Problem of Evil?

Jeshu said:

God lovingly made all good.

Click to expand...

Not very good. We were created with a desire and a propensity to do evil. If we hadn't been, Eve never would have ate from that confounded tree.

Tree of Life said:

How about: "We should never believe in an absolute moral norm unless we have proper proof."

Click to expand...

Or how about: Please demonstrate an 'absolute moral norm'; and prove it?

Please remember, this topic is 'The Problem of Evil'. If morals are absolute, please define one absolute 'evil'?

Tree of Life said:

Wouldn't you agree that this norm is absolute:

"We should never believe in an absolute moral norm without sufficient proof."

Click to expand...

Not quite sure exactly what you are asking me? Are you asking me if I agree with your presented statement?

Tree of Life said:

I've presented you with a normative statement. My statement is:

"We should never believe in an absolute moral norm without sufficient proof."

This is a normative statement because it's a should or ought statement. It's prescriptive.
I'm claiming that this norm is objective in the sense that it's true regardless of our thoughts or feelings.
I'm wondering if you agree that this norm is objective.

Click to expand...

I'm asking about 'morals'. You are asking me about an amoral assessment in logic It neither encompasses morality or immorality.

So please, name for me one 'absolute evil', and prove it. We are awaiting your teaching and wisdom.

Tree of Life said:

My statement carries a certain moral force. If it is the case that you ought not believe something without proof or evidence, this is a moral ought. It would be morally irresponsible for you to believe something without proof or evidence.

For example, if all the data and evidence suggests that COVID 19 is a seriously dangerous disease and you should comply with public health measures, it would be irresponsible for you to believe otherwise.

This is an epistemological norm but it certainly carries moral force.

Don't you agree that we ought not believe in something without sufficient proof or evidence?

Click to expand...

You appear confused. Your confusion is neither 'moral' nor 'immoral'. Thus, qualifies as an amoral construct, as you would have no alternative agenda.

And/or you are trying to throw off the sent, so you do not have to address the question(s) presented. For which, I could then constitute as 'immoral'. But I'm a moral relativist, so what do I know?

Either way, it would sure be nice if you would stop stalling here... 4th attempt:

- Name for me one absolute evil
- Prove it

Tree of Life said:

As I suspected, I don't think you currently possess the capacities to engage with these kinds of questions. See you in another thread!

Click to expand...

As I suspected, you appear not willing to prove your own assertion.

Your given 'Covid' argument is flawed. Belief is not a choice. Belief is an amoral construct, not moral/immoral.

Last chance, and if you continue to ignore, then some here might start to suspect that maybe you are being immoral; by avoiding simple questions which might expose the flaws in your current conclusion(s).

5th request:

- Name one absolute moral evil
- Prove it

Tree of Life said:

I would answer the logical problem by showing that if God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil then there is no problem. It would go like this:

1. An all-good and all-powerful God would not allow evil to exist without a morally sufficient reason.
2. Evil exists.
3. Therefore, if an all-good and all-powerful God exists, he must have a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil.

Is it possible that God has a morally sufficient reason to allow evil to exist? I don't see why this is impossible. I do have some theodicies in mind if anyone is interested in looking at theodicies.

I would answer the evidential problem by showing its hidden premise:

1. There appear to be instances of gratuitous evil that exist.
2. (Hidden premise) If there appear to be instances of gratuitous evil, then there are instances of gratuitous evil.
3. An all-good and all-powerful God would not allow gratuitous evil to exist.
4. Therefore, most probably there is no all-good and all-powerful God.

The premise to challenge here is obviously premise 2. Just because something appears to be gratuitous, does that mean that it certainly is gratuitous? How would we know? Is it possible that God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing every instance of evil that we don't know about? We may be able to offer theodicies and explanations for some instances, but we admit that we cannot explain all instances. But just because we cannot explain them, does that mean that God cannot have a morally sufficient reason that is unbeknownst to us? I don't see why this would be. It's entirely possible that God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil that I don't know about or cannot understand.

Click to expand...

Everything needs to start with the objective.

If there is this eternal intelligence it would be at the epitome of the best it could be and not in the process of improvement. It would be the ultimate bad or good but not somewhere in-between. Why be bad when He can be good just as easily? The ultimate “good” would be what is called Godly type Love (to be defined later) and is a totally unselfish type Love. Since this God would be able to direct our thinking, why would He have us think of him as being totally bad, when He could make us think bad was good and thus, He would be worthy of praise? If God were bad and we praise a “Good God” than we are not praising Him.



