The Logical Problem of Evil: Mackie's World

[quatona]

All you've done is resurrect Mackie and Flew's rebuttal.

This article presents Mackie's argument and then a refutation of it. In addition, it speaks about the existential aspect of all of this which I think is what people are really at the end of the day more concerned about.

http://preparedtoanswer.org/2013/05/31/god-and-evil-series-a-key-objection-to-the-free-will-defence/

I give my own arguments against your arguments in my own words. So I´m not going to discuss someone else´s article addressing someone else´s argument.

 

[anonymous person]

Having said all I have said thus far, I think this needs to be said. I am persuaded that it is not enough just to argue that God and evil can co-exist. I am persuaded that most people that raise the question do so because they themselves have suffered in some way from the evil that affects all of us. Everyone has been affected by evil in some way. Everyone of us has been affected by suffering in some way and evil. It is something that wealth cannot protect us from, it something that learning cannot protect us from, or honor on religion or prestige. The young and old suffer from it. IOW, it is universal.

What we fail to see, is that we are to blame. It is something that we cause. Humans cause suffering. Humans do evil.

When I think of evil and suffering intend to always focus on the one suffering on the one on the receiving end. I rarely ever sit and meditate on just how much suffering and evil I have caused just in the few years I've been alive. Even when I think how much suffering I have caused myself to experience by my own choices and decisions, my mind begins to reel.

I think the responsibility rightly falls to me to examine myself to see if I am one of the people to blame for the evil and suffering in the world, and honestly I am.

You see guys, we can sit and theorize all day about evil and suffering, while we are doing so, there are people that we could be helping, people we could be comforting and consoling, if that is what we really wanted to do.

Jesus said that the field was ripe for harvesting, but that there a few laborers.

I desire to be one of those few.

Do you?

 

[anonymous person]

I give my own arguments against your arguments in my own words. So I´m not going to discuss someone else´s article addressing someone else´s argument.

That's fine. I presented the article for your benefit, not mine but you don't have to read it.

Personally, if I were seeking counsel on something I felt was of extreme and potentially life changing importance, a diagnosis perhaps of some medical condition, and I knew a med student and went to him for advice and he admitted that he was not as knowledgeable in the specific field pertaining to my condition and recommended a specialist who was, I would thank the med student and go see what the specialist had to say. I would be a fool to say, "Hey dude, I came to you with this question and since I came to you I'm not going to go hear what the specialist says, I'm only listening to you!"

..........

Yea.....that's not something I would do, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

I can take what was in the article and reword it and give it to you but I'm not going to do that because then I would be accused of plagiarism.

If you're really interested in what my views are, you will read the article, for it speaks for me. If not, then you won't. Personally I don't think you're really interested. And that's fine. You still have to account for evil and suffering just like I do.

 

[quatona]

Having said all I have said thus far, I think this needs to be said. I am persuaded that it is not enough just to argue that God and evil can co-exist. I am persuaded that most people that raise the question do so because they themselves have suffered in some way from the evil that affects all of us. Everyone has been affected by evil in some way. Everyone of us has been affected by suffering in some way and evil. It is something that wealth cannot protect us from, it something that learning cannot protect us from, or honor on religion or prestige. The young and old suffer from it. IOW, it is universal.

Personally, I have little to complain when it comes to my own suffering.
I just have a problem with an entity intentionally inflicting suffering on someone. This problem gets worse when this entity is called "omnibenevolent".

 

[quatona]

That's fine. I presented the article for your benefit, not mine but you don't have to read it.

Personally, if I were seeking counsel on something I felt was of extreme and potentially life changing importance, a diagnosis perhaps of some medical condition, and I knew a med student and went to him for advice and he admitted that he was not as knowledgeable in the specific field pertaining to my condition and recommended a specialist who was, I would thank the med student and go see what the specialist had to say. I would be a fool to say, "Hey dude, I came to you with this question and since I came to you I'm not going to go hear what the specialist says, I'm only listening to you!"

