Why does God allow evil to exist on Earth?

[quatona]

I reread it. Now what are you saying about our perceptions?

That there is a difference between philosophical considerations and merely describing one´s immediate perception.
I have expanded a little on it in post 296.

 

[elman]

That there is a difference between philosophical considerations and merely describing one´s immediate perception.
I have expanded a little on it in post 296.

You mean something that is like a fact, except that it isn´t a fact (that it can not be arbitrarly altered is exactly what makes a fact a fact, after all)?
But I think I know what you mean. Theorems, assumptions, axioms are necessary part of philosophy. And we have to make sure we have some common ground. I am completely fine with elman axiomatically assuming that there is something like "free will". If, however, wanting to discuss if that is a valid concept he would have to do more than say "I like the idea, and I interprete things that way."
Anyways, philosophy, just as science, tries to go beyond face value, and both often question the validity of face value. "This oasis must exist because I can see it." is not really a compelling or impressive argument when the question is "Could that be a fata morgana?"

The issue is not merely describing our perceptions. The issue is do we ignor our perceptions in our search for truth, which is what Philosophy is about.

 

[quatona]

The issue is not merely describing our perceptions. The issue is do we ignor our perceptions in our search for truth, which is what Philosophy is about.

No, this is not what philosophy is about. That´s what religion is about.

 

[elman]

No, this is not what philosophy is about. That´s what religion is about.

OK if philosophy is not a search for truth, what is it? And whatever it is about do we ignore our perceptions?

 

[quatona]

OK if philosophy is not a search for truth, what is it?

Philosophy is not about completely ignoring our perceptions - that´s what I intended to say. That was the point of the previous discussion, after all.

You have my initial statement that philosophy is not about simply stating our immediate perception. It is more than this, and it also includes the possibility of questioning it.
I hope this is clear enough.

If you have to say something about this, that´s fine.
If you want to discuss statements that I don´t hold nor have expressed, I am not available, and I´d recommend you to find yourself someone who holds those notions you´d rather respond to than to the notions that I hold and express.

 

[elman]

Philosophy is not about completely ignoring our perceptions - that´s what I intended to say. That was the point of the previous discussion, after all.

You have my initial statement that philosophy is not about simply stating our immediate perception. It is more than this, and it also includes the possibility of questioning it.
I hope this is clear enough.

If you have to say something about this, that´s fine.
If you want to discuss statements that I don´t hold nor have expressed, I am not available, and I´d recommend you to find yourself someone who holds those notions you´d rather respond to than to the notions that I hold and express.

Please don't be hypocritical. I never said philosophy is simply stating our immediate perception, nor did I ever say our preception cannot be questioned. Don't be discussing statments I have never said.

 

[Diavolos]

God doesn't allow evil to exist on earth because God doesn't exist. I'm also not sure I accept most of the common notions of "evil".

The typical explanations - theodicies - to explain away the existence of evil are all terrible failures.

We must devise ethical systems that are, as Nietzsche put it, "Beyond good and evil". The outmoded dichotomy rooted in superstition and simplistic ethical reasoning ought to be replaced with a philosophically mature, reasoned-out ethical system that incorpororates modern thought, and new scientific discoveries such as those in the fields of psychology, evolution/biology, and sociobiology.

 

[quatona]

Please don't be hypocritical. I never said philosophy is simply stating our immediate perception, nor did I ever say our preception cannot be questioned. Don't be discussing statments I have never said.

Nevermind.

 

[elman]

God doesn't allow evil to exist on earth because God doesn't exist. I'm also not sure I accept most of the common notions of "evil".

The typical explanations - theodicies - to explain away the existence of evil are all terrible failures.

We must devise ethical systems that are, as Nietzsche put it, "Beyond good and evil". The outmoded dichotomy rooted in superstition and simplistic ethical reasoning ought to be replaced with a philosophically mature, reasoned-out ethical system that incorpororates modern thought, and new scientific discoveries such as those in the fields of psychology, evolution/biology, and sociobiology.

Nietzsche was no one to model your life after. Evil is being unloving to your fellow man. We are not beyond evil and it is present here with us. Evil is here because we created it. God allows us to do that because having that ability is part of having the ability to love and if we do that we create righteouness which is what God is looking for us to do.

 

[GenuineMonotheist]

God is said to be all knowing, all powerful, and all loving, so why does he allow evil to exist on Earth?

For a test. If it were all "sunshine and lollypops" this wouldn't be possible. Nor would we have the real choices which allow our choice of righteousness meritorious (which is also why there is evil - it's a consequence of BAD choices.)

Some of you may say evil exists because of our sins, others say its the devil, however, God is all powerful, so he should have the power to eliminate those things. Why won't he?

