(Almost) Answering the Problem of Evil

Cuddles222 said:

We know that evil, whether it be Natural or Moral, is directly against God's nature. Therefore, the Godhead definitely would not want evil here. The Godhead does not want cancer or any other disease afflicting people (especially little children) nor little children being raped and tortured. The ghastly survivor methods of animals and reptiles. What we know is, that God is using the aberrations in people (1Cor. 1:18-31) and in our Eco-System(caused by the former Morning Star) to cause people to turn to Him.

Click to expand...

If that 'method' only works on those who've been indoctrinated (in which case their belief isn't a result of this method), and even then, only in one third of humanity - then one cannot help but assume this is either a very feeble, or a very stupid god.

Notedstrangeperson said:

I've noticed a pattern in the criticisms from the non-religious users:

The problem of evil (PoE) argues that the presence of evil disproves the existence of a personal, benevolent God. My argument is that the type of evil presented in the PoE - which I call "diabolical evil" - does not exist unless we first believe there is a personal, benevolent God. If this God does not exist, then the evil which supposedly disproves Him does not exist either.

The non-religious users have pointed out faults in this argument. The problem is all these faults first rely on the belief in diabolical evil:

a) "It's is possible that God is evil?" - No, because diabolical evil is that which goes against God's will. By definition He cannot be evil.

b) "Isn't it cruel to use pain and suffering just to teach people a lesson? Can't we teach them without making them suffering?" - Pain and suffering are subjective. One person may suffer a lot, the other won't suffer at all. The suffering we experience isn't just what happens to us, it's how we react to it.

c) "Rather than making us face evil so we can learn to overcome it, wouldn't it be better if there was no evil in the first place?" - The majority of evil is a result of our own free will. If we removed free will, we wouldn't be able to question why evil exists. We'd just blindly accept it.

d) "What about [insert terrible thing here]? Wouldn't we be better off without it?" - This could have several answers: just because something causes us to suffer doesn't mean it shouldn't be there e.g. natural disasters. More often the terrible things used as an example of evil is something we only consider evil in our particular time and culture. Many "evil" things - murder for entertainment, slavery, child rape etc. - were normal in past centuries. No doubt what is considered normal today may be considered evil in centuries to come. It's very difficult to prove (objectively) that something is evil because it's detrimental to us.

(Almost) all of these criticisms first assume that there are some things that should not exist.

Click to expand...

Since you defined "evil" as that which goes against God´s will, it should be obvious that - by God´s own standards - evil "shouldn´t exist". That´s almost tautological, and it requires no assumptions or value judgements on my part.
So the problem remains: With an omnipotent omniscient creator-of-everything God - how can "evil" (by this very God´s own standards) even exist?

quatona said:

So the problem remains: With an omnipotent omniscient creator-of-everything God - how can "evil" (by this very God´s own standards) even exist?

Click to expand...

How could you not know the obvious answer?
God allows it to exist.

juvenissun said:

How could you not know the obvious answer?
God allows it to exist.

Click to expand...

Yes, it´s the obvious answer (in which "allows to" is the questionable operational term).

Notedstrangeperson said:

I don't know if ALL religions have a concept of Heaven, but even the ones that do are different from the Judeo-Christian version.

In Hinduism and Buddhism, heaven (and hell) can either be places or states of mind - but they are both temporary. The ultimate goal in these religions is not go to heaven to live with God forever after they die. It is to break the cycle of reincarnation. Being in heaven or hell is part of that cycle. When you finally break the cycle your soul ceases to exist. The ultimate goal in these religions is oblivion.

Pagan religions had their own heaven and hell, but they were also different from the Christian version - in pagan heaven, you didn't go to live with the gods after you died, since the gods lived in their own separate plane. Certain pagan religions (such as the Celts) also believed in reincarnation - the ancient Greeks believed it was possible for the soul to transfers to another body before death, or even in multiple souls.

