The Problem of Evil

[Archaeopteryx]

It's exactly the point, when you don't erect straw gods.

Repeating the question as if it has not been answered will not change that (although it may fill the thread with more posts in the hope that others do not see the answer has already been given).

What straw gods? I already made explicit that this is not a challenge to theism per se, but to the specific doctrine that God is omnibenevolent and morally perfect. Many Christians believe exactly this, so it isn't a "straw god" at all.

Perhaps an example would be useful here. Imagine a situation in which you are walking by a busy road and ahead of you there is an unsupervised toddler wandering precariously close to the road's edge, preparing to cross in front of oncoming traffic. It is well within your ability to prevent this from happening and to ensure the child's safety. You can easily save the child while expending only a negligible amount of available resources. Now imagine that you are omnipotent. The task is now even easier for you because your resources are now unlimited. You could save the child over and over again without so much as breaking a sweat.

We would consider it a moral failure for someone to deliberately refrain from saving the child, especially when doing so would exhaust only negligible resources. How much more of a moral failure would it be to deliberately refrain from saving the child when one's resources are inexhaustible? God is either malicious, and wants the child maimed or killed, or he is impotent, and can do nothing to save the child even if he wants to. If it is the latter option, then you - a mere mortal - are capable of doing something that God cannot, which casts God's omnipotence into doubt. If it is the former option then, presuming you save the child, you are more moral than the ostensibly omnibenevolent being you worship.

Considering God's omniscience only makes matters worse, because human beings must deal with uncertainties that do not trouble the gods they worship. You don't know whether the resources you expend to save the child will definitely render the desired outcome; there's a risk that, despite your best efforts, you won't succeed in saving the child. By contrast, God knows with certainty whether his actions will achieve their intended ends or not, and of course his actions should achieve their intended ends because he is omnipotent.

 

[Inkfingers]

What straw gods? I already made explicit that this is not a challenge to theism per se, but to the specific doctrine that God is omnibenevolent and morally perfect.

Except that it is not such challenge, because it relies on a false notion of what "morally perfect" involves.

Evil has to exist and be something that can genuinely be experienced in the universe. Without that experience we cannot know good.

To whine that God has us experience that evil is to miss the whole point (and also to misunderstad what "omnibenevolence" means in practice).

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Except that it is not such challenge, because it relies on a false notion of what "morally perfect" involves.

Evil has to exist and be something that can genuinely be experienced in the universe. Without that experience we cannot know good.

To whine that God has us experience that evil is to miss the whole point (and also to misunderstad what "omnibenevolence" means in practice).

Would you say that to the parents of the child wandering by the roadside? "I could not render assistance because evil has to exist, and without the experience of the loss of your child you could not know how good your child really was. To whine that I failed to act is to misunderstand what benevolence means in practice. There was no moral failing on my part." Would this be an acceptable excuse?

 

[Inkfingers]

Would you say that to the parents of the child wandering by the roadside?

Again, that is emotivism.

Reason says why evil has to exist and be a real possibility.

 

[BL2KTN]

Seems like a moral double standard so Yahweh can save face. You wouldn't do it because it's incredibly stupid, but Yahweh...

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Again, that is emotivism.

Reason says why evil has to exist and be a real possibility.

Is God saving the child in the same way you would not also a real possibility?

 

[Inkfingers]

Is God saving the child in the same way you would not also a real possibility?

Why save one child and not all? Why save children and not everyone?

As I said, evil has to exist. If God intervened with one he would have to do so with all (or face the same argument about every other child he does not save).

Evil is here.

It has to be here.

And it is something we have to live with without expecting it to be undone.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Why save one child and not all? Why save children and not everyone?

Exactly, why not? He has inexhaustible resources; more than enough to save everyone.

As I said, evil has to exist. If God intervened with one he would have to do so with all (or face the same argument about every other child he does not save).

Yes, he would. Why doesn't he?

