The Problem of Evil

[Loudmouth]

First, it needs to be demonstrated if we have an example of anything created that, in of itself, accurately reflects upon the nature and motives of its creator.

If an omnipotent creator did not want children to die of painful cancers at the age of 10, then no children would die of horrible and painful cancers at the age of 10. The reasoning is very straightforward.

So either God allows children to die of painful diseases, or God is incapable of stopping it. Which is it?

 

[fireof god98]

If an omnipotent creator did not want children to die of painful cancers at the age of 10, then no children would die of horrible and painful cancers at the age of 10. The reasoning is very straightforward.

So either God allows children to die of painful diseases, or God is incapable of stopping it. Which is it?

most of the time the answer you will get is free will

 

[poolerboy0077]

Pure reason without evidence does not prove anything.

Absolutely it does. Synthetic a priori knowledge is certainly possible. Kant's ethics might have been atrocious, but his epistemology was quite brilliant.

The difference is knowing when to employ rationalism and when to employ empiricism. If the conversation were about proving the existence of possible phenomena, that requires evidence. But if we're merely assessing evidence that we already have and showing that their existence together would lead to a contradiction, that requires reason. I don't have to prove bachelors are unmarried empirically because I can do so through pure reason.

But, here's why pure reason I think you need to address my point:

- Bakers are creators
- Cakes are creations

- Bakers make cakes.
- Cakes are made with flour, salt, sugar, and baking soda.

- A god is a creator
- A god's creation is made with matter, energy, good, evil

- Bakers are not necessarily in essence flour, salt, sugar, and baking soda
- A god is not necessarily in essence matter, energy, good nor evil

Enjoy the unadulterated, simplistic reason.

All too simple, unfortunately.

Now you've removed one particular characteristic of God, namely omni-benevolence.

Moreover, the distinction between creator and creation does little to address the problems I've addressed. The point you're making here is a straw man.

Perfect knowledge of what?

Of everything. That's what omniscience means.

God by definition is the greatest of all possible beings. God would not be the greatest of all possible beings if He didn't exist. Therefore, God exists.

Ontology does not prove existence, unless you want to say the preceding is true.

The ontological argument fails but not for the reasons you think it does. Synthetic a priori knowledge is certainly attainable, but this "God proof" mixes up the necessary and sufficient conditions. It's circular reasoning, essentially drawing conclusions about existence of an entity based on its properties, because, again, possible beings existing requires evidence. However, advancing claims of impossible beings requires pure reason alone, because of our invocation of law of non-contradiction in logic. You're getting your epistemologies mixed up.

No, in fact you are confused. I said without perfect knowledge of the future, we are unable to make moral judgments about God in the present, because we don't know where all of this evil is heading. It might have a purpose.

And my response, something you completely did not address, was that this elusive purpose of which we might not be privy to makes God a slave to his creation. Why's that? Because if there is indeed a purpose or goal that God wants to achieve, given that he's all-powerful and all-knowing he could both get at this other purpose we don't know of and not have us suffer. Yet he chose this route. You've made God a slave to this unknown and unknowable purpose. Our lack of knowledge of what that purpose is doesn't take away from the fact that whatever it is you're confining him to it, making him not omnipotent.

Now, it might not, or the purpose might be malevolent. But, without perfect knowledge of the future, it is impossible for anyone to discern.

But the problem is believers have arrived at a specific answer regardless of this lack of perfect knowledge. Namely that he's good. Based on what? Faith. They've jettisoned their own reasoning faculties about using the morality they've got to simply assume God must be loving. As Galileo observed, "I do not feel obliged to believe that that same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use."

Do you really believe this? The logic is simple. If the world is better with suffering than without it, than your point is moot.

Yet heaven is an attendant belief for Christians, no? If heaven is this realm of existence absent of suffering, then the point is not moot because we can compare and contrast. And, moreover, your "simple logic" once more makes God a slave to his creation. Why would God be confined to making a world in which suffering must be present for it to be better than not if he is indeed all-powerful? You're now attacking the omnipotent characteristic -- hence the problem in theodicy.

