The Problem of Evil

[talquin]

It's logically impossible for an all powerful & all loving God to exist in the presence of mass calamities & mass catastrophes. What we define as 'evil' might be subject to interpretation, but we can all agree that things like genocide, the holocaust, rapes & molesting of children, famines, destructive tsunamis, destructive earthquakes and destructive tornadoes do occur.

If God loves everyone, then he would want to see that people don't suffer as a result of the aforementioned items. But since such things do occur, then we can conclude if God is all-loving, then he is incapable of preventing such catastrophes.

Similarly, if God can do anything, then he would be able to prevent all the aforementioned catastrophes. But since these things do occur, we can conclude if God can do anything, then he doesn't love humans enough to prevent the aforementioned catastrophes.

A frequent Christian response to this is: "God has to allow these things to occur so he can accomplish some greater purpose". That in turn effectively says that God would no longer be able to accomplish this greater purpose if he stopped the rapist from raping the child or prevented the tsunami from wiping out Banda Aceh, Indonesia. And if he can't accomplish something, then he isn't omnipotent after all.

If pressed, Christians would respond along the lines of "God doesn't prevent such calamities because it would jeopardize his omnipotence".

But if God is outside of time, then he is always omnipotent - meaning if he stopped the tornado from ripping through Joplin, then he would continue to be omnipotent. So the defense of God allowing these things to accomplish a greater purpose fails. And this in turn helps confirm that an all-loving & all-powerful god doesn't exist.

 

[Hezekiah Holbrooke]

Well, from the sound of it, you've already discounted all the answers you have received thus far and must have already formed your own conclusions. I will give you my answer which I suspect you will discount as well.

God left. Adam failed the test whereby he (and we) could have attained eternal life. Israel rejected His rule. Satan is the god of this world. God is allowing us to make our own decisions and rule ourselves.

Christ will return when we have almost totally destroyed ourselves and the planet.

 

[talquin]

Well, from the sound of it, you've already discounted all the answers you have received thus far and must have already formed your own conclusions. I will give you my answer which I suspect you will discount as well.

God left. Adam failed the test whereby he (and we) could have attained eternal life. Israel rejected His rule. Satan is the god of this world. God is allowing us to make our own decisions and rule ourselves.

Christ will return when we have almost totally destroyed ourselves and the planet.

Help me understand. Does this mean the god you believe in doesn't care enough to eradicate mass calamities? Or is it that he is incapable?

 

[Hezekiah Holbrooke]

Help me understand. Does this mean the god you believe in doesn't care enough to eradicate mass calamities? Or is it that he is incapable?

Apparently you are an atheist who's agenda is to find fault with God.

I stated plainly that God left us to do as we pleased. Yes, God can both start and stop calamities. He has chosen to not interfere.

 

[talquin]

Apparently you are an atheist who's agenda is to find fault with God.

I don't think it's possible for someone to find fault in something they don't believe to exist.

I stated plainly that God left us to do as we pleased. Yes, God can both start and stop calamities. He has chosen to not interfere.

Then it follows that you hold an implicit belief that God doesn't love everyone.

 

[CryOfALion]

It's logically impossible for an all powerful & all loving God to exist in the presence of mass calamities & mass catastrophes.

This is logical problem one. If we entertain God as we know Him philosophically, then He is definitively a paradox. Nothing is impossible for Him.

But you are right, The Most High cannot exist in unholiness - no matter how minute. He destroys imperfection by consequence of His power. But, paradoxically, He is everything so, He is everywhere.

What we define as 'evil' might be subject to interpretation, but we can all agree that things like genocide, the holocaust, rapes & molesting of children, famines, destructive tsunamis, destructive earthquakes and destructive tornadoes do occur.

According to the set of principles for which mortal people live their lives - morality - it still depends. Some agree genocide is necessary, and peace is weak. Morality is anyone's game. Spiritually, what has to be done, and what is good is done.

If God loves everyone, then he would want to see that people don't suffer as a result of the aforementioned items. But since such things do occur, then we can conclude if God is all-loving, then he is incapable of preventing such catastrophes.

Just because He doesn't want them to happen, or because He doesn't prevent them from happening like we want doesn't mean He is incapable of preventing them. It doesn't even mean those catastrophes are not the best things for everyone - even victims. If you knew every possible iteration and possibility for every single quantized event, you would have insight into what the best thing for someone is, and what their end will be. He gave us examples in parents.

God is natural; He isn't going to use magic and make everyone love Him. He will let all of us naturally destroy or vindicate ourselves.

Similarly, if God can do anything, then he would be able to prevent all the aforementioned catastrophes. But since these things do occur, we can conclude if God can do anything, then he doesn't love humans enough to prevent the aforementioned catastrophes.

Nah. It just means He chooses not to prevent them.

If you watch enough Sci if movies about time travel, you will realize that sometimes people have to go through traumatic events to get to a point of reckoning, and possibly an epiphany toward a much better life. God knows everything - all possible options. Why would He intervene just because catastrophes are horrible? Love is more than saving you out of dicey situations; sometimes it means enduring through. How do you know a particular evil genocidal event wasn't used to make Internet available - that if a certain incident didn't happen a series of events would lead to the barring of that innovation? You dont. You don't know whether or not your next breath is coming. Life is mathematical nonlinear chaotic dynamics. It is not easy to figure out, and small things (initial conditions) can greatly influence future events.

