Why does God allow evil to exist on Earth?

[Tynan]

And since you'll probably now go and hop up and down saying that God must be really selfish to make us go through all this so we can love Him. . . No. A) Christians believe that Loving God and being Loved by Him is the best thing that could possibly happen to us.

God designed you that way, so the relationship is unidirectional.

He designed you to desire him.


The answer is simple, make life paradisiacal, remove evil, allow everyone into heaven.

Anything else is a manifestation of evil.

 

[us38]

Because LOVE REQUIRES A FREEWILL!

Only because god requires that. God could just as easily made it so love is possible without free-will.

Yes, folks. I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times, and I'll continue to attempt to get this very elementary block of Christian Theology pounded into your brains till my own implodes from your utter insistence on ignoring said premise.

And you continue to ignore omnipotence.

God made evil possible;

You set out a kinfe in front of a baby. The baby grabs the knife and kills itself. Does the fact that the baby didn't have to kill itself change at all the fact that you gave it the kinfe?

(Not to say you're alone here. Just about every single Atheist and other detractor of the Christian faith seems to have about the same understanding.)

You'd think, with so many oppurtunities, someone would be able to come up with a defense to the problem of evil. Yet, they still haven't. I wonder why?

Naturally, we've made it impossible to find any.

You're a fool to assume that atheists will only accept scientific evidence.

A spiritual being isn't exactly going to fit in there.

Which, you know, is the whole point of a philosophy board.

That's the thing though. I really don't think this qualifies. Christian theology hammered out an answer to this centuries ago, and they haven't needed to change their answer yet.

Really? What is it, and why have you taken so long to present it?

 

[MedicMan]

"If you had a child of about 13 years old, would you let him ride his bike?"
"Of course I would."
"Would you make him wear a helmet?"
"Most assuredly."
"Now then, would you follow your child around when he was out on his bike to ensure that he came to no harm?"
"No, I wouldn't."
"How then would you help ensure the safety of your child?"
"I'd give him advice about the dangers of riding his bike, like 'Look both ways before crossing the road,' or 'always wear a helmet,' and let him learn from his mistakes."

Roughly paraphrased from Angels and Demons, by Dan Brown​

I've always liked this little scene. In the same way that you wouldn't protect your child every second of his life, but would provide him with all the information he needs to be safe and let him follow your instructions as you wish (and possibly punish him for not following them), God does not wish to 'smother' us by completely protecting us from harm; instead, He has given us instructions for how to live our lives (through the Ten Commandments, and the teachings of Jesus) and He now wishes us to interpret His instructions in our own way. He hopes that we will learn from our mistakes, and may occasionally punish us to remind us of how He told us to act.

~MedicMan~

 

[Madcoil]

Why doesn't Schrödinger just install a camera in the box?

 

[us38]

I've always liked this little scene. In the same way that you wouldn't protect your child every second of his life, but would provide him with all the information he needs to be safe and let him follow your instructions as you wish (and possibly punish him for not following them), God does not wish to 'smother' us by completely protecting us from harm; instead, He has given us instructions for how to live our lives (through the Ten Commandments, and the teachings of Jesus) and He now wishes us to interpret His instructions in our own way. He hopes that we will learn from our mistakes, and may occasionally punish us to remind us of how He told us to act.

The fact of the matter is, the existance of evil is a logical impossibility with the existance of an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent being. It doesn't matter why god (if it exists) lets evil exist. The point is, it does let evil exist, and this cannot be possible if it's omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent.

 

[Emmy]

Dear loudatheist101, you had some good replies, many men and women, realise that God loves and gave His Commandments out of love for us. If we follow them, no evil can touch us, if we ignore, or even go against them, we will pay the consequences, such is God`s Holy Law, it will stand for ever. Would we expect God to be a policeman, to come down every time a wrong, or evil is committed? All of us, have the choice to choose good or evil, we all have the choice to heed God`s loving advice, or not. If gross offences, or unlawful deeds are committed, we have the Law of the Land, and I do agree that often we are are innocent, and still get hurt. But that is not God`s doing, loudatheist. I also know, that often God will protect us from bad deeds, if we ask His protection, or better still, if we do not court danger, in the first place. We live in an imperfect world, is it God`s fault? He always reminds us to love each other, to look after each other, to do good to each other. Love God first, and love everybody, as we love ourselves. That is what God wants from us, and it is a fact, Love begets Love every time. I say this humbly and kindly, and send greetings. Emmy, sister in Christ.