No, He does not necessarily, but maybe He wants to. I don't see the contradiction here.

You don't see it because you don't want to.

You said God "might" have a plan in which suffering is necessary. It doesn't have to be necessary if God is omnipotent. Only a God which must adhere to certainly universal laws beyond his control would be confined to making a world in which suffering is necessary for it to be the best of all possible worlds would be the kind you are describing, which is certainly not an omnipotent one.

Actually, I'm not, I'm making no positive claims about God's nature here. You are.

Sure you are. Are you not a Christian? You're also saying it is impossible to make moral assessments because of our limited knowledge. Just as we need not have omniscience with respect to all bachelors on Earth that have ever lived to make the inference that bachelors cannot be married, so too can we draw proper inferences about contradictions with respect to God without having omniscience as God supposedly does.

 

[PsychoSarah]

most of the time the answer you will get is free will

And I say an all powerful being doesn't need to allow suffering for free will to exist, and an all good god wouldn't want a world in which suffering existed.

 

[abacabb3]

If an omnipotent creator did not want children to die of painful cancers at the age of 10, then no children would die of horrible and painful cancers at the age of 10. The reasoning is very straightforward.

So either God allows children to die of painful diseases, or God is incapable of stopping it. Which is it?

Very clearly, the painful diseases are as much a part of His plan as the torture and murder of His Son, where have I denied this? What you cannot demonstrate is how it is preferable not to have any evil at all in all situations.

 

[abacabb3]

Absolutely it does. Synthetic a priori knowledge is certainly possible. Kant's ethics might have been atrocious, but his epistemology was quite brilliant.

Logic, built upon presumptions and faulty premises, does not lead to true conclusions. Case in point:

All too simple, unfortunately.

Now you've removed one particular characteristic of God, namely omni-benevolence.

Using your esteemed "reason" I demonstrated that you cannot extrapolate characteristics of the creator from elements of what it has created.

So, I didn't remove "omni-benevolence" from the characteristics of God, but neither did I add it. My point is that your logic is faulty. We cannot understand the nature of the Creator from the creation with any degree of certainty. You are making a positive claim that you can, but you have failed to even begin showing how logically you can do that.

The point you're making here is a straw man.

Actually, though you don't yet realize what I am really saying, it is central to the whole matter. If you cannot definitively prove me wrong on this point, then you cannot employ the same logic to make any positive claims whatsoever about God. This makes the "problem of evil" a non-conversation.

Of everything. That's what omniscience means.

You're conflating things, we were talking about knowledge of the future.

The ontological argument fails but not for the reasons you think it does. Synthetic a priori knowledge is certainly attainable, but this "God proof" mixes up the necessary and sufficient conditions. It's circular reasoning, essentially drawing conclusions about existence of an entity based on its properties, because, again, possible beings existing requires evidence. However, advancing claims of impossible beings requires pure reason alone, because of our invocation of law of non-contradiction in logic. You're getting your epistemologies mixed up.

Rather, I think such an argument shows the limitation of logic on its own merits, because it is not illogical and logic requires the use of language, which has value-laden meanings in which the ontological argument can even begin making sense.

So, what I don't think you even realize, is that the "Problem of Evil" is much of the same. It has a central presumption, which is that non-existence of evil at all times is necessarily better than the degree of evil in which presently exists.

Remove that presumption, and there isn't even an argument. You are inserting meaning into "omni-benevolence" which is biased, and perhaps, deficient to its true meaning.

I am sure you have read Plato's Republic. Weren't there 10 books dedicated to just defining the word "justice?" Are you confident that you have a perfect understanding of what "benevolence" even is then if even Plato could not begin understanding what "justice" was?

So, I see your problem two fold. First, you cannot even prove with certainty that the argument would even be true to begin with (that it is best if no evil ever existed) and second, that the existence of evil can actually give us any idea whatsoever what the nature of the Creator is.

