The Problem of Evil

[Archaeopteryx]

You're kind of asking why God doesn't just send Satan's people to hell before they have a chance to live. He says that he allows the weeds to grow amongst the wheat so as to not disrupt the wheat from growing. In the afterlife the results of people's behavior to finally come back to them. Until then, people are granted mercy enough to repent in between the time they committed the offense and when they die.

This suggests that God created certain persons knowing that they would be damned to Hell. How is that any different to creating them for Hell?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

We are not kept from doing those things, we just do not know how to do them.

To stop evil would mean we would be unable to do things we already know how to do.

Which means that there is a limitation on our free will; a limitation imposed on us by our nature as human beings. Our nature was determined by God, no?

 

[Radagast]

This thread, or a version of it, gets posted every few months.

Anyone actually interested in answers should read this:

 

[orangeness365]

This suggests that God created certain persons knowing that they would be damned to Hell. How is that any different to creating them for Hell?

God is the potter and people are the clay.

Romans 9:14-23
14What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16So then it depends not on human will or exertion,b but on God, who has mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
19You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—

 

[Archaeopteryx]

God is the potter and people are the clay.

Which means that we are helpless. Whether we end up in Heaven or Hell isn't up to us at all; it's up to the potter who moulds us however he pleases.

 

[orangeness365]

Which means that we are helpless. Whether we end up in Heaven or Hell isn't up to us at all; it's up to the potter who moulds us however he pleases.

I don't think we are entirely helpless. If you want to be shown mercy, you must show mercy, which is a choice of the individual.

Matthew 5:7
English Standard Version
“Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.

James 2:13

English Standard Version
For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

 

[CryOfALion]

If nothing is impossible for God and things like genocide, the holocaust, rapes & molesting of children, famines, destructive tsunamis, destructive earthquakes and destructive tornadoes do occur, then it defines God as NOT loving.


How do you know God is everywhere? Have you searched every last corner of the universe and failed to find a spot where he wasn't?


When you say "it still depends", what is "it"? Why would genocide be necessary?


If God is capable of preventing the aforementioned calamities, then by definition, God isn't loving. Why? Because such atrocities do occur. A loving being who was capable of preventing such atrocities would prevent them.


Most people who believe in God say he is supernatural, not natural. Can you please explain what you mean by natural?


If he can do anything but chooses not to prevent the aforementioned catastrophes, then by definition, he wouldn't be loving.


If he were all-loving, he would have to prevent catastrophes - or he would cease to be all-loving.


If God can do anything, then he could cause the internet to be available without requiring a genocidal event to occur.


How does God get his knowledge of every possible outcome?


Once again, you're revealing that you hold an implicit belief that God is not all-good.


Why do you suppose some people hate God?


Your explanation fails because if God can do anything, then he can cause that incredible harvest for villagers whether the tornado occurs or the tornado doesn't occur. Or do you believe that stopping the tornado would diminish God's omnipotence?

A central thing I believe you are mixing up is ability VS obligation. You are also mixing up perceived inaction with hate, or lack of love. Huge errors in logic.

God can do anything and everything.

He is not obligated to do anything.

Just because He chooses not to do something does not mean He can't do it.

I am not chewing gum at this moment - not because I cannot chew gum, but because I don't want to.

Because I am not chewing gum, I do not automatically qualify as a Stalinist.


You [should] know that many of the people that died in Afghanistan and Iraq were children and women. Are you, therefore, bad because you did nothing to stop it? After all, "humans can do anything they put their minds to, so surely you could have stopped those wars."

No god - good or evil - has an obligation to its creation. No god. If that makes you feel milky, it is unfortunately neither here or there: those gods will still be gods, and He will still exist.




All of the other emotionalism and queries on life is a filler of information if you get the first four lines down.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

A central thing I believe you are mixing up is ability VS obligation. You are also mixing up perceived inaction with hate, or lack of love. Huge errors in logic.

God can do anything and everything.

He is not obligated to do anything.

Just because He chooses not to do something does not mean He can't do it.

I am not chewing gum at this moment - not because I cannot chew gum, but because I don't want to.

Because I am not chewing gum, I do not automatically qualify as a Stalinist.


