Problem of Evil?

[Tree of Life]

It's the same question. as my other 5 requests. I re-word it 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 not set boundaries

That would take us too far afield from the OP. This thread is about the alleged Problem of Evil which is posed by non-Christians. I don't think that the Problem of Evil presents a serious challenge to Christian faith. If you think that it does, please explain why. But if you don't think it does then you're welcome to start your own thread about the nature of good and evil - which is a separate issue.

 

[cvanwey]

That would take us too far afield from the OP. This thread is about the alleged Problem of Evil which is posed by non-Christians. I don't think that the Problem of Evil presents a serious challenge to Christian faith. If you think that it does, please explain why. But if you don't think it does then you're welcome to start your own thread about the nature of good and evil - which is a separate issue.

As I stated many posts ago, it looks to start with the argument by Epicurus, which I'm sure you are familiar. But then it might be quite prudent to define the term 'evil'.

Since you seem to believe 'morals' are objective, I would love to know what 'evil' is? This should be trivial or easy, if the answer truly is objective/absolute. Without any defined boundaries to what is and is not evil, then it's all just subjective banter, it seems.

 

[Tree of Life]

As I stated many posts ago, it looks to start with the argument by Epicurus, which I'm sure you are familiar. But then it might be quite prudent to define the term 'evil'.

Since you seem to believe 'morals' are objective, I would love to know what 'evil' is? This should be trivial or easy, if the answer truly is objective/absolute. Without any defined boundaries to what is and is not evil, then it's all just subjective banter, it seems.

So I take it that you don't think that the Problem of Evil is really a problem because there is no such thing as objective evil? In other words, you would deny premise (2) of the logical problem which says:

(2) Evil exists.

If you deny (2), which I would not, then the problem certainly dissolves.

 

[cvanwey]

So I take it that you don't think that the Problem of Evil is really a problem because there is no such thing as objective evil? In other words, you would deny premise (2) of the logical problem which says:

(2) Evil exists.

If you deny (2), which I would not, then the problem certainly dissolves.

I've already told you, in other threads, as well as this one, morals are subjective. If you believe otherwise, you must first prove it. Please do, and..... Good luck!

If you cannot prove that morals are not only objective, but absolute, then how the heck are we to know what a statement "god will eventually destroy evil" actually means?.?..?.?.?????????????

 

[Larniavc]

God intends to destroy evil people, for example.

But he hasn’t. So either he can’t or chides not to and during that time evil happens.

 

[Tree of Life]

But he hasn’t. So either he can’t or chides not to and during that time evil happens.

My point is that God does not have good intentions toward all. He is not, in that sense, "omni-benevolent".

 

[cvanwey]

My point is that God does not have good intentions toward all. He is not, in that sense, "omni-benevolent".

What is 'evil'? It's a simple question.

Before we can successfully tackle a 'problem', it would sure be nice to know the objective answer for the term? Maybe if you could be so kind as to tell us what 'evil' absolutely is, then us unbelievers can absolutely know what we are arguing.

 

[Tree of Life]

What is 'evil'? It's a simple question.

Before we can successfully tackle a 'problem', it would sure be nice to know the objective answer for the term? Maybe if you could be so kind as to tell us what 'evil' absolutely is, then us unbelievers can absolutely know what we are arguing.

It doesn't sound like you're making the argument. I'll leave it to those who are making the argument to define their terms.

 

[cvanwey]

It doesn't sound like you're making the argument. I'll leave it to those who are making the argument to define their terms.

You have sense made the argument that 'evil' is absolute. I would just like to know what 'evil' is? Maybe I can then jump in, maybe not.... What are you so afraid of?

 

[Tree of Life]

You have sense made the argument that 'evil' is absolute. I would just like to know what 'evil' is? Maybe I can then jump in, maybe not.... What are you so afraid of?

We can either discuss that matter privately or start a separate thread. I wouldn't want to derail this thread with something off-topic.

 

[cvanwey]

We can either discuss that matter privately or start a separate thread. I wouldn't want to derail this thread with something off-topic.

I don't see it as a derail, but a clarification of the term within the actual title of your thread. If 'evil' has an objective/absolute standard, then it is not up for debate. Unless you are out of touch and/or unfamiliar with the evidence, like many are with your Covid example, whom still do not believe for whatever amoral reason. Not because they deliberately choose to spread disease.

Going back to post #9:

Epicurus: "God either wishes to take away (evils), and is unable; or He is able, and is unwilling; or He is neither willing nor able, or He is both willing and able.”

One 'atheist' might believe abortion is wrong, and is evil. Another might believe the opposite, that it is not evil.

I don't know what you believe about abortion, and quite frankly, I'm not sure if I care. I instead want to know?

Is abortion absolutely right or wrong? And how can you prove it? You state morals are absolute?

It goes back to Epicurus. If the objective/absolute boundaries are not proven, for 'evil', then you have a very messy/boundaryless argument. Atheist or theist, would you not agree?

 

[Larniavc]

My point is that God does not have good intentions toward all. He is not, in that sense, "omni-benevolent".

Yeah, I’m fine with that. I get confused when some Christians insist that God is Perfect Goodness. Scripture does not support that.

 

[bling]

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.

God will to do almost anything to help those willing to accept God's help. Job was a better person after all that he went through then he was before going through it. I am sure Job wanted to be a better person.

 

[bling]

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.

Wait just a moment. God was willing to allow His first and very best son to be tortured, humiliated and murdered by extremely evil people to just help me to fulfill my earthly objective. So it is not surprising God would allow rebellious disobedient children He also Loves that he has tried to help to the point they will never accept his help to take on the lesser objective of helping me to accept His help sooner than later.
God is not sending people to hell because He does not Love them, but because He Loves me and since His Love for these others cannot help them, God allows them to help me by their going to hell.

 

[bling]

Yeah, I’m fine with that. I get confused when some Christians insist that God is Perfect Goodness. Scripture does not support that.

God was willing to allow His first and very best son to be tortured, humiliated and murdered by extremely evil people to just help me to fulfill my earthly objective. So it is not surprising God would allow rebellious disobedient children He also Loves that he has tried to help to the point they will never accept his help to take on the lesser objective of helping me to accept His help sooner than later.
God is not sending people to hell because He does not Love them, but because He Loves me and since His Love for these others cannot help them, God allows them to help me by their going to hell.

 

[Tree of Life]

Yeah, I’m fine with that. I get confused when some Christians insist that God is Perfect Goodness. Scripture does not support that.

I would maintain that God is all-good. He has never done anyone wrong and doesn't do wrong. But this doesn't make him omni-benevolent.

 

[Gene2memE]

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.

Could God create a world where there are no evil people?

 

[cvanwey]

I would maintain that God is all-good. He has never done anyone wrong and doesn't do wrong. But this doesn't make him omni-benevolent.

You say you do not want to derail the conversation, but then make such assertions?.? Please make up your mind.

What does 'all-good', 'never done anyone wrong', and 'doesn't do wrong' absolutely mean? Without defining your own boundaries, and proving them, how can a theist/deist/atheist/other agree (or) disagree with your current blank/unfounded assertion(s)? Again, if we do not know what 'evil' is, then this argument seems fruitless for all.

Please remember, it is you whom assert that morals are absolute. Please prove this...

 

[Tree of Life]

Could God create a world where there are no evil people?

Yes. Christians believe that God did in fact create such a world in the beginning. But even aside from that, God could have possibly created a world that never fell into sin.

 

[cvanwey]

cvanwey, the adults are talking.

You are rude. Yes, this is my subjective assessment. You do not want to answer the question, because you cannot justify a moral as absolute. Prove me wrong.