Those are two glaring holes!

And my response, something you completely did not address, was that this elusive purpose of which we might not be privy to makes God a slave to his creation. Why's that? Because if there is indeed a purpose or goal that God wants to achieve, given that he's all-powerful and all-knowing he could both get at this other purpose we don't know of and not have us suffer. Yet he chose this route. You've made God a slave to this unknown and unknowable purpose.

I find this "point" rather awkward and tortured in its own right. Essentially, by your logic, any infinite being working in the space-time continuum at all becomes enslaved in the process. I think our understanding of what is occurring is in some ways "anachronistic" and not outside of time, which the Creator may be (at least as revealed in the Bible anyway). So, our view of what is occurring is from a very narrow vantage point and thereby incomplete.

So, I don't think if God works in time He makes Himself finite as the time itself is finite, because God exists outside of time.

But the problem is believers have arrived at a specific answer regardless of this lack of perfect knowledge. Namely that he's good. Based on what? Faith.

I totally agree with this, I can't prove to you that He is good any more than you can prove to me that He is bad. However, I am not the one making a positive assertion, you are.

Yet heaven is an attendant belief for Christians, no? If heaven is this realm of existence absent of suffering, then the point is not moot because we can compare and contrast.

Not really, because within Christian metaphysics eternal damnation exists side-by-side. The Scripture says, "What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory" (Rom 9:22, 23).

So, in my mind, the depth of riches of God's glory cannot exist without the existence of deserved wrath on others. Now, I don't mean to derail this conversation into the realm "does anyone deserve mercy/wrath." Deserving is not the point. Rather, the Bible makes a positive claim that something that is greater is not possible without some attendant evil of some sort.

Now, you don't have to agree with this at all, but can you demonstrate that it is totally out-of-hand. Because, if we were to look at the mass historical record, we would actually see good resulting from evil all the time. We learn not to touch hot things by burning our hand once, for example. So, someone from your position would argue that it would be better if hot things would never exist to begin with. But, that's a value-laden presumption. Maybe, it is actually better that the pain exists, and at the same time, the necessary knowledge to avoid the pain also exists.

Also, as Kelly Clarkson has said, "Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger." Most people on some level agree with that modern-day proverb. Now, if that proverb is agreeable, it concedes that trials and suffering can serve a greater purpose.

So to me, the ridiculous position is not mine, but actually your pie in the sky one in which the absolute absence of suffering is best when in reality, we have no such examples in which to actually put this to the test and see if it is so great. I think without suffering, the true depths of love and happiness cannot be experienced.

You don't see it because you don't want to.

Maybe I'm just stupid, that's always possible.

You said God "might" have a plan in which suffering is necessary. It doesn't have to be necessary if God is omnipotent.

I would agree with this. It might not be necessary at all. But, because I am not omniscient nor have perfect knowledge of the future, I cannot definitively answer that question for you.

You're also saying it is impossible to make moral assessments because of our limited knowledge.

Be careful to follow my logic: Unless it can be demonstrated that the absence of suffering is preferable at all times to the existence of suffering at some points, then without perfect knowledge of the future we cannot determine that there exists needless suffering that would not serve some constructive purpose.

 

[poolerboy0077]

Using your esteemed "reason" I demonstrated that you cannot extrapolate characteristics of the creator from elements of what it has created.

I'm not. You keep saying this because you want to impose this supposed argument on me as though I'm making it. I'm not. Stop shoving straw men at me and putting words in my mouth.

So, I didn't remove "omni-benevolence" from the characteristics of God, but neither did I add it.

You said he is neither good nor evil. Omni-benevolence is good. It is the highest good that could ever exist. One cannot be both good and not good simultaneously. That is a contradiction. This isn't a faulty premise. You can whine and moan all you want and it won't change a thing about the reality of it.