Evil is here.

It has to be here.

And it is something we have to live with without expecting it to be undone.

So no such thing as Heaven then?

 

[Inkfingers]

Yes, he would. Why doesn't he?

I already told you why not, here and here.

Do pay attention at the back.

So no such thing as Heaven then?

Different issue. Lets get you understanding the basics before we go for solid food.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I already told you why not, here and here.

Do pay attention at the back.

And I already addressed this here and here.

Different issue. Lets get you understanding the basics before we go for solid food.

You seem to have spilled ink on your fingers.

 

[Inkfingers]

And I already addressed this here and here.

And I pointed out how your argument is wrong.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And I pointed out how your argument is wrong.

Where?

 

[Inkfingers]

Where?

Here, in combination with the other posts that you failed to grasp.

Never mind though.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

He created death and life so that He might test you, and find out which of you is best in conduct. He is the Mighty, the Most Forgiving One.

Surah Mulk.

This seems reasonable, because life promotion and death avoidance, and flourishing health rather than sickly decay, seem to be at the heart of good and evil. Even from the "humanitarian" or secularistic perspective.

 

[Inkfingers]

He created death and life so that He might test you, and find out which of you is best in conduct. He is the Mighty, the Most Forgiving One.

Surah Mulk.

This seems reasonable, because life promotion and death avoidance, and flourishing health rather than sickly decay, seem to be at the heart of good and evil. Even from the "humanitarian" or secularistic perspective.

Why do you keep quoting the Quran when your icon is "Oneness" (implying Oneness Pentecostalism, yes?)?

 

[Ken-1122]

Evil has to exist and be something that can genuinely be experienced in the universe. Without that experience we cannot know good.

I disagree. The atrocities of Hitler, Stalin, Amin, and others was not necessary in order for mankind to know good; we can always imagine evil without having to experience it. Evil is just very bad behavior. I don't think anybody is saying God should intervene in all bad behavior, just the behavior that is to the point of being called evil.

Ken

 

[Inkfingers]

I disagree. The atrocities of Hitler, Stalin, Amin, and others was not necessary in order for mankind to know good; we can always imagine evil without having to experience it. Evil is just very bad behavior. I don't think anybody is saying God should intervene in all bad behavior, just the behavior that is to the point of being called evil.

Ken

Then they don't understand there own arguments. If he intervenes in one, he must intervene in all or stand charged of the same thing he would be accused of if not intervening with that first one.

Evil has to exist and be a real possibility and not just imagined.

 

[quatona]

Then they don't understand there own arguments. If he intervenes in one, he must intervene in all

We learn in the bible that he did intervene on certain occasions.

or stand charged of the same thing he would be accused of if not intervening with that first one.

That´s a funny argument.

Evil has to exist and be a real possibility and not just imagined.

Why, for what?

 

[Inkfingers]

That´s a funny argument.

If he saves one child from a car accident, the argument will be "well, why only that one? Why not the all the rest?"

Why, for what?

Read the thread, I answered this already.

 

[quatona]

Is there a reason you didn´t address my first paragraph?

If he saves one child from a car accident, the argument will be "well, why only that one? Why not the all the rest?"

The topic of the current discussion weren´t car accidents.
And since God, according to the bible, did intervene on occasions, the argument "if he intervened...." rings hollow.
On another note, if - as your argument suggests - God´s reputation is his main concern, I am wondering how he feels that doing nothing at all gives him a better reputation than being not entirely consistent in his interventions (i.e. at least doing something).

Read the thread, I answered this already.

Could you point me to the post where you did?
Did you also answer how and why - beyond the theoretical necessity for "evil" - there need to be particular forms of "evil"?
Did you also answer how much "evil" needs to be there in order for your maxime ("there must be evil") to be fulfilled?

So let´s hypothetically say God would intervene in all cases of rape. What exactly would be lost and/or how would that be practically or logically impossible?