 

[us38]

If we follow them, no evil can touch us,

You don't get around the real world much, do you?

Would we expect God to be a policeman, to come down every time a wrong, or evil is committed?

Yes. That's what the whole problem of evil is about. God does not intervene against evil, when it should.

We live in an imperfect world, is it God`s fault?

God created it, knowing full well that it would be imperfect. It can't be anybody but god's fault that the world is imperfect.

 

[quatona]

I really do not understand at all why so many theological topics are posted here, isn't there a section set aside for theology? You'd probably get a better answer there.

Anyhow, the Christian answer has always been quite simple:
1. God wants us to love him.
2. Freewill is necessary to truly love someone.
3. Freewill implies choice.
4. We don't always make the best choices and often choose to disobey or otherwise ignore God.
5. Said (4.) results in sin.

Even if accepting this reasoning for a moment, I still don´t understand why god created those that he knew would use their "freewill" to choose sin. He could have created only those of whom he knew they would choose the right thing. See there: "freewill" plus no evil.

 

[quatona]

"If you had a child of about 13 years old, would you let him ride his bike?"
"Of course I would."
"Would you make him wear a helmet?"
"Most assuredly."
"Now then, would you follow your child around when he was out on his bike to ensure that he came to no harm?"
"No, I wouldn't."
"How then would you help ensure the safety of your child?"
"I'd give him advice about the dangers of riding his bike, like 'Look both ways before crossing the road,' or 'always wear a helmet,' and let him learn from his mistakes."

Roughly paraphrased from Angels and Demons, by Dan Brown​

I've always liked this little scene.

Yeah, it´s a nice little scene - as long as it isn´t used for one of those infamous god-parent analogies.

 

[loudatheist101]

Yeah, it´s a nice little scene - as long as it isn´t used for one of those infamous god-parent analogies.

About the imperfect world you all keep talking about, what we atheists can say right back to you is that your own gospel claims God is perfect, so why does he make his creations imperfect? What's the point of that?

 

[loudatheist101]

Who's to say He didn't? Certainly He knew; He clearly knows that it is worth it.

Because LOVE REQUIRES A FREEWILL! Yes, folks. I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times, and I'll continue to attempt to get this very elementary block of Christian Theology pounded into your brains till my own implodes from your utter insistence on ignoring said premise.

I get the feeling that you didn't read my previous post. Or you're just very happy to disregard it. I think this statement summarizes it nicely:
God made evil possible; but free will creatures make evil actual.
That is to say, it didn't have to be this way. In fact, God didn't make it this way--we did. This is again basic theology: the fall and freewill. I suggest you enroll in a Sunday School Class. I mean really, this is such basic theology! (Not to say you're alone here. Just about every single Atheist and other detractor of the Christian faith seems to have about the same understanding.)


How about God makes it so love does not require free will?

You say free will makes evil actual. Why did God make it possible? What is the point?

You say that scientific evidence is different from the evidence of the Christain god, is the "evidence" for the Christain god the same "evidence" for Zues, faries, Santa, Mayan Gods, Egyption Gods, etc?

You say every Non Christain has the same understanding of your religion, I think you have the same delustion of it. Sorry to offend you.

I also just wanted to repost this for the new page.

 

[loudatheist101]

About the imperfect world you all keep talking about, what we atheists can say right back to you is that your own gospel claims God is perfect, so why does he make his creations imperfect? What's the point of that?

And this.

 

[quatona]

About the imperfect world you all keep talking about, what we atheists can say right back to you is that your own gospel claims God is perfect, so why does he make his creations imperfect? What's the point of that?

Something must have gone wrong here.
I don´t recall talking about the imperfect world, I don´t have a gospel, and I don´t believe in a god, in the first place.
Neither do I see any link between my quote and your response.

 

[loudatheist101]

Something must have gone wrong here.
I don´t recall talking about the imperfect world, I don´t have a gospel, and I don´t believe in a god, in the first place.
Neither do I see any link between my quote and your response.

Umm, thank you for your response!

 

[EverlastingMan]

How about God makes it so love does not require free will?

Lets talk about that for a second then. First a few assumptions I am making.