My point is that your logic is faulty. We cannot understand the nature of the Creator from the creation with any degree of certainty. You are making a positive claim that you can, but you have failed to even begin showing how logically you can do that.

No, you know what? I'm done with you. If you want to show where the holes are in my arguments. Fine. Do so. But if you're going to complain about arguments I'm clearly not making you are being completely dishonest. Never did I make a claim that I can know everything. I very clearly said this in my last post. I said despite our lack of knowledge we can make inferences. I have no patience for deliberate deceitfulness.

Maybe I'm just stupid, that's always possible.

Probably your best concession yet.

 

[abacabb3]

Using your esteemed "reason" I demonstrated that you cannot extrapolate characteristics of the creator from elements of what it has created.

I'm not.

"I'm not" what?

You keep saying this because you want to impose this supposed argument on me as though I'm making it.

I am not imposing an argument. How is it inaccurate to say that you observe evil in creation and then conclude if it is in the creation then whatever created has to be evil? That is your argument. There is no other argument to make.

You said he is neither good nor evil.

Correct, I am not here to argue that God is good. My argument is that you cannot prove with any degree of certainty He is bad, because your logic does not prove out that conclusion.

I don't need to prove anything about God's nature, because I'm not making any positive claims about His nature. You are. So, the burden of proof is on you, not me.

No, you know what? I'm done with you.

Good!

I But if you're going to complain about arguments I'm clearly not making you are being completely dishonest.

Actually, I fully addressed all your points and yet you keep ignoring the crux of my whole argument, that you cannot come up with one created thing that reveals to us with any degree of certainty the nature of its creator. So, in fact, you are doing what you accuse me of. That doesn't surprise me, though.

I said despite our lack of knowledge we can make inferences.

As I have shown, your inferences are wrong.

Probably your best concession yet.

It is the only thing I would have to concede voluntarily, because neither your logic or arguments would compel me to concede anything else, being that they don't prove anything.

 

[Loudmouth]

Guys, put your Epicurus down for a second. Before we even need to explore his logic, we need to just state clearly whether there is anything that is created that conveys the nature of its creator, aside from the fact that a creator has the ability to create it.

If your only recourse is to ignore everything we say, and yet expect us to respond to everything you say, then it isn't much of a discussion.

 

[Loudmouth]

Very clearly, the painful diseases are as much a part of His plan as the torture and murder of His Son, where have I denied this? What you cannot demonstrate is how it is preferable not to have any evil at all in all situations.

Do I really have to rationalize why it is a bad thing for children to die painful deaths?

 

[Loudmouth]

I am not imposing an argument. How is it inaccurate to say that you observe evil in creation and then conclude if it is in the creation then whatever created has to be evil?

You forgot the additional requirement that the creator be omnipotent and omniscient.

If God is not omnipotent and is incapable of stopping evil, then the argument changes.

My argument is that you cannot prove with any degree of certainty He is bad, because your logic does not prove out that conclusion.

If God can stop evil, but does not, that makes him bad. You would be as bad as a person who does not reach out a hand to save a drowning person. You would be as bad as a person who lets a child run right by them onto a busy street.

I don't need to prove anything about God's nature, because I'm not making any positive claims about His nature. You are. So, the burden of proof is on you, not me.

Are you saying that christians do not claim that God is omnipotent?

All we are doing is using the God that christians claim exists, and then following the evidence to our conclusions from that description of God. If God is incapable of stopping evil on Earth, now would be the time to say so.

 

[abacabb3]

If your only recourse is to ignore everything we say, and yet expect us to respond to everything you say, then it isn't much of a discussion.

tHE POINT IS i ALREADY OFFERED MY COUNTER ARGUMENT TO ePICURUS AND INSTEAD OF HAVING MY COUNTER ARGUMENT ADDRESSED, i HAVE ePICURUS REPEATED TO ME. (Caps, sorry)

 

[abacabb3]

You forgot the additional requirement that the creator be omnipotent and omniscient.