You [should] know that many of the people that died in Afghanistan and Iraq were children and women. Are you, therefore, bad because you did nothing to stop it? After all, "humans can do anything they put their minds to, so surely you could have stopped those wars."

No god - good or evil - has an obligation to its creation. No god. If that makes you feel milky, it is unfortunately neither here or there: those gods will still be gods, and He will still exist.




All of the other emotionalism and queries on life is a filler of information if you get the first four lines down.

If that's the case, why call him "good"? He is not obligated to do good. He is not obligated to keep his covenants or to judge justly or to show mercy and compassion. He can be cruel and callous if he so desires. We are merely his playthings, created for his amusement perhaps.

 

[Interplanner]

There will be a day of justice and it will be comprehended by all. It already is comprehended by many that unless there is that day of justice, this life is nonsense. This is true whether people know of the Bible or not. But what the Christian message says additionally is that in Christ (in the Gospel event) God executed justice in that all sin and evil was punished on behalf of those people who have done wrong. "...so that He (God) is just and the Justifier of the one who believes on Jesus (as an atoning payment for his sins)." --Rom 3.

 

[CryOfALion]

If that's the case, why call him "good"? He is not obligated to do good.

And, yet He does good every picosecond. Your life, and the fact that He doesnt delight in your torture is one good thing at least, no?

He is not obligated to keep his covenants or to judge justly or to show mercy and compassion.

And, yet He does to everyone He makes them with. Abraham has had billions of kids, easily fitting the simile God gave him as promise. And, since the end of the world has not happened yet, Abraham's seed is still continuing. God even let Esau have his due portion of inheritance since he was from Isaac - who God blessed. Esau sold it to Jacob. God told Abraham he would have a child. He did, despite what modern science said was possible. God said that He wanted to know if Abraham loved Him more than Isaac, so He told him to sacrifice his only son (a foreshadow to Christ.) Of course, God did no make Abraham do it, and gave Abraham a ram to sacrifice instead (another foreshadow to Christ.)

God promised all of us that there would be a new covenant/agreement between whoever believes in His son, His works, and follows Him. When the dead rose (especially Christ,) God's promise of abundant, new life was fulfilled.

He promised Job a replenishment of his entire livelihood including kids and wife. He delivered. (Actually, He just gave it back to Job out of justice.)

He promised the Hebrews that if the followed Him, and temporally Moses, He would lead them to land flowing with milk and honey. He vindicated the evil of the serpent; let's find a serpentine animal that walks on legs, without hugging dirt or Terra...

He can be cruel and callous if he so desires. We are merely his playthings, created for his amusement perhaps.

Playthings worth less to Him than a star? Because, when Adam was made in Enoch, God appointed four stars for him. He chose to let His son who literally has no ending or beginning die for us playthings. Would you die for a rubber ducky? Would you let your son die for rubber duckies you made in your image so that they could live - considering your ducks are just for the bathtub play?

There are a lot more principalities that are actually cruel and mean. One of them that is lowest on the totem pole is humans. We do a lot of evil to ourselves, and blame intangibles (READ: not able to touch) for our nefarious shortcomings in action. That is lame.

And, no one can make you feel anything except yourself, or powerful EM radiation - both of which humans are guilty of as offensive.

You do not have to have a god in your life at all, or it doesn't have to be the Most High. If you don't like the Most High, try another one. Amazing how this God who only thinks of us as playthings has the patience to allow us to worship other abominations, and call Him names to His face - as if we had a part in creation beyond procreating.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And, yet He does good every picosecond. Your life, and the fact that He doesnt delight in your torture is one good thing at least, no?

Not exactly. According to many Christians, I am destined for Hell simply because of my non-belief.

And, yet He does to everyone He makes them with.

But he doesn't have to. He could break his covenant and risk no punishment as a consequence.

Abraham has had billions of kids, easily fitting the simile God gave him as promise. And, since the end of the world has not happened yet, Abraham's seed is still continuing. God even let Esau have his due portion of inheritance since he was from Isaac - who God blessed. Esau sold it to Jacob. God told Abraham he would have a child. He did, despite what modern science said was possible. God said that He wanted to know if Abraham lived Him more than Isaac, so He told him to sacrifice his only son (a foreshadow to Christ.) Of course, God did no make Abraham do it, and gave Abraham a ram to sacrifice instead (another foreshadow to Christ.)