You mean that God should make loving Him instinctive. Since instinct can in fact be overridden--either by a "higher" instinct or by freewill (whichever you prefer)--you must mean that this particular instinct should be absolute and that we should have no ability to stop it or that freewill should be discarded entirely. Otherwise making it an instinct doesn't solve the problem. You must also mean that this instinct should carry with it the characteristics of other instinctive actions. The paragraph two down from this one assumes that there is in your world there is no will.

Well, if there's no freewill in the matter than it must be unwilled. That is to say it must be rather like your respiratory, digestive, nervous, and various other systems: entirely instinctive. Let me ask you something, how much time do you spend thinking about breathing? Pumping your blood? Transferring water through the lymphatic system? I would guess none. (Of course we worry about them when they stop but this presumably would not happen.) Then I ask you would we ever even stop to think about God? Would it be the least bit invigorating (Do you find the transferal of water through your body exciting?) Loving God without willing said would take away all the pleasures and benefits of loving Him.

Instinctive things: Things we have to do, not that we want to do. Let me ask you a question, does Winston in 1984 love Big Brother? After that love is pounded, irremovable, into his brain? After all that's all that instinct is: operating software we're stuck with (Lets all just hope we don't get Mac OSX.) Because that is what loving God instinctively would be like. A world with a will is better than one without one. Like all those corny ads say, choice is good.

The comic side of this would come when we looked at God's side of things. Making love instinctive would be rather like getting lonely on valentines, calling your home phone on your cell, and saying "I Love you, man, I really do." Which is my last point--I had another but I can't put it together again after 2 hours of calculus I--if God makes loving Him an instinct then He is essentially just saying "I Love You, God" recording this message into the human tape recorder and pressing play. That is to say, when loving God is an instinct we cannot love Him. (Note that this wouldn't apply to loving others).

You say free will makes evil actual. Why did God make it possible? What is the point?

Your existence makes it possible for me to kill you. And vise versa. In a world with freewill there must be choices. (And as we've discussed a freewill is very much necessary for Love.) The point of making choice was so that people could Love God.

Without the will love is lust.

You say that scientific evidence is different from the evidence of the Christain god, is the "evidence" for the Christain god the same "evidence" for Zues, faries, Santa, Mayan Gods, Egyption Gods, etc?

Of course not. Scientific evidence is entirely material and temporal. The evidence I was referring to is the sort we are using now.

You say every Non Christain has the same understanding of your religion, I think you have the same delustion of it. Sorry to offend you.

That's quite silly. My religion may be a delusion, but my understanding of my religion is not.

God designed you that way, so the relationship is unidirectional.

Not if one has a choice in the matter.

He designed you to desire him.

True enough, but He does not force us to.

The answer is simple, make life paradisiacal, remove evil, allow everyone into heaven.

In said world freewill and thus love is impossible.

Anything else is a manifestation of evil.

Except that without love there is no good.

Only because god requires that. God could just as easily made it so love is possible without free-will.

See above.

And you continue to ignore omnipotence.

Where? Making a statement with no backing is rather annoying.

You set out a kinfe in front of a baby. The baby grabs the knife and kills itself. Does the fact that the baby didn't have to kill itself change at all the fact that you gave it the kinfe?

No. But your analogy is invalid. First off we're not babies; while a baby may do said unconsciously-shiny!-we would not. Secondly, making evil possible is not analogous to giving us a knife.

You'd think, with so many oppurtunities, someone would be able to come up with a defense to the problem of evil. Yet, they still haven't. I wonder why?

You'd think that after so many centuries if it was such a huge problem then the church would have collapsed. BTW google "problem of evil" I'm sure you'd find it educational.

You're a fool to assume that atheists will only accept scientific evidence.

I never, ever, ever even hinted at what you are saying. LA said "There's no scientific evidence for God, so He's bunk." I said "Scientific evidence doesn't work with God. There are other types of evidence that support Him." Are you trying to twist what I'm saying?

Which, you know, is the whole point of a philosophy board.

Really? I had no idea that the point of a philosophy board was that God isn't backed up by material evidence!

Really? What is it, and why have you taken so long to present it?

It has been. You guys act like I have said absolutely nothing. Which brings up the question:
HAVE ANY OF YOU BOTHERED TO READ MY POST(S) ALL THE WAY THROUGH?
I rather think you haven't. If you respond to this post please mention that you did read all the way through, otherwise I won't bother to respond because having to say the exact same thing again and again is getting annoying.