You seem to be under the impression that you are an expert, and that I am seeking your counsel.

I can take what was in the article and reword it and give it to you but I'm not going to do that because then I would be accused of plagiarism.

And I can find an article that addresses the article you referenced, and we could let articles discuss with each other.

You still have to account for evil and suffering just like I do.

I don´t think I have ever caused an earthquake or a tsunami, and if - much to my surprise - it could be shown that I have, I can say in all honesty that I haven´t done it intentionally. As opposed to your God who takes pride in intentionally causing calamities, disasters and bad days for people.

 

[anonymous person]

You seem to be under the impression that you are an expert, and that I am seeking your counsel.


And I can find an article that addresses the article you referenced, and we could let articles discuss with each other.


I don´t think I have ever caused an earthquake or a tsunami, and if - much to my surprise - it could be shown that I have, I can say in all honesty that I haven´t done it intentionally. As opposed to your God who takes pride in intentionally causing calamities, disasters and bad days for people.

I likened myself to a med student who was referring you to someone more knowledgeable and qualified i.e. a specialist. I am by no means an expert in any of this. I am actually a landscaper by day. I cut grass and trim bushes and have never been to college or studied formally. Far be it from me to glory in anything except the Cross of Christ.

I suggest you do find some articles written by people who can defend your views clearly and accurately. Doing so would help get your points across, to me at least.

The appeal to natural phenomenon and their relation to the various formulations of PoE have been addressed by professional philosophers whose work you can review without having to wait for me to read what they have written and reword it. That's all I would be doing if I am being honest. I am learning though. I prayed for God to help me learn these things and you are being a tremendous help. If I come to the point where I can understand what you're saying and the points you're trying to make, the average person I run into with questions will be much easier for me to interact with than they would have been without your help. All things work together for my good. Thanks.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Not if humans have libertarian free will, which is the type of free-will I am referring to, and the free-will referenced in Plantinga's free-will defense.

And I'm discussing the existent state of affairs in the universe. Which contrary to what you're saying, demonstrates that an omnipotent god could have created us so that we never cause suffering and retain free will.

Going back to our definition of omnipotence, we see a good case can be made for the view that it does not entail being able to do the logically impossible. A creature with libertarian free will by definition, is one who is free to act however it chooses, even contrary to God's will.

But it's not at all logically impossible for an omnipotent god to create beings with the free will to do something who never choose to do it.

Secondly, and I know I've said this numerous times...while it is logically possible that God could create a world, let's call it possible world 1 or P1, wherein every creature with libertarian free will never causes another to suffer, i.e., they all always choose to do good and right, such a world may not be feasible for God to create. The error in your reasoning lies in the fact that you think that because a world is logically possible, that therefore God can create it, but this is a non-sequitur given that it is logically possible human beings have libertarian free will, for it may be the case that in every world God "saw" before Him in His mind in that state of affairs causally prior to the bringing into being this actual world, contained free creatures who would eventually end up causing human suffering to each other. It may be the case in those possible worlds, there was even more suffering in them than this one. It may be the case that in those possible worlds, there was less suffering accompanied by less good.

That's nonsensical. If P1 included free willed creatures that never choose to cause suffering, then the god that made P1 would never see those creatures causing suffering. And P1 is feasible to a omnipotent, omnibenevolent god if that god is able to create the world and it results in the least suffering. P1 fits both criteria, unless you're defining the terms differently than most people do when they think of those terms.

But you may reply by saying that surely there was a possible world P2. wherein there was less suffering and more good in it than this world and that God therefore would have actualized that world instead. Here is an extremely strong and for all intents and purposes, impossible position for one to substantiate. It would be the responsibility of the person making the claim to show that there is a possible world that in fact could have been actualized that would have had less evil in it and more good than this and even if one were to do that, it still is not necessarily true that God would prefer to create such a world, for so long as it is logically possible that God has a morally sufficient reason for creating this world as opposed P2., it is not necessarily true that He would prefer to create P2 as opposed to this world.