Having God manipulate Abraham like that doesn't exactly speak to his goodness. But then again, as you noted, he is under no obligation to be good.

God promised all of us that there would be a new covenant/agreement between whoever believes in His son, His works, and follows Him. When the dead rose (especially Christ,) God's promise of abundant, new life was fulfilled.

He promised Job a replenishment of his entire livelihood including kids and wife. He delivered.

Manipulating Job to make a point also doesn't speak well to his goodness.

He promised the Hebrews that if the followed Him, and temporally Moses, He would lead them to land flowing with milk and honey. He vindicated the evil of the serpent; let's find a serpentine animal that walks on legs, without hugging dirt or Terra...

He also ordered the destruction of entire peoples.

Playthings worth less to Him than a star? Because, when Adam was made in Enoch, God appointed four stars for him. He chose to let His son who literally has no ending or beginning die for us playthings. Would you die for a rubber ducky? Would you let your son die for rubber duckies you made in your image so that they could live - considering your ducks are just for the bathtub play?

He also blamed Adam and Eve for his mistakes, having created them without the ability to morally appraise his commands, and then punished them for having acquired that ability from forbidden fruit that he placed within their reach, fully aware of the outcome that would ensue.

 

[talquin]

If God didn't allow evil, would he still be able to achieve his purpose? If not, then he isn't omnipotent. If so, then why allow evil?

No.

But He is STILL omnipotent.

So you believe in a god who is omnipotent at all times. Unless you don't believe that the aforementioned catastrophes occur, then you hold the implicit belief that God doesn't love everyone.

Because what God wants can be achieved through evil. He CAN have what He wants.

If God is omnipotent, then if he prevents the aforementioned catastrophes, he could still have what he wants. More to the point, if he is all-loving and omnipotent, he could have what he wants by preventing such catastrophes. Since he doesn't, it means he either isn't omnipotent or he doesn't love people enough to prevent such calamities.

Do you know what He wants? Can He simply say: "Be it" and gets what He wants? God wants YOU. Could He have you? Can He create something like you and automatically belong to Him? Is that you the same as YOU?

God gets me, finally. How does He do that?

I'm not the one positing an omnipotent god. Christians are.

 

[talquin]

Same old, same old...

This question has been demonstrated to be self-contraditory, pointless and silly. It has been answered countless times by many different people.

Here it is again.

The question isn't self-contradictory. If you think it is, please tell me exactly what about it you think is self-contradictory. What's self-contradictory is revealed by the question - and that is the god posited by Christians.

Someone answer this: Why do atheists keep beating a dead horse? I mean, everyone salutes those with 'grit' and 'stick to it' attitude. But this is past farce.

Atheists claim ignorant Christians discredit Christianity. In some cases, I agree. Therefore, the same atheists have to admit: stupid atheists discredit atheism.

Anyone making contradictory claims discredit their overall claim.

Please explain how atheism can be discredited when it isn't a belief system?

 

[talquin]

But God does love everyone, like it or not.
But not everyone, such as you, likes Him.

So, He is omnipotent. Should He "makes" you like Him?

Now you're really contradicting yourself. God can't love everyone and be able to do anything in the presence of mass calamities.

Simply put:


1) From definition: An omnipotent entity can remove all evil if it wants to.
2) From definition: An omnibenevolent entity would remove all evil if it can.
3) From 1-2: if an omnipotent and omnibenevolent entity exists, then evil does not.
4) Assume temporarily that an omnipotent and omnibenevolent entity exists.
5) From 1-4: Evil does not exist.
6) From observation: Evil exists.
7) 5 and 6 form a contradiction. Therefore, the assumption (step 4) is false, and an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god cannot exist.

 

[talquin]

Atheists keep bringing it up because Christian apologists have not advanced a satisfying answer to the problem. The answer they give is typically a variation on "It's necessary to have free will," or "Man introduced evil into the world," or the "God works in mysterious ways" canard.

Good point. It's like the kid who says A+B=C, then says C-B does not equal A, but never does the algebra to see that both of those can't be true.