 

[us38]

A world with a will is better than one without one. Like all those corny ads say, choice is good.

Unsupported assertion. You've never seen a world without free-will (or a world with free-will, depending on what this world actually has). As such, you can't make a comparison.

That is to say, when loving God is an instinct we cannot love Him. (Note that this wouldn't apply to loving others).

You do realize that maternal love is an instinct, right? Just because the love is caused by instinct, does not make it any less real.

And as we've discussed a freewill is very much necessary for Love.

ONLY BECAUSE GOD MADE IT THAT WAY!! This is what I'm talking about when I say you're ignoring omnipotence; freewill need not be required for love. The only reason it possibly could be is because god made it that way.

In said world freewill and thus love is impossible.

Prove that freewill is logically required for love.

Except that without love there is no good.

More unsupported assertion.

First off we're not babies;

Compared to god, we are.

Secondly, making evil possible is not analogous to giving us a knife.

Indeed, it's closer to giving us hydrogen bombs and VX.

I rather think you haven't. If you respond to this post please mention that you did read all the way through, otherwise I won't bother to respond because having to say the exact same thing again and again is getting annoying.

I read them all. I though I addressed them. If I have skimmed over something, please point it out.

 

[Tynan]

May I answer as a god ?

"If you had a child of about 13 years old, would you let him ride his bike?"

Indeed I would, but first I would make his bike invisible so he must find and ride it using faith.

I would hide the bike amongst thousands of other invisible bikes and hope he finds his way to the correct one, if he does not he will surely pay.

"Would you make him wear a helmet?"

No, of course not, I have given the child free will, to force him to do anything against his will would be a compromise of that free will, if he wishes to dash his head on a main road then he must be allowed to do so.

"Now then, would you follow your child around when he was out on his bike to ensure that he came to no harm?"

I would only attend to him if he were to take his hands from the handlebars while riding - so he can pray to me to get him through the accident he is about to have.

 

[quatona]

It has been. You guys act like I have said absolutely nothing. Which brings up the question:
HAVE ANY OF YOU BOTHERED TO READ MY POST(S) ALL THE WAY THROUGH?
I rather think you haven't. If you respond to this post please mention that you did read all the way through, otherwise I won't bother to respond because having to say the exact same thing again and again is getting annoying.

An experience probably everyone here shares. No need to shout.
If you find yourself repeating yourself over and over there are several possible reasons conceivable for this.

I haven´t seen anything in your post that answered my question from post #28. If I have missed it, please point me to it (preferably in a moderate font size).

 

[EverlastingMan]

An experience probably everyone here shares. No need to shout.
If you find yourself repeating yourself over and over there are several possible reasons conceivable for this.

Yes, well, one can generally tell when your post has been read through. I was just getting rather angry because my statements were being taken out of context and a few straw men were being set up--both of which really anger me. For the record, I've read all of any post that I bother to quote and probably very little else.

I haven´t seen anything in your post that answered my question from post #28. If I have missed it, please point me to it (preferably in a moderate font size).

Hadn't seen it. I started my post typed for five minutes, did 4 hours of homework and finished it. I hate cal.

Even if accepting this reasoning for a moment, I still don´t understand why god created those that he knew would use their "freewill" to choose sin. He could have created only those of whom he knew they would choose the right thing. See there: "freewill" plus no evil.

If you mean He should only have made humans who would choose the right thing then the simple answer is that there are none. But of course that is something of a cop-out.

But--don't worry!--I'm going to also say that it wouldn't work. If God were to pick and choose which humans got to exist or not on this basis He wouldn't be removing evil, indeed He would rather be committing an evil. He would be the ultimate eugenicist, the ultimate Nazi pure-racist (I know there's a word for that idea, but devil if I can remember it.) Your proposed world is really no different than the dream of those running the Nazi death camps. Same concept really.

Second,and foremost, God couldn't do that without discarding freewill. By refusing to allow those who choose evil to exist God is essentially refusing to allow anyone to choose evil. And while you may say that those who do exist have the choice, they do not either. They cannot choose evil; doing so would mean that God would have to make them nonexistent; thus, meaning that they never could have chosen evil in the first place. So it's not possible.