My only responsibility is to show that P1 is what an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god would necessarily create. If I assume that an omnibenevolent being would do whatever is necessary to reduce the suffering of the beings that it loves, creating them with the free will to choose to cause suffering but without any inclination to cause suffering is what that being would do. By my definition, there can be no morally sufficient reason to allow suffering and maintain a definition of "omnibenevolent" such that it means anything remotely close to "all good and loving".

 

[anonymous person]

And I'm discussing the existent state of affairs in the universe. Which contrary to what you're saying, demonstrates that an omnipotent god could have created us so that we never cause suffering and retain free will.

If God created us so that by virtue of how we are made, we never cause suffering then we are determined by external prior causes and not undetermined in the libertarian sense, therefore we would not have free-will in the libertarian sense in such a world. We would be prevented from doing evil by external prior causes, even though we ourselves wanted to do it. Imagine a world wherein any of the sins mentioned in the bible is impossible for men to commit because right before they are about to, a mechanism God built into them prevents them from doing so. Imagine men going to a bar with the intent of getting totally wasted and talking to any and every woman they come across with the intent of having sex with them in a hotel and right before they turn the first beer up, their arm locks and they are unable to raise the beer to their mouth. Imagine a world wherein the man wants to lay with another man and before they do, they freeze like statues.

This is essentially what you are suggesting God should have done. That He should have created us so that we never really are actually able to do what we want to do.

But it's not at all logically impossible for an omnipotent god to create beings with the free will to do something who never choose to do it.

I agree. It is logically possible for God to create free moral agents with libertarian free will who never choose to do evil and always choose the good. This is logically possible, but not necessarily feasible or metaphysically possible.

That's nonsensical. If P1 included free willed creatures that never choose to cause suffering, then the god that made P1 would never see those creatures causing suffering.

Not if God possesses middle knowledge, which I happen to find arguably the case. Nevertheless, such a matter is moot to the point I was making. When I used the word "saw", I used it to convey that God being omniscient can survey all possible worlds including those that are both logically possible and metaphysically possible to actualize.

And P1 is feasible to a omnipotent, omnibenevolent god if that god is able to create the world and it results in the least suffering. P1 fits both criteria, unless you're defining the terms differently than most people do when they think of those terms.

The terms "least suffering" are not applicable to P1, for we have already described it as a world void of suffering altogether.

If human beings have libertarian free will, then while P1 is logically possible in that the concept of such a world entails affirming no logical contradiction, such a world may not be metaphysically possible to actualize because whether or not it is actualizable is dependent upon what free moral agents would do in the absence of any external prior causes affecting their choices.

In addition, it seems dubious to me to think that such a world would in fact be actualizable because maintaining that free moral agents are always going to always do what is right every moment and never do evil is not a defensible position imo. But that is just a side note.

My only responsibility is to show that P1 is what an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god would necessarily create. If I assume that an omnibenevolent being would do whatever is necessary to reduce the suffering of the beings that it loves, creating them with the free will to choose to cause suffering but without any inclination to cause suffering is what that being would do. By my definition, there can be no morally sufficient reason to allow suffering and maintain a definition of "omnibenevolent" such that it means anything remotely close to "all good and loving".

The bolded portion is your argument for the implicit assumption that God's omnibenevolence necessitates He would do what you have claimed He would do. In order to show that it is not logically possible for God to have morally sufficient reasons for creating the world the way it is, you have to do more than just say, "this is true by definition".

All you have done is take me on a walk around the block. You have taken me right back to where you started. You are arguing in a circle. While that may be enough for you and for one who shares your view, you have not demonstrated that it is logically impossible that God has a morally sufficient reason for creating the world the way He did.

