"If God Exists, Why Does He Allow Evil?"

[hankroberts]

I´m looking forward to someone demonstrating that their moral views are more than their opinion.

Ah, but does that not take us back to the original question? If in fact all moral views are merely individual opinions, then on what basis does one assert that the existence of 'evil' is argument against the existence of God? You see, if your position is true (and incidentally, we can demonstrate it is not), then that argument fails completely. There is no objective evil for which God would be (potentially) accountable, if there is no objective morality.

 

[Thepz]

First, you would have to "objectively" be able to identify love.

The article by Winston observes love as a construct consisting of 3 different dimensions.

Its simple to objectively identify love. Have you fallen in love before and wanted to do something for someone else? A part of love is an emotion like sadness or anger. I think it is easy to identify sadness and anger objectively. Like so, I think it is easy to identify someone acting out of love.

 

[hankroberts]

Explain this rational process and the logic behind it.

I would be happy to do that, but it takes us off our original topic. To refresh, that was the question posed to those who argue against God's existence using the existence of evil; "If there is no Moral God who has established an absolute moral standard, then on what grounds do you call certain things 'evil' at all?"

But as stated, I'll be happy to start a separate conversation regarding that. Actually, it would probably be best to use the Moral Argument to justify a belief in God: that is the way I originally formulated the material. But I leave that to you: if you prefer a different approach, we can consider it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Neither.

I'm pointing out that if its all a matter of opinion the rapist has no less moral authority for his actions than you do for yours.



If all you have is your opinion, your morality IS wishywashy. It has no substance. Its just your subjective desire. Or, to quote the Bible, it is build on sand not rock.

Hence, wishywashy.

So it wasn't actually a question... at least you're starting to get the picture.

All anyone has is opinion. Until one can demonstrate their morality true/factual... there's no logical reason to regard it as anything but opinion.

As for wishy washy...speak for yourself. My moral opinions may be my own, but that doesn't mean they are any less strong or anymore prone to change than yours. If you think opinions are wishy washy by nature...well that's your opinion lol. I happen to think sour cream tastes gross...just because I can't factually prove sour cream is gross doesn't mean my opinion of itis "wishy washy".

 

[bhsmte]

I would be happy to do that, but it takes us off our original topic. To refresh, that was the question posed to those who argue against God's existence using the existence of evil; "If there is no Moral God who has established an absolute moral standard, then on what grounds do you call certain things 'evil' at all?"

But as stated, I'll be happy to start a separate conversation regarding that. Actually, it would probably be best to use the Moral Argument to justify a belief in God: that is the way I originally formulated the material. But I leave that to you: if you prefer a different approach, we can consider it.

Your original question was answered already by several posters. You may not like or agree with the answers, but they were given.

Now, if you can, please demonstrate these "absolute morals" exist, what they specifically are and how you use them to "objectively" determine between good and evil.

 

[hankroberts]

Agreed. It's never been demonstrated to me, if that isn't the case.

Also, for the record, OP, my original response did seem to miss the point of the question.

I don't think there is a such thing as "objective morality" (or, if you rather, absolute morality) at all, but I still think it is possible to recognize "evil" because there are a handful of moral ideas that, while not universal (or objective), are pretty darn close.

I guess I would question how you identify 'evil', then.

 

[bhsmte]

I guess I would question how you identify 'evil', then.

This question has been answered already.

Also, I don't use the word evil as some religious folks do, I use the term; "immoral" behavior.

 

[hankroberts]

Your original question was answered already by several posters. You may not like or agree with the answers, but they were given.

Now, if you can, please demonstrate these "absolute morals" exist, what they specifically are and how you use them to "objectively" determine between good and evil.

Really? I guess I missed that: please direct me to that post(s).

 

[selfinflikted]

I guess I would question how you identify 'evil', then.

Well, like I said, even though I do not believe in moral absolutes, there are some things that basically everyone can agree on, and these are things already mentioned in this thread - stealing, murdering, etc. Those things could be described as "evil" because they are generally agreed upon to be immoral.

 

[hankroberts]

This question has been answered already.

Also, I don't use the word evil as some religious folks do, I use the term; "immoral" behavior.

Which, of course, merely begs the question...

 

[selfinflikted]

This question has been answered already.

Also, I don't use the word evil as some religious folks do, I use the term; "immoral" behavior.

Indeed.

 

[hankroberts]

Well, like I said, even though I do not believe in moral absolutes, there are some things that basically everyone can agree on, and these are things already mentioned in this thread - stealing, murdering, etc. Those things could be described as "evil" because they are generally agreed upon to be immoral.

So it is your argument that mere general agreement makes an act or thought moral or immoral? Really?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ah, there is the problem; you have misdefined "morals". Morality is conformance with a standard (either relative or absolute). It is necessary that an absolute standard exists, or there is no way to objectively determine "Good" and "Evil". Try it.

I think it's you who has misdefined morals.

If morality "conforms" to a "relative standard"...then I don't need to "objectively determine" good and evil...I can determine them relativistically.

If there is an "objective standard" then you need to be able to answer a few questions or the claim that this "objective standard" is entirely empty.

What is this objective standard?

How come nobody knows this objective standard? Or...

Why does everyone disagree on this objective standard?

The fact that you won't be able to tell me right and wrong in every situation, the fact that no one agrees on right and wrong in every situation...both point to the same conclusion. This "objective standard" doesn't exist and morality is a matter of relative opinion.

 

[bhsmte]

Really? I guess I missed that: please direct me to that post(s).

Read the thread.

 

[Thepz]

Well, like I said, even though I do not believe in moral absolutes, there are some things that basically everyone can agree on, and these are things already mentioned in this thread - stealing, murdering, etc. Those things could be described as "evil" because they are generally agreed upon to be immoral.