I'm still waiting for the Christian reconciliation for the problem of evil. Since the responses weigh more heavily toward God being omnipotent than being omnibenevolent, I'd guess their reconciliation is that God doesn't really love us all. At least as long as they believe God is omnipotent, then unless they don't believe that mass calamities occur, by default they hold the implicit belief that God does not love everyone.

 

[talquin]

This thread, or a version of it, gets posted every few months.

Anyone actually interested in answers should read this:

I've read The Problem of Pain by CS Lewis. CS Lewis doesn't reconcile the problem. What he does is redefine terms - which is really a straw man with respect to my OP.

 

[JohnLocke]

Free will. I think the argument goes like this:

Logically Free Will requires both the existence of options (choice) and the ability to effect the option chosen.

Free Will is illusory if the range of options includes only trivial matters; therefore, Free Will requires that the range of options include substantial and meaningful differences.

Therefore, if humanity has Free Will individual humans must be able to choose between Good and Evil and effect that choice.

Therefore, if humanity has Free Will, God logically must not prevent the actualization of the choice to do Evil.

Thus, evidence of individual or collective humans' choices to do evil cannot be imputed to God who must, by the provision of Free Will, not interfere with such choice.

Essentially, it is the "golden cage" problem. Who is better off, the one who is thrust into the world to live and thrive or suffer and die as a consequence of his/her decisions; or the one who is insulated from all choice, all suffering to live in blissful ignorance and without responsibility for all of his/her days?

I'll readily admit that this does not provide explanation or justification for non-human "evil" like earthquakes and such.

 

[CryOfALion]

Not exactly. According to many Christians, I am destined for Hell simply because of my non-belief.

Well, quite honestly no human except Christ has any say on your spiritual destination, given we have all broken Universal Law, and that even the smallest infraction of this Law warrants spiritual death. Respectfully, I would ignore where other humans tell you your spiritual destination is, and honestly find out what God says. There are many parables about haughty religious folk chastising people who they think are going to knock the bottom out of hell, only to find God favors a repentant hell-bent sinner over arrogant self-righteous zealots - in all of their flavors and qualities.

You may be surprise where you end up.

But he doesn't have to. He could break his covenant and risk no punishment as a consequence.

He could, but He didnt, and doesn't.

He even divorced Israel because Israel committed spiritual adultery, and worshiped other gods. This is something He considers a non option - yet He took us back in the form of a new covenant. According to God's own word divorce and remarry in are a serious issue, because if a spouse decides to remarry his or her spouse s/he divorced, then if one of them commits adultery again, then both of them are shamed. (The only God-approved method of divorce under Him is adultery; Moses oversaw "State Writs" to appease the people.) So, God's new Israel is a group that won't turn their back on Him (and shame Him as well as ourselves,) which does mean there is a high degree of exclusivity - by consequence.

Having God manipulate Abraham like that doesn't exactly speak to his goodness. But then again, as you noted, he is under no obligation to be good.

God didn't manipulate Abraham. Abraham was part of a multi-faceted teaching for His namesake: father of many. It was always Abraham's choice on what to do - he could have lied to God about his love for Isaac, or said he couldn't do it. On The contrary, Abraham had submitted to His will, and was about to kill his son for God, but God saw the intention/heart, knew he loved God more than his son, and instead decided to give Him a ram to sacrifice. This allowed Abraham as the first covenant holder to be an active participant in prophecy of Redemption. It foreshadowed God's feeling and sacrifice of giving up His eternal Child to keep the relationship He has with His creation. In reverse symmetry, Abraham was willing to give up his mortal child to keep the relationship he had with his Creator. This meeting of intentions between Abraham, Isaac, Christ and God creates a union between the spiritual and physical. Also called doing God's will.

Manipulating Job to make a point also doesn't speak well to his goodness.

Ok, yes Job was manipulated - but by everyone else but God - which is why He was so heated at the end of the book (rightfully so.)

Firstly, the enemy in arrogance has the audacity to tell God he had been spiritually checking out the planet He made for the humans at a spiritual meeting (imagine a board member telling the Chairperson s/he was watching their kids' routine for the past month just because.)

Then, this enemy assert that His creation only cares about God because he does things for them.