If God's sole aim in creating was to create a comfortable home for His human "pets" that never had to endure, persevere, overcome, exercise compassion and cultivate virtues such as patience, kindness, trustworthiness, steadfastness, and others, then He could have done that, but one can reasonably argue that such a world has significantly overriding deficiencies than this one.

Theodicies like that of John Hick's soul-making theodicy borrowed from Ireneus, arguably show that a world wherein moral virtue is inculcated in free moral agents would be preferable to a world like that which you suggest should have been made.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

If God created us so that by virtue of how we are made, we never cause suffering then we are determined by external prior causes and not undetermined in the libertarian sense, therefore we would not have free-will in the libertarian sense in such a world. We would be prevented from doing evil by external prior causes, even though we ourselves wanted to do it. Imagine a world wherein any of the sins mentioned in the bible is impossible for men to commit because right before they are about to, a mechanism God built into them prevents them from doing so. Imagine men going to a bar with the intent of getting totally wasted and talking to any and every woman they come across with the intent of having sex with them in a hotel and right before they turn the first beer up, their arm locks and they are unable to raise the beer to their mouth. Imagine a world wherein the man wants to lay with another man and before they do, they freeze like statues.

This is essentially what you are suggesting God should have done. That He should have created us so that we never really are actually able to do what we want to do.

You don't seem to understanding. I'm not talking about a god stopping people from doing something. It's not determinism. I'm talking about people having the ability to choose something without the inclination to choose something. It's actually similar to how we live our lives now, with the exception that those people who would choose an option that causes suffering would instead act like those who would not choose that option. So unless you're suggesting that people who, for example, would never choose to molest a child even given the opportunity don't have free will, then it's demonstrably true that an omnipotent god could have created all of us, rather than most of us, without the desire to molest a child and still maintain free will.

I agree. It is logically possible for God to create free moral agents with libertarian free will who never choose to do evil and always choose the good. This is logically possible, but not necessarily feasible or metaphysically possible.

The fact that we already have people who would never, under any circumstances, molest a child means that if a god had only created a population of clones of this existent person, that specific suffering would be eliminated. This demonstrates that it's metaphysically possible to, at the very least, eliminate this particular suffering. Which would be enough in itself to eliminate the term "omnibenevolent" from the description of any god.

Not if God possesses middle knowledge, which I happen to find arguably the case. Nevertheless, such a matter is moot to the point I was making. When I used the word "saw", I used it to convey that God being omniscient can survey all possible worlds including those that are both logically possible and metaphysically possible to actualize.

If it's logically possible for a god to create a person who never causes suffering, it's logically not necessary to look into the future to see if that person (who never causes suffering) has caused suffering. Now, if you're suggesting that this god can't know for sure if the person it has created has the properties it thinks it has without looking into the future, then that god isn't omnipotent. An omnipotent god could create things with set properties.

If human beings have libertarian free will, then while P1 is logically possible in that the concept of such a world entails affirming no logical contradiction, such a world may not be metaphysically possible to actualize because whether or not it is actualizable is dependent upon what free moral agents would do in the absence of any external prior causes affecting their choices.

I've already shown how it's actually feasible to create a population where one source of suffering is eliminated. And once again, that is enough in and of itself to eliminate the idea that any god could be called omnibenevolent, unless you think that allowing child molestation is something a good and loving god would do.

The bolded portion is your argument for the implicit assumption that God's omnibenevolence necessitates He would do what you have claimed He would do. In order to show that it is not logically possible for God to have morally sufficient reasons for creating the world the way it is, you have to do more than just say, "this is true by definition".

I obviously do not have to do more than that. Like I've said over and over, arguments are constructed using terms that have definitions. You can disagree with the definition of the terms if you'd like, but at some point you start to sound like the person who says they love their wife while physically abusing them. Yes, "love" doesn't have any sort of objective definition, but by stretching the definition past the point at which the majority would agree with you, you show the weakness in your position.