A frequent Christian response to this is: "God has to allow these things to occur so he can accomplish some greater purpose". That in turn effectively says that God would no longer be able to accomplish this greater purpose if he stopped the rapist from raping the child or prevented the tsunami from wiping out Banda Aceh, Indonesia. And if he can't accomplish something, then he isn't omnipotent after all.

No, it just means that is His will. Again, God knows every possible outcome to every possible perturbation and constant of every single universal system. We give Him a lot of lip, but I am inclined to believe this creation is the iteration that will provide for maximum entities that choose to love God, while at the same time allowing Him to show every bit of His character to His creation.

It is also important to note no god owes it's creation anything.

If pressed, Christians would respond along the lines of "God doesn't prevent such calamities because it would jeopardize his omnipotence".

He chooses what He wants to do: in really is that simple.

Some have faith that what He does is Good, and the best for us (like you would any good parent.) Some people do not like Him, and/or downright hate and reject Him.

But if God is outside of time, then he is always omnipotent - meaning if he stopped the tornado from ripping through Joplin, then he would continue to be omnipotent. So the defense of God allowing these things to accomplish a greater purpose fails. And this in turn helps confirm that an all-loving & all-powerful god doesn't exist.

Why does it fail? If a tornado in Joplin is allowed, nonlinear chaotic dynamics may yield an incredible harvest for villagers across the world - villagers who may have been earnestly praying and staying faithful. It could also serve as a test of faith for people in Joplin - especially if they claim faith in Him. There are literally infinite reasons why God would allow a tornado in Joplin out of expressing all of His character. One of them includes He wills it.

Also, it is important to note once again that no god is obligated to its creation at all.

 

[Cearbhall]

God left. Adam failed the test whereby he (and we) could have attained eternal life. Israel rejected His rule. Satan is the god of this world. God is allowing us to make our own decisions and rule ourselves.

Christ will return when we have almost totally destroyed ourselves and the planet.

Plot bunny!

 

[Hezekiah Holbrooke]

I don't think it's possible for someone to find fault in something they don't believe to exist.


Then it follows that you hold an implicit belief that God doesn't love everyone.

I hold an implicit belief that is the purpose of your agenda.

 

[juvenissun]

Help me understand. Does this mean the god you believe in doesn't care enough to eradicate mass calamities? Or is it that he is incapable?

Evil is a tool of God, used to achieve His purpose(s).

This is a logic answer, may be you would like it.

 

[juvenissun]

I don't think it's possible for someone to find fault in something they don't believe to exist.


Then it follows that you hold an implicit belief that God doesn't love everyone.

God loves you. But you don't love God.

Does this one make logic sense?

 

[Paradoxum]

I stated plainly that God left us to do as we pleased. Yes, God can both start and stop calamities. He has chosen to not interfere.

If someone was going to die from an earthquake, and I could save them by pushing a button, I would.

But God doesn't save them, even if they ask to be saved. Is God a bad guy?

Evil is a tool of God, used to achieve His purpose(s).

This is a logic answer, may be you would like it.

So is God the bad guy?

 

[Hezekiah Holbrooke]

If someone was going to die from an earthquake, and I could save them by pushing a button, I would.

But God doesn't save them, even if they ask to be saved. Is God a bad guy?



So is God the bad guy?

If you and Talquin are both really interested in finding out the nature of God and His character, I recommend a very good book for you to read. It's called "The Holy Bible" and can be found at Walmart or at many other stores.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Well, from the sound of it, you've already discounted all the answers you have received thus far and must have already formed your own conclusions. I will give you my answer which I suspect you will discount as well.

God left. Adam failed the test whereby he (and we) could have attained eternal life. Israel rejected His rule. Satan is the god of this world. God is allowing us to make our own decisions and rule ourselves.

Christ will return when we have almost totally destroyed ourselves and the planet.

There are many aspects of the story of Adam and Eve that are unjust. The notion of an inescapable hereditary curse is one of them.

Apparently you are an atheist who's agenda is to find fault with God.

I stated plainly that God left us to do as we pleased. Yes, God can both start and stop calamities. He has chosen to not interfere.

Which is cosmically irresponsible of him. Imagine if a parent decided "not to interfere" while his child played with matches. We would reprimand such a parent for being irresponsible.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If you and Talquin are both really interested in finding out the nature of God and His character, I recommend a very good book for you to read. It's called "The Holy Bible" and can be found at Walmart or at many other stores.

The Bible portrays God in a very bad light, particularly in the first handful of books.

 

[jacks]

The Bible portrays God in a very bad light, particularly the in the first handful of books.

Perhaps the book of Job would be a place to start. Why bad things happen to good people, is the main theme.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Perhaps the book of Job would be a place to start. Why bad things happen to good people, is the main theme.

I'm familiar with the Book of Job. It too portrays the Biblical God in a bad light.

 

[jacks]

I'm familiar with the Book of Job. It too portrays the Biblical God in a bad light.

Yes, it isn't a flattering portrayal, I just meant it is a book that wrestled with the same issues as the OP.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes, it isn't a flattering portrayal, I just meant it is a book that wrestled with the same issues as the OP.

Ah, I see. That is a good point. Even in Biblical times people were grappling with this issue, and Job appears to be an outcome of that.

 

[Liberation]

To end suffering would mean you need to limit free will.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

To end suffering would mean you need to limit free will.

Free will is already limited in a sense. There are things that we cannot do because it is not in our nature to do them, even if we would like to be able to do them (e.g., move at the speed of light, teleport, etc). God has already imposed constraints on our free will by designing us such that we are unable to do such things.