Shinto, the native religion of Japan, doesn't really have a heaven - all people, regardless of how they lived, go to a dark place after they die. "Hell" isn't really the right word, as they weren't actually being punished. This is simply where all sprits go.

TL;DR - Nearly all religions have an afterlife, but the concept of heaven being a place where good people live in paradise for all eternity with God is unique to the Abrahamic religions.

Click to expand...

It appears then, that the other concepts of "heaven" are devoid of being in the presence in the living God, the God of the Bible.....

Therefore it isn't "heaven" as the living God describes it, but something entirely different.

The question is, why would it be called "heaven" then?

Notedstrangeperson said:

Or "How the Problem of Evil PROVES (Rather than Disproves) the Existence of a Benevolent, Personal God"

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?*​

We have been debating for centuries why an all-powerful God who claims to love us would allow such terrible things to happen. We'll probably be debating for centuries more. However I believe the answer lies not in trying to understand how God works, but trying to understand how evil works.

We debate what exactly "evil" is just as much as we debate why it exists - and even though there are several answers (more on that in a moment) the problem of evil has already defined it for us: "Evil" is that which should not exist. Why else ask why God does not remove it?

The problem of evil (or PoE) doesn't exist in religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism because they do not believe bad things "should not" happen. If bad things happen it is because the person has done something wrong, either in this life [karma] or in a previous life [dharma]. Their belief in non-duality also means that evil must exist in order for good to exist, just as without darkness there is no light, or without destruction there is no creation. In other words, the idea that evil "should not exist" is totally foreign. Evil must exist in order to balance the universe.

The only justifiable way to argue that evil "should not exist" is to first assume that there is a way that things "should" be - that there's an ideal way to live which we have somehow strayed from. There is no way to explain this naturally: the universe is totally indifferent to our existence, and nature will evolve any method it can to ensure it survival, even if those methods cause a great deal of pain and suffering. Since the universe wasn't made specifically for us, what right do we have to complain that things don't happen the way we want them to? From a naturalistic point of view, PoE does not exist either.

The only way we can argue that things should (or should not) happen is if we believe there is some kind of plan for our existence - something that only a conscious entity could be responsible for. And since evil is general considered harmful, this conscious entity presumably doesn't want harm to come to us. In other words, we cannot believe that evil (as presented in PoE) exists unless we assume that a personal, benevolent God exists first.

PoE is a circular argument: the problem of evil disproves the existence of God. Without God there is no such thing as evil. Without evil, there is no problem of evil. Without the problem of evil, what is the most compelling argument against the existence of God?


*This quote is attributed to Epicurus but doesn't actually come from any of his writings. The earliest source we have for this quote is a Christian document called "On the Anger of God" by Lactantius in 304 AD - written over 500 years after Epicurus died (207 BC). The last line ("Then why call him God?") wasn't added until the 1990s. Lactantius' answer to the problem of evil is that solving problems gives us wisdom, and that brings us closer to God: "Therefore, unless we first know evil, we shall be unable to know good."

Click to expand...

Notedstrangeperson,
Allow me to put my two-cents worth in this discussion. I have answered the problem of evil in another thread but I find the dialogue here fascinating so I'll reiterate. I'm glad you asked this question as it is one that has plagued mankind since the beginning.

First off, we need to define evil: the deprivation of some necessary good in being. There are two kinds of evil: moral and physical. We also know from Christian scripture that God is good, and as the Author of everything, only creates what is good. So in other words God did not create or cause evil because it is not an entity. While beings exist, they are entities and their nature is fundamentally good; evil itself does not exist because it is a lack in what does exist. We see this with empirical science in the idea that cold is the absence of heat and dark is the absence of light. Good, light and heat are entities while their counterpart is an absence. When we see rust on metal we know that it has eaten away at the metal, changing it to something else and this means there is less metal.

So this Christian view of good and evil leaves out a dual nature of God that is found in some Eastern religions. It also leaves out a two God universe where one is good and the other evil, of whom is a struggle. We see this latter view in Greek mythology.