BTW a very good question. I hadn't actually heard it before and didn't have an answer off the top of my head--indeed the first time I started posting a reply I quit. I rather enjoyed having to actually think of an answer rather than spitting up ones I've heard before.

 

[EverlastingMan]

Unsupported assertion. You've never seen a world without free-will (or a world with free-will, depending on what this world actually has). As such, you can't make a comparison.

Your arguing with a tagline to an argument that actually has about 0 to do with that argument? Don't. And anyhow, my answer should be fairly obvious: freewill is necessary for loving God; loving God is the ultimate good; thus, a world with the tools necessary for the ultimate good is better than one without. And if what you say is true than we can happily conclude this argument by saying that we just can't know.

You do realize that maternal love is an instinct, right? Just because the love is caused by instinct, does not make it any less real.

You, sir, had better learn to read more throughly. Let's read what you just quoted a little closer:

(Note that this wouldn't apply to loving others).​

And again, you ignored all the substance of my argument to attack a tagline on the bottom. You are addressing a watered down version of my conclusion meant to catch the eye and make the point stick without actually attacking anything in the reasoning process or the actual argument.

ONLY BECAUSE GOD MADE IT THAT WAY!! This is what I'm talking about when I say you're ignoring omnipotence; freewill need not be required for love. The only reason it possibly could be is because god made it that way.

No. Read what I said to quatona and my freewill arguments--which I am still not altogether sure you have read. I'm not someone that holds that God will/can do the logically impossible, ie that He can give me an apple and at the same time not give me that same apple. Mayhaps you think I am, as I know a number of Christians on these forums think God can.

Prove that freewill is logically required for love.

They're in my post.

More unsupported assertion.

True enough. I would be quite willing to give it, but I'd rather not in this thread as it would expand the argument in offtopic discussions (Plus you'll see that there is already a thread on this where someone--elman I think--is defending my position, how nice of them.) Anyhow, the statement was repartee to an aside, in other words rather trivial and entirely disconnected to the current argument.

Compared to god, we are.

True, but entirely aside from my point. I'll conclude you don't have anything to say against my actual argument on said point.

Indeed, it's closer to giving us hydrogen bombs and VX.

Let me show you why it's not. God gave us a choice. He didn't give us a knife. He gave us a choice to make the h-bomb, to make the knife, the bow the arrow. That's all.

I read them all. I though I addressed them. If I have skimmed over something, please point it out.

You skimmed over the main block of my argument:

You mean that God should make loving Him instinctive. Since instinct can in fact be overridden--either by a "higher" instinct or by freewill (whichever you prefer)--you must mean that this particular instinct should be absolute and that we should have no ability to stop it or that freewill should be discarded entirely. Otherwise making it an instinct doesn't solve the problem. You must also mean that this instinct should carry with it the characteristics of other instinctive actions. The paragraph two down from this one assumes that there is in your world there is no will.

Well, if there's no freewill in the matter than it must be unwilled. That is to say it must be rather like your respiratory, digestive, nervous, and various other systems: entirely instinctive. Let me ask you something, how much time do you spend thinking about breathing? Pumping your blood? Transferring water through the lymphatic system? I would guess none. (Of course we worry about them when they stop but this presumably would not happen.) Then I ask you would we ever even stop to think about God? Would it be the least bit invigorating (Do you find the transferal of water through your body exciting?) Loving God without willing said would take away all the pleasures and benefits of loving Him.

Instinctive things: Things we have to do, not that we want to do. Let me ask you a question, does Winston in 1984 love Big Brother? After that love is pounded, irremovable, into his brain? After all that's all that instinct is: operating software we're stuck with (Lets all just hope we don't get Mac OSX.) Because that is what loving God instinctively would be like. A world with a will is better than one without one. Like all those corny ads say, choice is good.

The comic side of this would come when we looked at God's side of things. Making love instinctive would be rather like getting lonely on valentines, calling your home phone on your cell, and saying "I Love you, man, I really do." Which is my last point--I had another but I can't put it together again after 2 hours of calculus I--if God makes loving Him an instinct then He is essentially just saying "I Love You, God" recording this message into the human tape recorder and pressing play. That is to say, when loving God is an instinct we cannot love Him. (Note that this wouldn't apply to loving others).

​

And some other rather tiny things which I'll assume that you just didn't have anything in particular against--since most of them weren't addressed to you anyway.