The problem of evil

[elman]

Things may be _generally_ considered good or bad because a large amount of people adhere to certain sentiments toward certain actions.

People, in general, do not like to see babies tortured. So the act is "evil" because society in general disapproves of it.

On the other hand, you have a group of sadists who think that torturing babies is grand.

But a "universal good" is not meant to be voted democratically. So just because many think that it is bad does not make it universally bad, it only makes it bad from the perspective of the majority of society. Society deems things bad, and attempts to remove them, because they have negative effects on its well being and cohesion.

Then again, you brought up a somewhat silly example, because most humans are against inflcting suffering on another for one's own amusement.

Then again, look at the romans, they fed live people to the lions for their amusement. So they thought it was good. I don't see a large distinction between adults and babies for the purpose of this argument.

I don't think the Romans thought feeding live people to the lions was good. People can chose to be bad and when they do it is not evidence that they thought it was good. If someone thinks torturing people to enjoy their screaming is good, they are simply mentally defective.

 

[elman]

Spinoza says we call evil what is not in our advantage.

Evil is more than something that is not beneficial to me.

 

[Murdock]

Why does God allow evil to exist upon the earth?

It is not that God chooses evil over good. Note--in the parable of the sheep and goat, Jesus wished to divide the good from the corrupt, the wheat from the tare.

A what if, with God hanging over our shoulders, as in the presence of God, the wicked would always choose the path of good, out of fear. Take God away, and each and every soul is cast into a fire where it is tested, in order to separate the good fruit from the bad. To give the wicked the rope to hang themselves with, so that in the day of judgement, the wicked would have no defense, saying that we chose good over evil; although we are evil.

Without signs and wonders, men, naturally, do not believe in God; for they cannot conceive of what they cannot grasp with their senses. Hence, Jesus said, this generation of vipers, this wicked and adulterous generation shall receive no sign. Because if you do not believe in the path of good, from the start (without the presence of God) then how are you to believe in it with the presence of God, if your natural tendency is to sway toward an evil inclination.

To separate the sheep from the goats, is what Jesus and God intended. To gather the wheat (the good) into the barn and the tares (the wicked) into the furnace to be burned.

I hope I enlightened the problem of evil for you. I hope that this expounded parable for you, since it is not given to you to understand parable--that a higher wisdom is at work--one that tests souls in a fire.

God allows evil because as Romans 11:32 tells us; "For God bound all men over to disobedience so he can have mercy on them all."

That means, that we can't appreciate what good is without knowing what evil is. It also means that we can't give ourselves eternal life, only God can give that to us. And the only way to do that is to provide a reason for us to seek him.

 

[JM]

the problem of evil?

 

[Tiphereth]

First, I'm not sure that the acceptance of a moral standard implies a divine moral standard. Why could this standard not be, say, Platonic, or perhaps one of the various theories of morality i.e. utilitarianism. I do not see how one can conclude that this moral standard is divine.

The second question is that is this moral standard external to God? Because I think if we posit that its good derives wholly from God, we fall prey to the Euthyphro dilemma.

The third question is, are we discussing the logical problem of evil or are we discussing the evidential problem of evil?

 

[elman]

First, I'm not sure that the acceptance of a moral standard implies a divine moral standard. Why could this standard not be, say, Platonic, or perhaps one of the various theories of morality i.e. utilitarianism. I do not see how one can conclude that this moral standard is divine.

The second question is that is this moral standard external to God? Because I think if we posit that its good derives wholly from God, we fall prey to the Euthyphro dilemma.

The third question is, are we discussing the logical problem of evil or are we discussing the evidential problem of evil?

What is the Euthyphro dilemma?

 

[phsyxx]

What is the Euthyphro dilemma?

The Euthyphro dilemma is found in Plato's dialogue Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks Euthyphro: "Is the pious (τὸ ὅσιον) loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" (10a)
In monotheistic terms, this is usually transformed into: "Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?" The dilemma has continued to present a problem for theists since Plato presented it, and is still the object of theological and philosophical debate.
The Euthyphro dilemma is found in Plato's dialogue Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks Euthyphro: "Is the pious (τὸ ὅσιον) loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" (10a)
In monotheistic terms, this is usually transformed into: "Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?" The dilemma has continued to present a problem for theists since Plato presented it, and is still the object of theological and philosophical debate.