All you have done is take me on a walk around the block. You have taken me right back to where you started. You are arguing in a circle. While that may be enough for you and for one who shares your view, you have not demonstrated that it is logically impossible that God has a morally sufficient reason for creating the world the way He did.

You've shown that you still don't understand the argument, and are just relying on referencing outside sources in the hopes that what you're writing applies to the argument.

If God's sole aim in creating was to create a comfortable home for His human "pets" that never had to endure, persevere, overcome, exercise compassion and cultivate virtues such as patience, kindness, trustworthiness, steadfastness, and others, then He could have done that, but one can reasonably argue that such a world has significantly overriding deficiencies than this one.

This "best of all possible worlds" slant has also seemed ridiculous to me. There's nothing about suffering that is attractive given the alternative. We use the rhetoric you're using right now to try and make ourselves feel better about living in this universe. Try and tell a child that's been molested that the experience was part of a plan to make them stronger by their "enduring" the suffering they felt.

I'll tell them that a good and loving god wouldn't have let that happen in the first place.

 

[anonymous person]

You don't seem to understanding. I'm not talking about a god stopping people from doing something. It's not determinism. I'm talking about people having the ability to choose something without the inclination to choose something. It's actually similar to how we live our lives now, with the exception that those people who would choose an option that causes suffering would instead act like those who would not choose that option. So unless you're suggesting that people who, for example, would never choose to molest a child even given the opportunity don't have free will, then it's demonstrably true that an omnipotent god could have created all of us, rather than most of us, without the desire to molest a child and still maintain free will.



The fact that we already have people who would never, under any circumstances, molest a child means that if a god had only created a population of clones of this existent person, that specific suffering would be eliminated. This demonstrates that it's metaphysically possible to, at the very least, eliminate this particular suffering. Which would be enough in itself to eliminate the term "omnibenevolent" from the description of any god.



If it's logically possible for a god to create a person who never causes suffering, it's logically not necessary to look into the future to see if that person (who never causes suffering) has caused suffering. Now, if you're suggesting that this god can't know for sure if the person it has created has the properties it thinks it has without looking into the future, then that god isn't omnipotent. An omnipotent god could create things with set properties.



I've already shown how it's actually feasible to create a population where one source of suffering is eliminated. And once again, that is enough in and of itself to eliminate the idea that any god could be called omnibenevolent, unless you think that allowing child molestation is something a good and loving god would do.



I obviously do not have to do more than that. Like I've said over and over, arguments are constructed using terms that have definitions. You can disagree with the definition of the terms if you'd like, but at some point you start to sound like the person who says they love their wife while physically abusing them. Yes, "love" doesn't have any sort of objective definition, but by stretching the definition past the point at which the majority would agree with you, you show the weakness in your position.



You've shown that you still don't understand the argument, and are just relying on referencing outside sources in the hopes that what you're writing applies to the argument.



This "best of all possible worlds" slant has also seemed ridiculous to me. There's nothing about suffering that is attractive given the alternative. We use the rhetoric you're using right now to try and make ourselves feel better about living in this universe. Try and tell a child that's been molested that the experience was part of a plan to make them stronger by their "enduring" the suffering they felt.

I'll tell them that a good and loving god wouldn't have let that happen in the first place.

It seems to me that there is an emotional, existential resistance to evil that is underlying your views towards evil and its compatibility with the existence of the Christian God. Your reference to child molestation is indicative of this. And I think you are actually moving in the right direction in finally talking about specific instances of evil instead of the existence of evil per se.

