which person is correct, then there's nothing that we can know for sure is "evil." Therefore, there is no such thing as evil at all.

Click to expand...

Evil does not exist by itself, it only exists in the context of human thought. Evil is nothing more than a moral judgment we attach to behavior we find reprehensible.

MyChainsAreGone said:

Is it evil for me to kill my neighbor?

Click to expand...

Who is your neighbor? Is it Joseph Stalin who killed 20 million innocent men women and children, and killing him would save millions of innocent lives?

MyChainsAreGone said:

In our country, the "proof" that it is "evil" to kill my neighbor is the fact that the laws say that it is evil, and the Law exacts punishment for the crime.

Click to expand...

The law? Really??? So if the law said it is okay to kill your neighbor; as long as they are Jewish (like in NAZI Germany) that makes it okay?

MyChainsAreGone said:

In other words, the "proof" that killing my neighbor is evil is in something totally external to me and my neighbor. A standards under which we both operate and to which we are both accountable.

Click to expand...

You should never confuse that which is legal with that which is right.

MyChainsAreGone said:

The only proof there can ever be that anything is "evil" must be by a measure external and independent of the subjects being assessed by the standard.

Click to expand...

What do you base this on? Am I supposed to assume that because you said it, it must be true? Or do you have an outside source to back up this claim.

Ken-1122 said:

Evil does not exist by itself, it only exists in the context of human thought. Evil is nothing more than a moral judgment we attach to behavior we find reprehensible.

Click to expand...

So... if a behavior is no longer considered "reprehensible" by current "context of human thought," then it ceases to be "evil," right?

So... nothing actually evil... it is only perceived as evil.

Ken-1122 said:

Who is your neighbor? Is it Joseph Stalin who killed 20 million innocent men women and children, and killing him would save millions of innocent lives?

Click to expand...

And in America, mothers and doctors have conspired together to kill over 50 million unborn children.

Would it be OK to kill the abortion doctors to spare the children they murder?

Oh, yeah... I forgot. If most people don't think it's evil... even killing unborn children is no longer "evil."

My point with "neighbor" was anyone else.

I'm rather sure that in communist Russia, under Stalin, that "most people" would have considered it "evil" to kill Stalin. So... who gets to determine "evil" is worse? Why is YOUR perspective of which lives to sacrifice (the men/women/children vs. Stalin's) any better than Joseph Stalin's?

How can you possibly assert that your judgment about Stalin is the "right" one?

Isn't it possible for thousands--even millions--of people to be wrong about a moral issue, while the very few are actually morally right? But that's simply not possible to assert without an external standard by which to assess the moral positions.

Ken-1122 said:

The law? Really??? So if the law said it is okay to kill your neighbor; as long as they are Jewish (like in NAZI Germany) that makes it okay?

Click to expand...

According to your position, whatever the 'most people' think is morally, right, that's what is right, right?

Remember, I'm not the one saying that there's no preeminent moral law-giver by which even the laws of humans may be judged. You are declaring that there is no moral Law Giver. Yet you persist in declaring that there are moral standards which supersede the laws and actions of people. Can't you see that that position is logically untenable?

My point was this... if I kill my neighbor (whomever I decide to kill), who is to say that it was immoral? If I myself don't consider it immoral, who is there to say that my actions were wrong? BUT... within a society, we have a system of "rules" we call "laws." Those laws are external to me. They are objective. And they determine that what I've done is wrong.

I am not a law unto myself. I am not free to kill my neighbor, even if I can get a thousand people to agree that it was OK. But... in your system of thought, if I can get people to think it was OK, then it was OK.

If you can get people to agree that it was OK for you to assassinate Stalin, then it's OK. So... if I can get people to agree that it was OK to murder my neighbor, then it's OK... right?

Ken-1122 said:

You should never confuse that which is legal with that which is right.

Click to expand...

Do you not see what you just said?

You are claiming that there is a higher morality by which even the human laws must be judged!!

Exactly what is the source of that higher morality? Is it not God? Whom/What else could it be?

Ken-1122 said:

The only proof there can ever be that anything is "evil" must be by a measure external and independent of the subjects being assessed by the standard.