There we go, two mintues - wikipedia/

bish bash bosch -

Hope that Helps, Elman.

 

[Theogonia]

God allows evil for without evil there is no good. It's a balance.

 

[quatona]

God allows evil for without evil there is no good. It's a balance.

Then again, without evil there wouldn´t be any need for good.
And without good and evil there wouldn´t be need for a balance between the two.

God arbitrarily creates problems (for his creatures) so that there can be solutions to those problems. Does not really make sense to me.

I do, however, observe this behaviour in humans all the time (like: any sort of game is exactly that: arbitrarily creating a problem so that there can be a solution). I do see reasons for this behaviour of conscious beings within the conditions of this existence.

But as the spiritual principle on which god created this universe it appears to be a bit, say, disappointing to me.

 

[elman]

The Euthyphro dilemma is found in Plato's dialogue Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks Euthyphro: "Is the pious (τὸ ὅσιον) loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" (10a)
In monotheistic terms, this is usually transformed into: "Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?" The dilemma has continued to present a problem for theists since Plato presented it, and is still the object of theological and philosophical debate.
The Euthyphro dilemma is found in Plato's dialogue Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks Euthyphro: "Is the pious (τὸ ὅσιον) loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" (10a)
In monotheistic terms, this is usually transformed into: "Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?" The dilemma has continued to present a problem for theists since Plato presented it, and is still the object of theological and philosophical debate.

There we go, two mintues - wikipedia/

bish bash bosch -

Hope that Helps, Elman.

I see in this the debate between Christians about do we chose to become a child of God or does God force those he wants to become His Children. I don't see where this fits with why God allows evil to exist?

 

[elman]

Then again, without evil there wouldn´t be any need for good.

If good is being loving there is always a need for good.

 

[FishFace]

First, I'm not sure that the acceptance of a moral standard implies a divine moral standard. Why could this standard not be, say, Platonic, or perhaps one of the various theories of morality i.e. utilitarianism. I do not see how one can conclude that this moral standard is divine.

The second question is that is this moral standard external to God? Because I think if we posit that its good derives wholly from God, we fall prey to the Euthyphro dilemma.

The third question is, are we discussing the logical problem of evil or are we discussing the evidential problem of evil?

Hey buddy, it sounds like your philosophy syllabus was the same as ours

 

[quatona]

If good is being loving there is always a need for good.

Except when there isn´t a need for being loving.

 

[Theogonia]

Except when there isn´t a need for being loving.

And if there was no evil there would be no need for love, because there would be nothing except love.

 

[quatona]

And if there was no evil there would be no need for love, because there would be nothing except love.

Not sure I agree with this (seems to be based on an unusual definition of "love"), but this thought certainly does not explain why god created a world with love and evil.

 

[elman]

Except when there isn´t a need for being loving.

As long as humans exist there will always be a need for being loving.

 

[elman]

Not sure I agree with this (seems to be based on an unusual definition of "love"), but this thought certainly does not explain why god created a world with love and evil.

God did not create a world with love and evil. God create a world with humans and humans created evil.

 

[quatona]

As long as humans exist there will always be a need for being loving.

Yes, because god has forced this necessity into existence by creating the the antagonists evil/love.

 

[elman]

Yes, because god has forced this necessity into existence by creating the the antagonists evil/love.

No God created humans with the ability to love or not love. He did not force us to do either.

 

[Theogonia]

Not sure I agree with this (seems to be based on an unusual definition of "love"), but this thought certainly does not explain why god created a world with love and evil.

Well, good always comes from love. So in a world without evil there would be nothing but good, and therefore nothing but love.

elman: if there was no evil there would be no such thing as good any more, simply because without the presence of evil on which to judge what is good there is no such thing as good.