We can spend all day talking about abstractions, but the person who has been molested couldn't care less about all of that. They demand an answer about what has happened to them and why God would allow it. To such a one I would offer no deductive arguments, no defense appealing to the logical possibility of this or that proposition. I would listen to such a person, be there for them, and love on them and do all that was within my power to help them through the healing process. I would tell them that there is One who loves them and sees their hurt and pain and has not remained aloof from the suffering and pain not only they experience, but that we all experience and that He has decided to do something about it and personally entered into this world to make all things new and to offer us all a hope and that soon all wrongs will be righted, and every tear shall be wiped from our eyes while those who have no other desire but to be selfish and self centered and who give no thought about anyone but themselves and have no desire to change will be punished forever away from the presence of the righteous reaping those things which they have sown. I would point out the fact that with God's help and the care and love of others, they are going to go on and have a good life with the opportunity to comfort and help others who have gone through the same things they have gone through. I would point them to the Cross and say, "That is how God feels about you." The responsibility of dissolving the emotional and existential problem of evil falls not to the philosopher, but to the pastoral counselor.

That is how I would respond. I would be interested in hearing how you would respond. What would you say? What promise could you make, what hope could you provide for such a person? I think you would do well to read some of the testimonies of people who have been mistreated, abused, and molested, who have come to take Christ as Savior and Lord and who not only have forgiven the people who mistreated them, but who have gone on to inspire, encourage, comfort, and console others who are hurting and suffering. People who have overcome by the Blood of the Lamb and are living an abundant life here and now in the midst of a perverse and evil generation.

I will leave you with something James Stewart once said:

“It is a glorious phrase of the New Testament, that ‘he led captivity captive.' The very triumphs of His foes, it means, he used for their defeat. He compelled their dark achievements to subserve his end, not theirs. They nailed him to the tree, not knowing that by that very act they were bringing the world to his feet. They gave him a cross, not guessing that he would make it a throne. They flung him outside the gates to die, not knowing that in that very moment they were lifting up all the gates of the universe, to let the King of Glory come in. They thought to root out his doctrines, not understanding that they were implanting imperishably in the hearts of men the very name they intended to destroy. They thought they had defeated God with His back the wall, pinned and helpless and defeated: they did not know that it was God Himself who had tracked them down. He did not conquer in spite of the dark mystery of evil. He conquered through it.”

My God is greater than the idol of a god you imagine. My God is Great enough to conquer through evil while making it possible to genuinely love and experience love and to actually have a meaningful existence as free moral agents. He does not have to create a pitiful world such as one you envision. Such a world as you envision is too small and too narrow for an omnipotent and omnibenevolent, omniscient God. Too predictable, too trivial. Too easy.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

It seems to me that there is an emotional, existential resistance to evil that is underlying your views towards evil and its compatibility with the existence of the Christian God. Your reference to child molestation is indicative of this. And I think you are actually moving in the right direction in finally talking about specific instances of evil instead of the existence of evil per se.

We can spend all day talking about abstractions, but the person who has been molested couldn't care less about all of that. They demand an answer about what has happened to them and why God would allow it. To such a one I would offer no deductive arguments, no defense appealing to the logical possibility of this or that proposition. I would listen to such a person, be there for them, and love on them and do all that was within my power to help them through the healing process. I would tell them that there is One who loves them and sees their hurt and pain and has not remained aloof from the suffering and pain not only they experience, but that we all experience and that He has decided to do something about it and personally entered into this world to make all things new and to offer us all a hope and that soon all wrongs will be righted, and every tear shall be wiped from our eyes while those who have no other desire but to be selfish and self centered and who give no thought about anyone but themselves and have no desire to change will be punished forever away from the presence of the righteous reaping those things which they have sown. I would point out the fact that with God's help and the care and love of others, they are going to go on and have a good life with the opportunity to comfort and help others who have gone through the same things they have gone through. I would point them to the Cross and say, "That is how God feels about you." The responsibility of dissolving the emotional and existential problem of evil falls not to the philosopher, but to the pastoral counselor.

That is how I would respond. I would be interested in hearing how you would respond. What would you say? What promise could you make, what hope could you provide for such a person? I think you would do well to read some of the testimonies of people who have been mistreated, abused, and molested, who have come to take Christ as Savior and Lord and who not only have forgiven the people who mistreated them, but who have gone on to inspire, encourage, comfort, and console others who are hurting and suffering. People who have overcome by the Blood of the Lamb and are living an abundant life here and now in the midst of a perverse and evil generation.