After God shows Him Job, and expresses His pleasure with him, the enemy tries to play chess as a novice with a Grandmaster like God - insinuating it is easy for Job to follow Him because Job was rich with plenty of kids and a wife.

God gave permission to let the enemy test job; He clearly knows what will happen. The enemy begs God for more and more permission to torment Job - again, the Enemy begged God for more permission to torment Job, and God allowed it as long as it didn't kill him.

Job got really low, but never cursed God. As a matter of fact, Job's friends and wife played agency - telling him God was doing this and that, and that God was angry because he had some sin on his soul. God wasn't doing anything; the enemy was. At the end of it all, the point that was much addressing the argument of the OP: cataclysmic things can happen, but it doesn't mean God neither can't prevent it nor that He doesn't love His creation of He does the prevent it. Job was faithful and had his whole livelihood restored.

He also ordered the destruction of entire peoples.

Those peoples were either gargantuan warrior nations and magicians that delighted in the torture, eating and define of Hebrews, or descendants and partakers of those people who continued the same practices. Would you not order your sons to destroy a nation that had not only lyrics taught your sons and daughters depravity in sexton and philosophy, but also broke the bones of your sons for soup stock, ate them, and taught them soul-depleting magick for centuries? At some point, they all have to go - men, women and children... even pets.

He also blamed Adam and Eve for his mistakes, having created them without the ability to morally appraise his commands,

A common thing in Christiandom and contemporary understanding of is is that Adam and Eve were babes. They were not spiritually or scientifically like babies; they were very much adult/mature. Babies are not charged with naming every single animal on a planet (whose Hebrew names are functional meanings, not random - indicating intelligence.) A baby does not get dominion over a planet, and a sky of stars to be used for signs and seasons e.g. agriculture and astronomy. When God told Adam not to eat, He knew Adam had the maturity, spiritual responsibility and intellectual wherewithal to accept the order - and Adam knew he had this too.

and then punished them for having acquired that ability from forbidden fruit that he placed within their reach, fully aware of the outcome that would ensue.

That's right. Just like the angels who fell should have known better - being very very old and intelligent, Adam should have known better being the physic image of the Most High God in all implications. Adam was also fully aware that if he ate the "fruit," he would die.

He chose to entertain creation instead of the creator, so he died. That has been the fact of an ever since: worshiping and entertaining the creation over creator.

Not only did the serpent lie and say they wouldn't die, but Adam and Eve died twice: spiritually and physically. Since they are imperfect, by the time they had kids their kids inherited the imperfection (imperfection does not breed perfection.) Since God knew this was a consequence, Christ and He enacted H.R.G 777: Human Salvation and Redemption Act. This act was already made before creation.

 

[talquin]

A central thing I believe you are mixing up is ability VS obligation. You are also mixing up perceived inaction with hate, or lack of love. Huge errors in logic.

God can do anything and everything.

He is not obligated to do anything.

Just because He chooses not to do something does not mean He can't do it.

This tells me that you reconcile the problem of evil by holding the belief that God doesn't love everyone enough to stop mass calamities.

But it raises a question - why go through a roundabout method of doing that. Why not come right out and say, "God doesn't love people enough to stop the mass calamities"?

I am not chewing gum at this moment - not because I cannot chew gum, but because I don't want to.

Because I am not chewing gum, I do not automatically qualify as a Stalinist.


You [should] know that many of the people that died in Afghanistan and Iraq were children and women. Are you, therefore, bad because you did nothing to stop it? After all, "humans can do anything they put their minds to, so surely you could have stopped those wars."

No I am not bad because I did nothing to stop it. But if I was capable of stopping it and loved the people who were about to get slaughtered, then it wouldn't be representative of my loving nature if I failed to stop it.

No god - good or evil - has an obligation to its creation. No god. If that makes you feel milky, it is unfortunately neither here or there: those gods will still be gods, and He will still exist.

Now it's clear to me you believe in a god who is at best indifferent to our plight and at worst sadistic. But certainly not a god who is loving.

 

[Hezekiah Holbrooke]

What exactly do you think the purpose of my agenda is?

To berate God. You are simply the typical atheist, no different from all the others. You claim God does not exist and then berate Him. It's stupid. Why berate someone or some thing you do not believe exists? Is that sane?