"There is no way to explain this naturally: the universe is totally indifferent to our existence, and nature will evolve any method it can to ensure it survival, even if those methods cause a great deal of pain and suffering. Since the universe wasn't made specifically for us, what right do we have to complain that things don't happen the way we want them to? From a naturalistic point of view, PoE does not exist either."

I really don't agree with this assessment of evil in nature as we do see scientifically (even prior to science by simply paying attention to the world around us) that out of the whole universe the earth was made for mankind. It has been called the anthropological principle and suggests the earth is unique in the universe in that only it has the conditions for mankind to survive. Some day we may find that there are other planets that could support man but as of this moment we know of none. Even if we did it would not destroy the fact that the earth is perfectly situated and conditioned so that human beings, animals and plant life can continue to live there, and so reflects the providence and goodness of God. We don't know that evolution (from the Latin, evolvere: to unfold) has brought us the variety of all material things we see; certainly we have not seen life unfold from one kind of being to another (it's not been demonstrated but only inferred from some research). Furthermore it is not possible for human life to have evolved from animal or even lower forms of life because there is a spiritual principle in man (immaterial thought is evidence of this principle) not found in the former; so it would have taken a direct intervention of God to span the infinite chasm between the animal kingdom and mankind. Therefore from a naturalistic perspective evil does exist because death is a nullification of life; all living things strive to protect and keep their life. Death is an intrusion not conducive to the nature of living beings. This also applies to a lesser extent to sickness and loss of limb or dysfunction in organic being. We clearly see from scientific study that nature is designed to maintain itself, avoid harm and death. Physical evil is not the norm but an intrusion on nature. Even inorganic matter has order that it's nature manifests and principles like entropy are part of the fallen world we now live in. So I agree with your point here that:

"The only justifiable way to argue that evil "should not exist" is to first assume that there is a way that things "should" be - that there's an ideal way to live which we have somehow strayed from."

I suggest this applies to both physical as well as moral evil. I also remind you, since by your own admission you come from a Christian base, that scripture makes clear that God created everything good, and that it subsequently fell from a pristine state, first with the introduction of angelic beings, 1/3rd of whom fell from God's will, then with the first human couple Adam and Eve, who also fell by not trusting and disobeying God. I think as we study the nature of each being we find in our universe that it has both purpose and meaning. This dual character ingrained in each being follows in a direction that is both reasonable and shows design. From this we should see, but don't always, that it is wrong to alter or try to change the nature of a being. Prior to the Fall there was no need to deal with evil or disorder, but since then it is morally good to try to rectify or bring nature back to order. We are right for recognizing and fighting evil whether it be physical or moral. Also this idea that environmental evils such as earthquakes are a part of the balance of nature cannot be true of it's pristine state. I'd say rather that while there may have been this kind of conditions in the Garden of Eden it would have never been so bad as our not being able to somehow avoid or protect ourselves from it.

"The only way we can argue that things should (or should not) happen is if we believe there is some kind of plan for our existence - something that only a conscious entity could be responsible for. And since evil is general considered harmful, this conscious entity presumably doesn't want harm to come to us. In other words, we cannot believe that evil (as presented in PoE) exists unless we assume that a personal, benevolent God exists first."