I will leave you with something James Stewart once said:

“It is a glorious phrase of the New Testament, that ‘he led captivity captive.' The very triumphs of His foes, it means, he used for their defeat. He compelled their dark achievements to subserve his end, not theirs. They nailed him to the tree, not knowing that by that very act they were bringing the world to his feet. They gave him a cross, not guessing that he would make it a throne. They flung him outside the gates to die, not knowing that in that very moment they were lifting up all the gates of the universe, to let the King of Glory come in. They thought to root out his doctrines, not understanding that they were implanting imperishably in the hearts of men the very name they intended to destroy. They thought they had defeated God with His back the wall, pinned and helpless and defeated: they did not know that it was God Himself who had tracked them down. He did not conquer in spite of the dark mystery of evil. He conquered through it.”

My God is greater than the idol of a god you imagine. My God is Great enough to conquer through evil while making it possible to genuinely love and experience love and to actually have a meaningful existence as free moral agents. He does not have to create a pitiful world such as one you envision. Such a world as you envision is too small and too narrow for an omnipotent and omnibenevolent, omniscient God. Too predictable, too trivial. Too easy.

So a world in which people don't molest kids is "pitiful".

Wonderful religion you got there...

Otherwise it was a great concession speech though.

 

[anonymous person]

So a world in which people don't molest kids is "pitiful".

Wonderful religion you got there...

Otherwise it was a great concession speech though.

Maybe your view of what evil is, why it exists, and how to deal with it, is preferable? If you think so, I would love to hear what it is. Up until now, we have talked not at all about how you deal with it, where your hope lies, what your solution to it is.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't see how that follows. Especially if it is possible God has a good reason for creating the world the way He did, i.e. with free moral agents.

I am persuaded a world full of people capable of genuinely loving each other is a better world than a world full of, oh let's say, animals or androids.

I see this world perfectly compatible and if fact, what we would expect if God is love and whose very essence is graciousness and goodness. True love requires the possibility of rejecting God and that is where evil comes from.

So I'm just not persuaded by your argument.

In addition, evil is something you have to account for too. It is not just an issue Christians have to deal with. Where does evil come from, what is it, and what is the solution for it in your worldview?

http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2013/why-the-problem-of-evil-is-a-problem-3/

Since you've had so many posts to reply to...I'll assume you just accidentally missed mine. Here it is again...

It has nothing to do with "free will". Free will doesn't create tornadoes, hurricanes, floods. It's obviously within the power of god to create a world without these things (if we're assuming that he created a world with these things)...so why didn't he? What's the "good reason" to destroy so many lives, homes, etc?

The fact that he could've made the world better...in almost countless ways...shows he isn't omnibenevolent and we don't even need to touch the issue of "free will".

Also, I didn't see the need to answer your question as it doesn't apply to my position.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Maybe your view of what evil is, why it exists, and how to deal with it, is preferable? If you think so, I would love to hear what it is. Up until now, we have talked not at all about how you deal with it, where your hope lies, what your solution to it is.

The topic isn't how we deal with the universe as it is. The topic is the universe as we would reasonably expect it to be if an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent god existed. Emphasis on that last one - specifically on the way you have to twist and torture the word in order to try and get it to align with how the universe works.

I mean, it's one thing to say "I don't understand why a supposedly good god would allow any suffering, let alone the amount of suffering we see." That's at least honest.

It's quite another thing to try and find a logical justification that doesn't leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth.

 

[bhsmte]

You seem to be under the impression that you are an expert, and that I am seeking your counsel.


And I can find an article that addresses the article you referenced, and we could let articles discuss with each other.