Click to expand...

What do you base this on? Am I supposed to assume that because you said it, it must be true? Or do you have an outside source to back up this claim.

Click to expand...

Wow... you want an outside source to validate the truth of my claim that an outside source is required to validate moral assessment? How ironic.

The fact is that you just made the same assertion yourself. Even "legality" must be assessed by some morality that is external to and above legality. That morality must exist external to and independent of the law, else it could not be used to assess the morality of the law.

What I stated was simple logic. It's logic that you invoke every time you claim that anything is "evil."

I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that when someone invokes "objective" or "absolute" morality, they can only mean "everyone should agree with my morality."

By definition, if those people disagree with your morality, it isn't objective; it's subjective.

Tinker Grey said:

I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that when someone invokes "objective" or "absolute" morality, they can only mean "everyone should agree with my morality."

By definition, if those people disagree with your morality, it isn't objective; it's subjective.

Click to expand...

Not at all, Tinker.

By "objective" or "absolute," I mean that which conforms to something outside of ALL of us... myself included.

If ANY person presumes to "know" the truth or to be the measure of truth, you are right, that is nothing more than subjective.

But that's my assertion about ANY claim of ANY morality apart from the existence of a God by whom morality has been established... It's nothing but subjective.

Subjective morality is no morality at all.

Note, I'm not arguing for MY idea about what the moral standards should be... I'm arguing for a SOURCE for morality that can only be God Himself.

Determining what God's standards are is a completely different question... one you can't begin to answer until you've settled who the source of those standards is.

MyChainsAreGone said:

Note, I'm not arguing for MY idea about what the moral standards should be... I'm arguing for a SOURCE for morality that can only be God Himself.

Click to expand...

And yet the only way you can perceive/imagine God's standards is subjectively.

What you deem objective is only a subjective interpretation of your perception.

Tinker Grey said:

And yet the only way you can perceive/imagine God's standards is subjectively.

What you deem objective is only a subjective interpretation of your perception.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about?

I have not proposed ANY moral standards... I have only proposed that there must be a source for those moral standards, and that source can only be God.

Our ability to understand absolutes may be counted as "subjective" to some degree, but without an objective source for morality, ANY suggestion that there is ANY moral standard is just making useless noise.

I'm not talking at all about anyone's ability to discern God's standards. Yet, that's the only thing you seem to be able to critique about my assertions.

MyChainsAreGone said:

What are you talking about?

I have not proposed ANY moral standards... I have only proposed that there must be a source for those moral standards, and that source can only be God.

Our ability to understand absolutes may be counted as "subjective" to some degree, but without an objective source for morality, ANY suggestion that there is ANY moral standard is just making useless noise.

I'm not talking at all about anyone's ability to discern God's standards. Yet, that's the only thing you seem to be able to critique about my assertions.

Click to expand...

Dude, chill. I'm just having a conversation.

MyChainsAreGone said:

Kylie,

Explain to me--without invoking any external standards (like a God)--why you consider the holocaust to be evil.

In the world of nature, is there any other species that operates according to any sort of standard of "morality"?

Doesn't the natural world teach us that "might makes right"?

Click to expand...

Because the harm it did outweighed any demonstrable good that came of it.

In fact, I can't imagine that any good came from it. Yet the harm it caused is easily shown.

MyChainsAreGone said:

I already did.

I said, "Yes, God wants there to be no evil. But God also wants there to be volitional beings populating this universe... beings who make real choices. And God wants that more than He wants to prevent evil."

Do I understand the mind and motivations of God well enough to render some sort of moral judgment against Him and His ways of doing things? Of course I do not.

Do you? Well, you are speaking as if you do, but that is something I suggest you need to reexamine. You are not God. You don't know His mind. Your perspective is not Eternal as His is. You don't even believe He exists... so how could you ever know Him well enough to understand His motives and actions?

It would be like anyone claiming to know how unicorns would act... if they existed! Or what the motivations of Extraterrestrial Aliens would be.

Click to expand...

Once again I will point out that if I used this to justify why I let horrible things happen to my daughter, I would be considered a monster.