This latter statement of yours, Notedstrangeperson, fits well with what St. Thomas Aquinas said of evil... that "God allows evil only because He can draw a greater good from it." So I suggest you hit the nail on the head here! To fully understand we must know that Christian revelation suggests the life we live now does not come to an end... rather begins more fully after death. Temper this with the knowledge that what God has created He never destroys in an absolute sense. On the contrary it is all good and God intends to keep it aveternally. Furthermore, from the moral perspective we need to realize that this life is a probation, so-to-speak, in that we are given freedom to choose good, albeit we can choose evil instead, but our freedom was meant only for good. So morally speaking we are being tested to see if we will desire the good in everything and as we do we approach God who is the Absolute Good. Many ask in the context of evil why God doesn't just show everything plainly to us but if He did so we would not need faith. Since we don't see God "face to face" as St. Paul suggested, but "through a dark glass," we must exercise both faith and charity. Charity being selfless love... the kind God showed us when He "loved us before we knew Him," and with "a greater love than no may can have, to give His life for another." So even though death, disease and other physical evil like floods, hurricanes, volcanoes and earthquakes, not to mention moral evil like contraception, abortion, pornography, prostitution, homosexuality, adultery, rape, lying, murder, armed robbery, war, terrorism, etc... exist, they are against God's will and as such against the good in nature.

Fallen nature like fallen mankind, is not the norm, and this is clearly why Christian revelation was given. No matter how much suffering we have in our life, and we each do, it pales in context of the next life that will be free of all evil, assuming we choose to know, love and serve God. Of course God does not force this choice on anyone, hence atheism, agnosticism, Satanism and many other ways of looking at life that miss what is plainly evident. God has given us freewill to exercise despite the evil we see in the world and that we each struggle with to some degree. I also agree that the problem of evil argument against God is a circular argument but the fact that we face evil in all it's intensities means we must explain it. I like you think it must be explained in the context of our purpose for existence and ultimate destiny.

I really appreciate you bringing this subject up and enjoy reading responses from those who don't have faith yet or believe like us. I also suggest that another key here is in what St. Paul said... "if not for grace there go I!" As for grace it enlightens the mind and strengthens the will so that we can turn toward God, in faith, and accept His undying love.

Notedstrangeperson said:

No, I am saying that we find the idea that we can learn from evil repulsive because our concept of "evil" is that it should not exist and should be destroyed. If we did not follow the this concept of evil (which I call "diabolical evil"), we would not be offended by the idea that we can learn from it.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I appeared to miss the mark. Allow me to correct my aim.

Your argument is based upon the notion that our notion of evil is "vague" and "unknown". However, the argument relies on rather intuitive claims that humans share.

First, definitions. I'll skip omnipotence and omniscience for now, as I don't see these as being an issue. "Evil", as defined by the "problem of evil" arguments, is the intuitive aversion and repulsion to suffering, pain, and injustice. This is what the problem of evil seeks to address, not some arcane conception of "evil".

The existence of suffering, pain, and injustice seems to clash with the conception of the god of classical theism. It is correct to acknowledge that the "problem of evil", at least as we are describing it, only applies to a god who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. It is not intended to do anything else.

Let's focus on omnibevolence. If someone is benevolent, we think of them as a person who seeks to aid others. They seek to right wrongs and seek to alleviate the pain and suffering of others. If given the power and knowledge, the benevolent individual would choose to prevent the pain and suffering of someone else. God, apparently, is a being who is maximally powerful, intelligent, and benevolent.

And here lies the contradictory tension. There exists a lot of pain, suffering, and injustice. Apparently, according to the definition of god, there supposedly exists a being who has the ability, the know-how, and the drive to end it. Because evil continues to exist, there are only two options:

1. God does not exist.

2. God has some reason to permit evil.

However, it is hard to see what reason God could have for permitting evil, especially when it reached such a level and severity. It reaches to the point of incredulity that there is some reason, unknown to us, that accounts for all evil as absolutely necessary.

Therefore, option (1) seems to be the best option of the two.

To emphasize, the apparent tension is between evil (pain and suffering) and the tri-omni-god of classical theism (a being who, by definition, seeks to end all pain and suffering and offer only the best for us). I do not require an absolute conception of evil outside of pain and suffering that results from harm. In fact, it is hard (probably impossible) to imagine evil without doing some sort of harm to us and therefore causing us pain and suffering. It is this tension that creates the disbelief in god. The second the conception of god changes, the argument is still potentially good; it simply means the argument is not meant to deal with these concepts. Therefore, your counter claims are irrelevant. I already have a definition of evil and the idea that the argument requires the god of classical theism is silly because the reason we see disbelief in god is not out of a sense that evil should be destroyed, but the intuitive feel we have that agents who care actually perform actions that show they care.