I don´t think I have ever caused an earthquake or a tsunami, and if - much to my surprise - it could be shown that I have, I can say in all honesty that I haven´t done it intentionally. As opposed to your God who takes pride in intentionally causing calamities, disasters and bad days for people.

I get the feeling, he wants to convince himself, he can influence people, towards his way of thinking.

I tend to think, those on the fence, run away from his rhetoric.

 

[DiamondKut]

.
You cannot beat The Problem of Evil.
Evil is incompatible with an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god, just as the idea of free will is.

For if we take God as the creator of everything there is, man would be simply one more element among the rest. But this also means that man's will cannot be anything other than God's will, albeit a small portion of it. It is only natural, on the other hand, to think man as endowed with free will, since we cannot see anything beyond our own limitations; it is only natural to think --to believe-- that we are the actual origin (cause) of our own actions, since we cannot see beyond the horizon of ourselves. Yet God, the one who sees it all, the one for whom no beyonds exist, knows the picture of things is different. If there is evil in the world, it is because of God: no agent, no living thing, can do different from God's will.

Now, you might wanna try reconciling God's omnibenevolence with evil by saying that God operates at a higher level (or stuff similar to that), i.e., that God has in mind our own well being when he sends us some earthquake or other natural or human catastrophe, etc, or even when it is minor setbacks. That is, you might wanna introduce the notion of duty into the mix --sacrifice: the acceptance of some evil in exchange for a later (greater) good. But that doesn't work either. For we accept the call of duty only when there is some forseeable (human or individual) benefit in it, and since we do not know God's actual plans, nor might be able to understand them, for we are no God, who can really say among us that this or that path leads to our cherished well-being? He, God, might even be working to preserve some other type of creature that we might not even know, or that we might never know, and still think (we) that he is somehow 'working for us'.

You cannot beat The Problem of Evil, and that's scary...
.

 

[anonymous person]

.
You cannot beat The Problem of Evil.
Evil is incompatible with an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god, just as the idea of free will is.

For if we take God as the creator of everything there is, man would be simply one more element among the rest. But this also means that man's will cannot be anything other than God's will, albeit a small portion of it. It is only natural, on the other hand, to think man as endowed with free will, since we cannot see anything beyond our own limitations; it is only natural to think --to believe-- that we are the actual origin (cause) of our own actions, since we cannot see beyond the horizon of ourselves. Yet God, the one who sees it all, the one for whom no beyonds exist, knows the picture of things is different. If there is evil in the world, it is because of God: no agent, no living thing, can do different from God's will.

Now, you might wanna try reconciling God's omnibenevolence with evil by saying that God operates at a higher level (or stuff similar to that), i.e., that God has in mind our own well being when he sends us some earthquake or other natural or human catastrophe, etc, or even when it is minor setbacks. That is, you might wanna introduce the notion of duty into the mix --sacrifice: the acceptance of some evil in exchange for a later (greater) good. But that doesn't work either. For we accept the call of duty only when there is some forseeable (human or individual) benefit in it, and since we do not know God's actual plans, nor might be able to understand them, for we are no God, who can really say among us that this or that path leads to our cherished well-being? He, God, might even be working to preserve some other type of creature that we might not even know, or that we might never know, and still think (we) that he is somehow 'working for us'.

You cannot beat The Problem of Evil, and that's scary...
.

Jesus Christ beat the problem of evil some 2,000 years ago at Golgotha where He took your place and mine and after having atoned for our sins, He proclaimed "it is finished". His resurrection from the dead was a public vindication and proof of this.

God being omnipotent, is able to use the evil human beings commit to accomplish His ends. God being all good has morally sufficient reasons for taking this course.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

God being omnipotent, is able to use the evil human beings commit to accomplish His ends. God being all good has morally sufficient reasons for taking this course.

Unless you can demonstrate any of these morally sufficient reasons, then it's just conjecture.

I can easily counter with "There can be no morally sufficient reasons for an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god to allow suffering". Which you haven't been able to address.