I didn't forget your argument, what I am saying is that your method of determining what the nature of a creator is by looking at the parts of what it creates is not workable, because I cannot apply that method to anything else.

If God is not omnipotent and is incapable of stopping evil, then the argument changes.

Again, you requoted Epicurus instead of addressing my actual argument, which is that youc annot employ EPicurus' logic to apply in other situations, so it's a redutio ad absurdum.

If God can stop evil, but does not, that makes him bad.

Who says? Should a parent prevent a child from ever making mistakes or learning things the hard way? Are you a fan of home schooling?

You would be as bad as a person who does not reach out a hand to save a drowning person.

Yes, but would I be a bad god? Is the greatest of all possible gods compelled to at all times do what humans view to be good? Isn't that an anthropocentric view of the universe?

Are you saying that christians do not claim that God is omnipotent?

No, what I am saying is that I am not the one making a positive claim, so I don't have a burden of proof to fulfill. You are making a positive claim that God is evil, so you are making a positive claim. Further, your method of making that claim is inapplicable to everything else in existence, which puts your positive claim into doubt.

All we are doing is using the God that christians claim exists

No, you are employing a strawman. I don't believe in a God that prevents children from drowning at all times. I believe in a God that ordains evil, but does not create it nor is tainted by it. Now, you can disagree with this but I am not here to prove that God exists. I am just pointing out that argument doesn't use a workable premise nor workable logic.

 

[Loudmouth]

I didn't forget your argument, what I am saying is that your method of determining what the nature of a creator is by looking at the parts of what it creates is not workable, because I cannot apply that method to anything else.

I am showing you how it can be done and how it can be applied.

Again, you requoted Epicurus instead of addressing my actual argument, which is that youc annot employ EPicurus' logic to apply in other situations, so it's a redutio ad absurdum.

You did not address my argument that it can be applied.

Who says? Should a parent prevent a child from ever making mistakes or learning things the hard way? Are you a fan of home schooling?

Are you saying that a good parent will stand by and watch their 3 year old child wander into a street and be hit by a car? I don't know about you, but I would want them to be arrested for murder if they did that.

I say that an omnipotent God who could stop evil but does not is a bad deity. So far, all you can do is tell me that I am not allowed to use this line of reasoning because you don't like it. I need a better reason than that.

Yes, but would I be a bad god? Is the greatest of all possible gods compelled to at all times do what humans view to be good? Isn't that an anthropocentric view of the universe?

Good gods should do what is moral. Both humans and gods have the ability to judge morality.

No, what I am saying is that I am not the one making a positive claim, so I don't have a burden of proof to fulfill. You are making a positive claim that God is evil, so you are making a positive claim.

My positive evidence is that evil exists when it should not exist if God is good and also omnipotent.

The God described by christianity is omnipotent, so therefore that God is evil.

Further, your method of making that claim is inapplicable to everything else in existence, which puts your positive claim into doubt.

It isn't inapplicable to everything else. That is just something you have made up.

I can look at a pot and sometimes find the fingerprints of the potter in the clay. There are tons of examples I can cite where we can use the creation to tell us about the creator.

I don't believe in a God that prevents children from drowning at all times.

If that God is also omnipotent, then you believe in an immoral God.

 

[Loudmouth]

tHE POINT IS i ALREADY OFFERED MY COUNTER ARGUMENT TO ePICURUS AND INSTEAD OF HAVING MY COUNTER ARGUMENT ADDRESSED, i HAVE ePICURUS REPEATED TO ME. (Caps, sorry)

Your counter argument is just your say so. There is nothing to address.

 

[abacabb3]

Your counter argument is just your say so. There is nothing to address.

Actually, your counter argument is simply reiterating the same argument. You are yet to address my argument to begin with, which is, that your method of determining characteristics of a creator from a creation is applicable to any other created object.

You can accuse me of being evasive, but I'm not and the fact you must resort to doing this reflects the weakness of your position.

 

[abacabb3]

You did not address my argument that it can be applied.