Good question - for Christianity. While I've not fully made up my mind, I'm persuaded that Christianity is incorrect on this and that the Muslims offer the best answer on this. They don't deny in the least that NOTHING happens without God's permission - including evil. It would be contrary to genuine monotheism (and as such, dualistic) to believe that God is somehow powerless in all of this.

Many people say that evil exists on Earth as a punishment from God, so our all loving God kills innocent children and adults because of someone else's sin?

It can very well be a punishment, but it's also a test even then too. As for innocent children - who ultimately suffers or is tested by this? They're headed for Paradise, they "got out easy" in some respects, by the will of God. They're not losers in the least - the ones who do not repent of hurting these little ones on the other hand, are going to burn in Hell. So who is the victor, who is the real loser?

OTOH the death of such a little child is a test for mankind - for the family, for the community. How will they respond? Will they lose faith in God? Will they remember His rewards? Do they believe Him when He tells them of such things? Do they accept the will of God, or think themselves above this? Will they seek justice for the murdered innocent, and for their family and community?

"Well, we all sin" Well, shouldn't our all knowing perfect God know that we would all sin when he created us? So why does he punish us for it?

Of course He knows - He has perfect knowledge. But that doesn't change the freedom of His creatures. Nor does it have any bearing on His practice of justice and mercy, for that is His alone, for Him to decree - it's not like there's some vague, impersonal, platonic notion of "justice" or "mercy" hanging around othe there, somewhere in the heavens, external to God and in that sense "above Him". When the true monotheist says "God Exalted above all", they mean just that - everything. Space, time, materiality, etc...the whole thing.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Nietzsche was no one to model your life after. Evil is being unloving to your fellow man. We are not beyond evil and it is present here with us. Evil is here because we created it. God allows us to do that because having that ability is part of having the ability to love and if we do that we create righteouness which is what God is looking for us to do.

Why wasnt he? Oh yeah because he loved his sister? Or because he concieved as christianity as a slave-morality, or because he executed incredible alienations with ease and with transitional knowledge while knowing both sides of the story?

The only thing wrong with Nietzsche is that he saw human suffering as a way to gain power, and power...was the center of his philosophy, he exploited and concieved ways so as a better version of man the "noble man" can achieve power and become the dominant idea of human kind. He subjegated suffering as a useful tool for the "noble man" to achieve the goal of achieving dominant power over the "lesser" races of the human existent.

 

[elman]

Why wasnt he? Oh yeah because he loved his sister? Or because he concieved as christianity as a slave-morality, or because he executed incredible alienations with ease and with transitional knowledge while knowing both sides of the story?

The only thing wrong with Nietzsche is that he saw human suffering as a way to gain power, and power...was the center of his philosophy, he exploited and concieved ways so as a better version of man the "noble man" can achieve power and become the dominant idea of human kind. He subjegated suffering as a useful tool for the "noble man" to achieve the goal of achieving dominant power over the "lesser" races of the human existent.

I think he also died insane. Shall we try to get to that point also?

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

I think he also died insane. Shall we try to get to that point also?

The story behind his mental breakdown is cinematic, and sad...and yes he died in the care of his sister.

 

[quatona]

I think he also died insane. Shall we try to get to that point also?

I don´t see how the fact that someone died insane would be of an relevance here anymore than if he died of, say, cancer or crucification.

 

[elman]

I don´t see how the fact that someone died insane would be of an relevance here anymore than if he died of, say, cancer or crucification.

Your correct.

 

[loudatheist101]

Why didn't God save those innocent kids at Virginia Tech? Oh thats right, it's not His job to look after us if one of us does something wrong 2,000 years ago.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Why didn't God save those innocent kids at Virginia Tech? Oh thats right, it's not His job to look after us if one of us does something wrong 2,000 years ago.

You capitalized His in the middle of your sentence. And your sentence itself makes absolutely no sense, if you mean 2 days ago then your on the plate.

 

[loudatheist101]

You capitalized His in the middle of your sentence. And your sentence itself makes absolutely no sense, if you mean 2 days ago then your on the plate.

No no no. I capitalized "His" because that refers to the Christain god. Christains always say He will not save us from evil because Adam sinned 2,000 years ago. That's what I ment.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

I believe its much longer then 2,000 years ago...i forgot the exact date but the young earch creationist perspective is a little over 4.5k years ago. God is simply an idea produced by our mind. The idea of god is a contingent creation.

 

[loudatheist101]

I believe its much longer then 2,000 years ago...i forgot the exact date but the young earch creationist perspective is a little over 4.5k years ago. God is simply an idea produced by our mind. The idea of god is a contingent creation.

Dude, I know, I'm an atheist too.