Also, do you have any evidence to support this position, or do you only hold the "God values free will more than he values our safety" idea because that's the only way for you to fit your beliefs into the reality of the world?

Yeah, that's a fair summary. But it's not strike against the position.

I cannot see or understand gravity. But hey, I keep falling down towards this planet we live on. And then there's that star out there that we keep going around every year. How does Earth even know that there's a big ball of nuclear fusion 93 million miles away? And why does this planet alter its path through space because of it? I don't know. But the facts are these:

• The sun is out there.
• The earth stays in orbit around the sun.

The facts, I cannot deny. So... there has to be some force causing it... even if I can't fully grasp why or how it works. "Gravity." That's what we call this concept we can't explain. It's the only thing that can reconcile the facts. We can't see it, but the coexistence of the two facts demand that gravity must exist.

Click to expand...

But gravity can be measured. We can come up with ideas and test those ideas. Can't do that with God.

The OP of this thread was posted in a forum that assumes the existence of God. Arguing for or against that assumption is not the purpose of this thread. The OP also assumes that evil exists.

So... The facts are these:

• God exists.
• Evil exists.

The facts, I cannot deny. So... there has to be some reason that God does not unilaterally eliminate evil... even if I can't fully grasp why or how He works. There must be a higher, more important thing to God than eliminating evil. It's the only thing that can reconcile the facts. We can't know it directly, but the coexistence of the two facts demand that such a motivation must exist.

The identification and explanation of an "unknown" is not a requirement for us to recognize that an "unknown" must in fact exist.

Click to expand...

The ethics and morality forum doesn't make the assumption that God exists as far as I know.

In any case, it's perfectly valid to proceed from the assumption that God exists and then follow that to the conclusion, and if that conclusion makes no sense, we decide that the assumption we started off with is incorrect. It's called proof by contradiction.

MyChainsAreGone said:

It is also not very convincing to assert or presume that in order for something (the existence of God) to be true, that it has to "make sense" morally right here and right now.

You can never tell who is going to win a marathon by seeing who's in the lead midway through the race. The best runners pace themselves and sprint for the win at the end.

Click to expand...

But we can determine that the winner will be someone who is running in the race at the halfway point. And the concept of God has never shown any predictive powers at all. No discoveries were made using religious notions. There has never been a case where there was once a scientific explanation for a thing, but that thing is now better explained by religion. Religion has never made any reliable predictions about the future. It has done nothing to suggest in even the slightest degree that it will ever be a better explanation for the world than science.

MyChainsAreGone said:

So... if a behavior is no longer considered "reprehensible" by current "context of human thought," then it ceases to be "evil," right?

Click to expand...

The action will no longer carry the label evil.

MyChainsAreGone said:

So... nothing actually evil... it is only perceived as evil.

Click to expand...

Actions are CALLED evil

MyChainsAreGone said:

And in America, mothers and doctors have conspired together to kill over 50 million unborn children.

Would it be OK to kill the abortion doctors to spare the children they murder?

Oh, yeah... I forgot. If most people don't think it's evil... even killing unborn children is no longer "evil."

Click to expand...

Is that what you think? You think popularity determines what is evil?

MyChainsAreGone said:

My point with "neighbor" was anyone else.

Click to expand...

My point was extenuating circumstances are often taken in to consideration before we label something evil.

MyChainsAreGone said:

I'm rather sure that in communist Russia, under Stalin, that "most people" would have considered it "evil" to kill Stalin. So... who gets to determine "evil" is worse? Why is YOUR perspective of which lives to sacrifice (the men/women/children vs. Stalin's) any better than Joseph Stalin's?

How can you possibly assert that your judgment about Stalin is the "right" one?

Click to expand...

What Stalin did goes against my morals.

MyChainsAreGone said:

Isn't it possible for thousands--even millions--of people to be wrong about a moral issue, while the very few are actually morally right? But that's simply not possible to assert without an external standard by which to assess the moral positions.

Click to expand...

An outside standard? For morality? How are you defining morality?

I define morality as the ability to understand the consequences of actions and how they affect me and my neighbor. And it starts from the position that what is harmful to me and my neighbor is bad and what is helpful to me and my neighbor is good.