The difference and issues begin with misunderstanding of the objective. Most Christians like: Man’s objective is to bring glory to God” and have scripture references to support that objective, but a person can take any commandment of God given in scripture and have Biblical support for call that command: “Man’s objective”. We are certainly commanded to do that command, so why is it not man’s objective?

There are the two superior commands which all other commands are subordinate to and combined would be like: “Love God (and secondly others) with all your heart, soul, mind, and energy.” That appears to be man’s “Mission Statement”. The huge problem with fulfilling that “Mission Statement” is the fact that the “Love” needed would have to be huge, way beyond anything man could develop, learn, deserve, earn, pay back, be instinctive to man, or somehow just be forced upon humans.

Thus the reason you have free will, is because it is required for you to complete your earthly objective.

This messed up world which includes satan roaming around is not here for your pleasure, but to help you become like God Himself in that you have the unique, unbelievable Godly type Love (God himself is Love).

God has created beings to shower them with the greatest gifts possible, the greatest gift being having a Love like His.

If there is this Creator of the universe out there, His “creations” could not really “do” anything for Him, so this Creator would have to be seen as a Giver (Unselfish Lover) and not trying to “get” something from His creation.

Why would God have a totally unselfish type of Love, since He personally would not get anything out of it? If God’s “Love” is some kind of knee jerk reaction, then it is really meaningless (something like; gravity which is nice to have, but everyone automatically has it). God Loves us in spite of what we have done, who we are or what we will do, so it has to be by His choice.


God would create the right universe for the sake of the individuals that will accept His gift (the most powerful force [Love] in all universes, since that force [Love] compels even God to do all He does) and thus we become like He is (the greatest gift He could give).

What keeps the all-powerful Creator from just giving whatever He wants to his creation, eliminating the need for free will and this earthly time.

There are just something even an all-powerful Creator cannot do (there are things impossible to do), like create another Christ, since Christ has always existed, the big impossibility for us is; create humans with instinctive Godly type Love, since Godly type Love is not instinctive. Godly type love has to be the result of a free will decision by the being, to make it the person’s Love apart from God. In other words: If the Love was in a human from the human’s creation it would be a robotic type love and not a Godly type Love. Also, if God “forces” this Love on a person (Kind a like a shotgun wedding) it would not be “loving” on God’s part and the love forced on the person would not be Godly type Love. This Love has to be the result of a free will moral choice with real alternatives (for humans those alternatives include the perceived pleasures of sin for a season.)

This Love is way beyond anything humans could develop, obtain, learn, earn, pay back or ever deserve, so it must be the result of a gift that is accepted or rejected (a free will choice).

This “Love” is much more than just an emotional feeling; it is God Himself (God is Love). If you see this Love you see God.

All mature adults do stuff that hurts others (this is called sin) these transgressions weigh on them, burden them, to the point the individual seeks relief (at least early on before they allow their hearts to be hardened). Lots of “alternatives” can be tried for relief, but the only true relief comes from God with forgiveness (this forgiveness is pure charity [grace/mercy/Love]). The correct humble acceptance of this Forgiveness (Charity) automatically will result in Love (we are taught by Jesus and our own experience “…he that is forgiven much will Love much…”). Sin is thus made hugely significant, so there will be an unbelievable huge debt to be forgiven of and thus result in an unbelievable huge “Love” (Godly type Love).

Sin has purpose in helping willing humans in fulfilling their objective. God does not like it but allows it.

Tree of Life said:

We are entering into a new section on the Problem of Evil. I really don't think that the Problem of Evil poses a serious challenge to Christian faith but I'd love to discuss it here. If you think that the Problem of Evil is somehow a serious challenge to Christianity, how would you state the problem and why do you think it's a challenge?

Click to expand...

I don’t think it is a challenge to Christianity but I do think it flies in the face of an Omnibelevolant god.

What God made Job experience was not beneficent.

Tree of Life said:

What exactly does "omni-benevolent" mean? I would say that God is all-good in the sense that he is not at all evil and he is good in all that he does. But he does not have good will toward absolutely everything. God intends to destroy evil people, for example.

Click to expand...

Again, 6th request. Define 'evil'.

Tree of Life said:

This sounds like a slightly different question. I don't think that I need to define evil since I'm not the one alleging that there is a Problem of Evil.

Click to expand...

It's the same question. as my other 5 requests. I merely re-worded, like I have in all requests, for flavor.

You just stated "God intends to destroy evil people".

Please define "evil". If we do not 'objectively' know what 'evil' is, then the topic you present has no set boundaries