Which argument, Epicurus'? I offered my counter argument to Epicurus, that this his contentions would not be true in other situations. You have not countered this point.

You did not address my argument that it can be applied.

I was not aware that you addressed a different argument than Epicurus', could you elaborate on that? Then, can you please respond to my counterargument against Epicurus instead of ignoring it?

Are you saying that a good parent will stand by and watch their 3 year old child wander into a street and be hit by a car?

No, but are you saying a good parent would never use any negative reinforcement whatsoever with a child?

This presumes a mere disciplinary reason for the existence of evil. You are yet to even address how present evil can serve future good purposes, and because you don't have perfect knowledge of the future, you cannot counter this.

I say that an omnipotent God who could stop evil but does not is a bad deity.

In your opinion. I think a good deity allows there to be a controlled, degree of evil. Why are you right and I'm wrong? How can you definitively prove me wrong?

So far, all you can do is tell me that I am not allowed to use this line of reasoning because you don't like it. I need a better reason than that.

It's not whether I like it or not, it doesn't make sense on several levels.

1. It doesn't disprove the existence of beneficial evil (evil that serves future good purposes).
2. It doesn't prove that even if it were senseless evil, that senseless evil as a constituent part of creation would reflect upon its creator any more than salt in a cake reflects upon the nature of the baker.

Unless these two glaring flaws are addressed, all you are doing is repeating the same inapplicable nonsense.

Good gods should do what is moral. Both humans and gods have the ability to judge morality.

Your definition of "good" and "moral" is not only anthropocentric, but likely Eurocentric. My cats don't have any view or morality (at least I think) but they have a much different view of what is good and what isn't. So, you are telling me that a being above us could not possibly have a different view of what is good and moral than us?

That to me is a very poor viewpoint and any true atheist would denounce it, because a true atheist would understand that creation does not revolve around the created, or humans in any particular way.


Now, I already made the above argument several times in this thread and you are yet to address it too.

My positive evidence is that evil exists when it should not exist if God is good and also omnipotent.

What kind of evidence is that? I think a good and omnipotent God should allow evil for a time. Why am I wrong and you are right?

The God described by christianity is omnipotent, so therefore that God is evil.

I hope you see by now, the only reason you can even reach this conclusion is based upon the false premise that it is preferable not to have evil at all. And again, without perfect knowledge of the future nor perfect knowledge of what is "good" and "moral," you cannot be confident in such claims.

It isn't inapplicable to everything else. That is just something you have made up.

I didn't make it up, I am waiting for one example of something created that in which we can accurately infer the intentions and nature of its creator. Still waiting...

I can look at a pot and sometimes find the fingerprints of the potter in the clay. There are tons of examples I can cite where we can use the creation to tell us about the creator.

Yay, at least we have a bad attempt here! Finger prints on a pot? What does that prove to me about the potter's nature? That he probably had fingers, I suppose. Oh yeah, he is a potter, being that he made a pot.

But what does that tell me about the potter's nature? Nothing. Does it even tell me why he made the pot? No.

Of course I can look at creation and infer that something created it (uh oh, I just disproved the entire idea of atheism there, are you sure you like where this logic leads?)

Can I just look at nature and accurately tell you the nature of the creator? No.

Can you come up with a better example, you said you have plenty.

If that God is also omnipotent, then you believe in an immoral God.

No, I don't believe in the God you dreamed up. I believe in the God dreamed up in Scripture who allows there to be evil for a time on purpose.


Anyone here having fun? I'm not posing any arguments about free will or Liebniz's "best of all possible worlds" or Augustine's "evil is the privation of good." I'm sure you guys didn't expect a Christian to be able to throw your arguments into disarray, we are always portrayed as the ignorant Bible thumpers that don't know how to use our brains.

Well guess what, I'm not the smart one.

None of these ideas are my own, they are in the Scripture and the Scripture provides a much more compelling explanation for the existence of evil than a 21st century rendition of Epicurus.