Anybody who is unable to employ the previously mentioned traits on his own, but must go to an outside authority to receive instructions on how to behave this way, is not moral, he is just being obedient. Such a person is nothing more than an immoral person who is good at following instructions. I’m better than that; and I suspect you are also even if you don’t realize it right now.

MyChainsAreGone said:

According to your position, whatever the 'most people' think is morally, right, that's what is right, right?

Click to expand...

No! You are the one who claimed popularity determines what is evil; not me; remember?

MyChainsAreGone said:

Remember, I'm not the one saying that there's no preeminent moral law-giver by which even the laws of humans may be judged. You are declaring that there is no moral Law Giver. Yet you persist in declaring that there are moral standards which supersede the laws and actions of people. Can't you see that that position is logically untenable?

Click to expand...

No I never said what individual people judge as moral supersedes the law. The law is enforced, morality is just a personal judgment individual people make concerning what they see as right or wrong.

MyChainsAreGone said:

My point was this... if I kill my neighbor (whomever I decide to kill), who is to say that it was immoral? If I myself don't consider it immoral, who is there to say that my actions were wrong?

Click to expand...

Individual people will judge it as wrong, and if enough judge it wrong, they will enact a law around such behavior thus making it illegal and enforced by the law enforcement of society.

MyChainsAreGone said:

BUT... within a society, we have a system of "rules" we call "laws." Those laws are external to me. They are objective. And they determine that what I've done is wrong.

Click to expand...

The law doesn’t enforce right or wrong, they enforce what is legal

MyChainsAreGone said:

I am not a law unto myself. I am not free to kill my neighbor, even if I can get a thousand people to agree that it was OK. But... in your system of thought, if I can get people to think it was OK, then it was OK.

If you can get people to agree that it was OK for you to assassinate Stalin, then it's OK. So... if I can get people to agree that it was OK to murder my neighbor, then it's OK... right?

Click to expand...

I never said it was okay to kill Stalin, and I didn’t say getting enough people to agree makes an action right. This is something you made up and are trying to pin on me.

MyChainsAreGone said:

Do you not see what you just said?

You are claiming that there is a higher morality by which even the human laws must be judged!!

Exactly what is the source of that higher morality? Is it not God? Whom/What else could it be?

Click to expand...

Again; each person is that higher source of morality. People judge laws as wrong all the time!

MyChainsAreGone said:

Wow... you want an outside source to validate the truth of my claim that an outside source is required to validate moral assessment? How ironic.

Click to expand...

In other words, you have no proof that an outside source is required to validate moral assessment; otherwise you would be able to point to the source

MyChainsAreGone said:

The fact is that you just made the same assertion yourself. Even "legality" must be assessed by some morality that is external to and above legality. That morality must exist external to and independent of the law, else it could not be used to assess the morality of the law.

What I stated was simple logic. It's logic that you invoke every time you claim that anything is "evil."

Click to expand...

Each individual person uses their own moral opinions and judgments to assess the morality of the law. But thats it! They only have opinions on the matter, they in no way change the law unless they take the necessary steps to change it; acting within the law. There is no single moral law giver that stands above the law; if you disagree, point this moral law giver out to me.

MyChainsAreGone said:

Subjective morality is no morality at all.

Click to expand...

You are confusing moral subjectivism with moral nihilism. If someone says that it is "wrong," but disagrees that it is "objectively wrong" on the grounds of subjectivism, it doesn't follow that they are therefore saying that it's "not wrong.”

MyChainsAreGone said:

Note, I'm not arguing for MY idea about what the moral standards should be... I'm arguing for a SOURCE for morality that can only be God Himself.

Click to expand...

*Who is God’s outside source for morality?
*If God doesn’t need an outside source, why do we?
*How do you know God is an adequate source for morality?

Kylie said:

Because the harm it did outweighed any demonstrable good that came of it.

In fact, I can't imagine that any good came from it. Yet the harm it caused is easily shown.

Click to expand...

So... the measure of evil is "harm"?

How can we determine what "harm" is?

Are hurricanes and tornadoes evil, too? They do a lot of harm, and I can't think of any good that they do...