Suffering and pain are subjective - it varies from person to person. It's very difficult to prove that something is objectively evil when it may cause one person to suffer but have no effect on the other.

Click to expand...

The qualia of pain and suffering is objective to the subject experiencing it. And it is clear that all people report pain, suffering, or injustice in their lives, in some form or another. The argument does not need to deal with specific actions or events as evil. I don't need to construct an absolute, air-tight moral system of rightness and wrongness in order to make the argument work. Again, the argument has already defined evil, and that definition is all I need.

Notedstrangeperson said:

My personal answer would be it is a result of our own free will.

As for making assumptions, the assumptions lie in the criticisms the non-religious users write. Nearly every example they give first relies on the idea that there is something that shouldn't exist in the first place.

Click to expand...

Nsp,
Your statement above "...it is a result of our own free will," I cannot accept unless it is qualified with "being misused."

Chany said:

I'm sorry, I appeared to miss the mark. Allow me to correct my aim.

Your argument is based upon the notion that our notion of evil is "vague" and "unknown". However, the argument relies on rather intuitive claims that humans share.

First, definitions. I'll skip omnipotence and omniscience for now, as I don't see these as being an issue. "Evil", as defined by the "problem of evil" arguments, is the intuitive aversion and repulsion to suffering, pain, and injustice. This is what the problem of evil seeks to address, not some arcane conception of "evil".

The existence of suffering, pain, and injustice seems to clash with the conception of the god of classical theism. It is correct to acknowledge that the "problem of evil", at least as we are describing it, only applies to a god who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. It is not intended to do anything else.

Let's focus on omnibevolence. If someone is benevolent, we think of them as a person who seeks to aid others. They seek to right wrongs and seek to alleviate the pain and suffering of others. If given the power and knowledge, the benevolent individual would choose to prevent the pain and suffering of someone else. God, apparently, is a being who is maximally powerful, intelligent, and benevolent.

And here lies the contradictory tension. There exists a lot of pain, suffering, and injustice. Apparently, according to the definition of god, there supposedly exists a being who has the ability, the know-how, and the drive to end it. Because evil continues to exist, there are only two options:

1. God does not exist.

2. God has some reason to permit evil.

However, it is hard to see what reason God could have for permitting evil, especially when it reached such a level and severity. It reaches to the point of incredulity that there is some reason, unknown to us, that accounts for all evil as absolutely necessary.

Therefore, option (1) seems to be the best option of the two.

To emphasize, the apparent tension is between evil (pain and suffering) and the tri-omni-god of classical theism (a being who, by definition, seeks to end all pain and suffering and offer only the best for us). I do not require an absolute conception of evil outside of pain and suffering that results from harm. In fact, it is hard (probably impossible) to imagine evil without doing some sort of harm to us and therefore causing us pain and suffering. It is this tension that creates the disbelief in god. The second the conception of god changes, the argument is still potentially good; it simply means the argument is not meant to deal with these concepts. Therefore, your counter claims are irrelevant. I already have a definition of evil and the idea that the argument requires the god of classical theism is silly because the reason we see disbelief in god is not out of a sense that evil should be destroyed, but the intuitive feel we have that agents who care actually perform actions that show they care.



The qualia of pain and suffering is objective to the subject experiencing it. And it is clear that all people report pain, suffering, or injustice in their lives, in some form or another. The argument does not need to deal with specific actions or events as evil. I don't need to construct an absolute, air-tight moral system of rightness and wrongness in order to make the argument work. Again, the argument has already defined evil, and that definition is all I need.

Click to expand...