I believe your statement is hinting at the possibility of moral absolutes. As you stated, "I do not believe in moral absolutes, there are some things that basically everyone can agree on." This statement is self contradictory. The things that "basically everyone can agree on" is hinting at the possibility of moral absolution. Just as you stated, and I agree, these include stealing, murdering, etc.

My argument now and the question that I have been trying to raise is "what is the underlying construct for NOT stealing and NOT murdering, etc.?" What is the underlying construct for these "moral absolutes"?

 

[hankroberts]

Read the thread.

I have, and found no answer to my original question. I found numerous responses, but so far, no answer.

 

[Ana the Ist]

So, then, if one merely thinks their actions are moral, then they are? Are you sure you want to take that view?

If one thinks their actions are moral...then they think their actions are moral. It doesn't mean you think their actions are moral.... it doesn't mean I think their actions are moral. Lol I don't see why it's so hard to understand... if you need practical examples, just think of anytime you and someone else disagreed on the "right" thing to do. The first two sentences of this post describe the situation rather accurately, don't they?

If an "objective standard" exists, then at the time you and someone else disagreed on what was morally "right" one of you could've pointed to this standard and demonstrated how the other person was wrong. That's not how it works in reality though.

 

[selfinflikted]

So it is your argument that mere general agreement makes an act or thought moral or immoral? Really?

Aside from "general agreement," where do you think morals come from?

 

[selfinflikted]

I believe your statement is hinting at the possibility of moral absolutes. As you stated, "I do not believe in moral absolutes, there are some things that basically everyone can agree on." This statement is self contradictory. The things that "basically everyone can agree on" is hinting at the possibility of moral absolution. Just as you stated, and I agree, these include stealing, murdering, etc.

My argument now and the question that I have been trying to raise is "what is the underlying construct for NOT stealing and NOT murdering, etc.?" What is the underlying construct for these "moral absolutes"?

No. Moral absolutism would mean that stealing is wrong. Period. Under all circumstances. But it's not. One can find exceptions to every "moral rule" - that is why they are neither universal, nor absolute.

Further, the underlying construct to not murder, for example, is simply: humans are a social species. It's how we survive. In groups. Helping and relying on one another. If we went around murdering, stealing, raping, and pillaging, well... we would not have made it thus far.

 

[com7fy8]

"If God Exists, Why Does He Allow Evil?"

From my Bible consideration and prayer I get >

God does not "allow" evil, but is in control of all evil > Romans 8:28, Romans 9:14-22, 11:33-36, Ephesians 1:11, and consider how evil was used by God to bring better than what the evil had done to Joseph > Genesis 37-50.

There is "the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience," Paul says in Ephesians 2:2. This evil spirit is in people's disobedience, and in the middle of all the evil; and God is moving disobedient people and their evil to hell . . . away from the new heaven and new earth > Isaiah 65:17, Revelation 21:1.

So, evil and its people are not being "allowed", but they are being processed to the flaming sewer which burns with fire and brimstone - - where they will spend eternity, reaping all that they have been sowing > Galatians 6:7-8.

But God does not want anyone to perish; so our Father sent Jesus to rescue us from our sin and hell > John 3:16. And Jesus does not want us to suffer in our sin; Jesus calls to "all" with hope for "all" >

"'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, Jesus does feel for us; He cares how we are and how we feel. He wants us to have . . . to share . . . rest with Him

And so, "God resists the proud," we have in James 4:6 and also in 1 Peter 5:5.

God resists us while we are doing things in ego, so that our pride does not take us where Satan would take us. But people in pride can be very stubborn and nasty; only very hard and painful things can slow them down or stop them, in a number of cases. But then ones blame God for the "evil" > trouble which they could have avoided, by submitting to God and obeying how He would have taken care of them > "casting all your care upon Him, for He cares for you." (1 Peter 5:7 > also see Proverbs 3:5-6)

So, God's resistance, I understand, can include some pretty rough events, but in order to keep the person from getting into much worse trouble. But the person will not listen to God; and so the person is met with resistance which meets the person at his or her level.

By the way, your own sinning can be what brings trouble and pain which is not included in God's resistance, possibly. For only one example . . . if you hold on to unforgiveness, your unforgiveness has you in Satan's spiritual realm where things work the way he has things working. By staying unforgiving in the kingdom of evil, you can be an easy target for things to be unforgiving about! Your unforgiveness can be a magnet to attract things to be unforgiving about. Not to mention . . . in unforgiveness, you will stay weak enough to suffer plenty about what you are unforgiving about.

You can suffer so much more than you deserve to suffer, because sin is not fair.

By the way . . . a person can act very nice, but suffer major tragedies. But if that "nice" person is not obeying God, this can be a very bad example which helps other people to miss out on God. So, the "nice" ones can be more dangerous than the mean and nasty ones. And so, ones misleading people from God can suffer major trouble, in order to keep them from continuing.

But, like I say, this is only because they are not satisfied to be humble and quiet and hear and obey God. They are being reached at the level where they can communicate, so they don't get into much worse trouble; and yet ones keep on refusing.

You are accountable for the message of your example!!

We can't make people listen, but God does use our good example >

"nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3)

His resistance can only slow people down and stop certain activities. But God uses our example and prayer . . . and obedience > consider also Genesis 22:18

You might look at how the example of a wife can be used to win a disobedient husband > 1 Peter 3:1-4. By having "the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit", she can be pleasing to our Father, plus He can spread her spiritual example to her hubby and make him the same way that she really is, in the sight of God.

How you are, "in the sight of God", is spreading with power to make others the same way!!!