 

[Chany]

Why do you assume we are solely coming from the perspective of a creator-creation mindset?

I don't get it. You seem to assume that we reach the verdict of the traits of God by observing the natural world. That is, we start solely from the bottom up. To me, your argument is like saying that:

x=y
y=z
x=z

is wrong because we can't establish y=z from x. You assume we gather the traits that God is evil (I agree that it does not automatically mean that God is evil, but it does show that God either does not care enough about everyone or that he has a pretty good reason for evil) solely from the knowledge that evil exists.

To define- omnipotent: the power to do all things. There are no limitations to what a omnipotent being can do. The only possible exception is a logical contradiction, like square circles.

omniscient- knowing all things. Everything is known to an omniscient being.

omnibenevolent- The being desires the highest possible good for, at the least, sentient beings, but probably living things in general (possibly everything non-living too, but this seems less likely; living things seem to regard non-living things only to the extent they can help living things). It cares for all the beings in question equally in this regard. It cannot only care for the beings in one country, it must care for all the beings in all countries. If this being's reach is all of existence, it cannot only care for beings in one part of our universe, it must care for all of existence in the same way.

Evil is suffering, pain, and wrongdoing that leads to suffering and pain.

It is clear that suffering, pain, and wrongdoing that leads to suffering and pain exist in our universe.

Before I continue, I would like to emphasize that I am not assuming any creator to this universe, and that the being in question is not necessarily the creator of it.

We have established the existence of evil.

Do you object to any of what I have said so far, in particular my definitions?

 

[abacabb3]

Why do you assume we are solely coming from the perspective of a creator-creation mindset?

I don't get it. You seem to assume that we reach the verdict of the traits of God by observing the natural world. That is, we start solely from the bottom up.

Let's be honest, the whole "dilemma" exists because there is observable evil. So, ultimately we are making conclusions based upon the observable evil. I just don't think logic allows us the ability to discern how the Creator is evil based upon the evil we observe.

You assume we gather the traits that God is evil (I agree that it does not automatically mean that God is evil, but it does show that God either does not care enough about everyone or that he has a pretty good reason for evil) solely from the knowledge that evil exists.

Though I would 90% agree with your latter conclusions, I would say that there is one other possibility other than God does not care or that there is a good reason (this is my opinion, by the way.) It is theoretically possible that the way God "feels" or "relates" to the existence of evil is something that is not describable with language. Meaning, we make assumptions that God "Doesn't care," that He's evil, or that He's actually good bu uses evil for good somehow. Nonetheless, I am open to a fourth explanation that is mysterious as the actual "substance" of evil. Just what is evil? Or good for that matter? How does a higher being understand these things? Is our understanding of the matter entirely an illusion or shallow?

omnibenevolent- The being desires the highest possible good for, at the least, sentient beings, but probably living things in general...

Our definition is becoming awfully sloppy at this point. Unless the word "probably" is "definitely", then Epicurus' assertion cannot be substantiated. My assertion is that we do not have the evidence nor capacity to prove that probably, unlikely, or definitely would apply there. And because of this, the "problem of evil" cannot be addressed to begin with and anyone who makes positive claims about ti ultimately falls into contradiction.

It cares for all the beings in question equally in this regard.

Who says? Why would equality or equity be the greatest of all possible goods? Don't these value-judgments you put forth here sound a bit affected by the culture and society in which you live?

It is clear that suffering, pain, and wrongdoing that leads to suffering and pain exist in our universe...We have established the existence of evil.

Agreed. And also, that evil in of itself is bad.

Do you object to any of what I have said so far, in particular my definitions?

To be honest, outside of your observation of there being evil, everything else is a tad wishy washy from a strictly logical perspective.

 

[PsychoSarah]

If your only recourse is to ignore everything we say, and yet expect us to respond to everything you say, then it isn't much of a discussion.

He admitted agreeing with me on one point, but hasn't addressed it since...