Chany,
I agree with some points you make here and disagree with others. First, benevolence is more about not causing harm rather than an "individual [who] would choose to prevent the pain and suffering of someone else." I don't think God is malevolent or benevolent, rather intelligent. Since intelligence implies love and freedom (in-other-words will: the intellect's appetite for the good found in being) then God is concerned with our good and in fact our greatest good, which is God Himself. In other words God is not just about keeping the peace or live and let live, but concerned with justice as well as the affect evil has on human beings. Christian scripture says God's mercy is greater than his justice (not to disqualify the latter but to emphasize God's character trait of being merciful) so even though evil (moral) is an offense against God He is willing and able to forgive if we meet the prerequisite set by Him, also spelled out in scripture. God did not just create the world and humanity and let us go our own way but is intimately involved in both, especially with human beings in that He created us to have a relationship with Himself. Benevolence does not suggest all this that is necessarily a real part of God's character, as well as pre-fallen human nature... according to Christian written and oral Tradition. Thus while God is definitely not malevolent He is much more than benevolent.

Second, I think both Nsp and you are wrong to define evil as "...suffering, pain, and injustice." In particular I would single out pain as something both necessary to our nature as human beings with a body/soul composite, and as such, a good. In fact I suggest in the Garden of Eden our first parents were quite capable of feeling pain despite it being paradise. I have also suggested that natural evils such as earthquakes are such only because of their severity. An earthquake could happen in Eden and not be considered evil assuming one of two criteria; either the severity was low or Adam and Eve had a way to protect themselves and property from the damaging effects. They would have done so, just as we can, by using their keen intellect to prepare for and overcome the possibility of any harm.

So from this you should see that physical pain is also a good because in itself it is an indicator of danger and not necessarily part of fallen human nature. If this were not so then the Garden of Eden could not have any dangers present and so not just cliffs... but how often do we trip over some small object on the ground or even our own feet? I rather doubt God intended to get rid of all possible situations where human beings could be harmed but rather intended us to use our reason to avoid anything good that could turn bad in certain circumstance. Hence, the idea that the Catholic understanding of alcohol and guns does not damn these substances as evil but only their misuse... and we misuse whatever we handle in an unreasonable manner. To shoot another person to solve problems, other than self-defense, is a moral evil (also unreasonable). To get drunk thereby losing one's ability to reason is also an evil that need not be if one uses alcohol properly... that is in moderation... which is reasonable. So there were many dangers in that pristine Garden that were because of good things but could turn around to bite Adam or Eve if they misused them. In fact isn't this what the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was essentially about? Adam and Eve's sin came from disobeying God's prohibition of eating from that tree rather than it being intrinsically evil (on-the-other-hand for instance: contraception is an intrinsic evil because it disrupts or interferes with the natural human ability to conceive new life within the sexual act; it's therefore against reason).

We are the clay, God is the potter. We perceive evil when God is molding His clay into something pleasing to Him. God views molding His clay as a good thing. From the clay's perspective, it doesn't seem good because it hurts, getting pushed around and formed into something we can't see because we're a part of it, we're the clay. Eventually the molding and forming process will end and the perfect creation will be here. No more molding and forming, only perfection, made by God.

Jesus is the first perfect clay pot that God made, this was always God's plan, their are many more that He's working on, using Jesus as the standard.

Chany said:

I'm sorry, I appeared to miss the mark. Allow me to correct my aim.

Your argument is based upon the notion that our notion of evil is "vague" and "unknown". However, the argument relies on rather intuitive claims that humans share.

First, definitions. I'll skip omnipotence and omniscience for now, as I don't see these as being an issue. "Evil", as defined by the "problem of evil" arguments, is the intuitive aversion and repulsion to suffering, pain, and injustice. This is what the problem of evil seeks to address, not some arcane conception of "evil".

The existence of suffering, pain, and injustice seems to clash with the conception of the god of classical theism. It is correct to acknowledge that the "problem of evil", at least as we are describing it, only applies to a god who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. It is not intended to do anything else.

Let's focus on omnibevolence. If someone is benevolent, we think of them as a person who seeks to aid others. They seek to right wrongs and seek to alleviate the pain and suffering of others. If given the power and knowledge, the benevolent individual would choose to prevent the pain and suffering of someone else. God, apparently, is a being who is maximally powerful, intelligent, and benevolent.

And here lies the contradictory tension. There exists a lot of pain, suffering, and injustice. Apparently, according to the definition of god, there supposedly exists a being who has the ability, the know-how, and the drive to end it. Because evil continues to exist, there are only two options:

1. God does not exist.

2. God has some reason to permit evil.

However, it is hard to see what reason God could have for permitting evil, especially when it reached such a level and severity. It reaches to the point of incredulity that there is some reason, unknown to us, that accounts for all evil as absolutely necessary.

Therefore, option (1) seems to be the best option of the two.

To emphasize, the apparent tension is between evil (pain and suffering) and the tri-omni-god of classical theism (a being who, by definition, seeks to end all pain and suffering and offer only the best for us). I do not require an absolute conception of evil outside of pain and suffering that results from harm. In fact, it is hard (probably impossible) to imagine evil without doing some sort of harm to us and therefore causing us pain and suffering. It is this tension that creates the disbelief in god. The second the conception of god changes, the argument is still potentially good; it simply means the argument is not meant to deal with these concepts. Therefore, your counter claims are irrelevant. I already have a definition of evil and the idea that the argument requires the god of classical theism is silly because the reason we see disbelief in god is not out of a sense that evil should be destroyed, but the intuitive feel we have that agents who care actually perform actions that show they care.

The qualia of pain and suffering is objective to the subject experiencing it. And it is clear that all people report pain, suffering, or injustice in their lives, in some form or another. The argument does not need to deal with specific actions or events as evil. I don't need to construct an absolute, air-tight moral system of rightness and wrongness in order to make the argument work. Again, the argument has already defined evil, and that definition is all I need.

Click to expand...

A superbly put argument.

I don't wonder than you've had no responses other than that above from our Catholic friend.

Notedstrangeperson said:

Or "How the Problem of Evil PROVES (Rather than Disproves) the Existence of a Benevolent, Personal God"

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?*

Click to expand...

in order for love and goodness to be freedom must also be. accidental goodness is not the highest goodness. it is evil to force someone to be good and it can in fact not happen for being good is tied to freedom. everything is meaningless if there is no freedom. nothing at all could matter if there is no freedom. since you have freedom to be good or to be evil, it is not something God has power over. God wills freedom because it is the highest good and God IS the good. but freedom can give birth to good or to evil. the thing about evil is that it takes your freedom away because goodness is being/life and evil is non-being/death. you can not blame a perfect being for an imperfect beings own choices. God is sovereign over being but not over freedom. God is sovereign of his own freedom ( which is his grace) but he does not take away your freedom for he wishes you to be as he is. he is willing and able, but he does not save you unless you are also going to participate because the kingdom of heaven is summed up by the three persons of the Trinity, not just one or two of them.

Noxot said:

you can not blame a perfect being for an imperfect beings own choices. God is sovereign over being but not over freedom.

Click to expand...

you can when that being is an Omni-everything creator, who planned all that would ever happen. there is no freedom with such a being.

Chriliman said:

Jesus is the first perfect clay pot that God made, this was always God's plan, their are many more that He's working on, using Jesus as the standard.

Click to expand...

Good to know he´s at least got it right in one in billions of attempts, and that he keeps trying.
Not so good to know you´re one of God´s failures - but, oh well, [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] happens.

quatona said:

Good to know he´s at least got it right in one in billions of attempts, and that he keeps trying.
Not so good to know you´re one of God´s failures

Click to expand...

Explain how I'm one of God's failures?

Chriliman said:

Explain how I'm one of God's failures?

Click to expand...

Ok, you are the other successful attempt, besides Jesus. I guess you just forgot to mention it.