Why does God not stop the evil?

[Elioenai26]

Yes, and I said this with emphasizing "in god´s eyes", as opposed to my or anbody else´s eyes (since you responded to the post in question as though it were saying the latter). I was merely clarifying what the argument was and was not.

What do you mean - "God´s only view"? Does your God have changing or alternating views on this subject?

I am asking you to defend and support your assertion. You claim, I repeat, YOU claim that in God's eyes, a world without people hurting other people would be a better world than the one in which we live. Are you now wanting to say that this might not be the only way in which God would think? You seem to think I just pulled that word "only" out of thin air, as if you did not imply it in your assertion. You imply that this is the only view God could have quatona and you have to support that. I am just asking you to support what you are saying.

That´s pretty trivial, isn´t it? You don´t create something that you abhor. That would be stupid.

Once again, you seem not to understand that wrongdoing is not something someone CREATES. It is not an object but rather an action that stems from the choices of free moral agents. What do you not understand about this? GOD DID NOT CREATE EVIL because it is not something that can even be created. It is more accurate to say that in CREATING free moral agents, God made it POSSIBLE for evil to exist as a privation or lack in that which is inherently GOOD.

You also must give a good reason why God would not have a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil to exist as a privation or lack in that which He created as good. This is a burden that you simply cannot bear. You are not God. As long as it is POSSIBLE that an all knowing, all powerful God could have a sufficient reason for Him to allow evil, then there is no contradiction.

Sure. An omnisicient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator god could have only admitted those beings into existence of which he knew they would use their so-called "free will" only for what god considers "right-doing".

Even if that is true, you still have not addressed the question in the tense in which we are speaking. We are not talking about what God could have done before creating the universe, but what God could do NOW.

Here is your quote to prove this:

We can simply compare the world as it is to your God´s own standards and conclude that from within the Christian pov the world could be better.

​

And this was my question:

Of course it could be. But what would have to take place for it to be better? Have you thought of that?

Now quatona notice in the preceeding discussion, we were talking about what God could do to make the world better, not what God COULD HAVE done. This last reply of yours is about what God could have done, but this is not what I asked you. I asked you what God could do now to make the world better and you have yet to answer this question.

Unless he desired drama, he could have created that which (in case of a created problem) appears to be a "solution" right away.

Once again, you are venturing way off into the deep waters of speculation. How do you know that the only reason why God would not have created a "solution" right away to the problem of evil was because He desired "drama"?

How can you prove that assertion? God may have any number of reasons known only to Himself for why He would create free moral agents without immediately offering a solution to evil. You must shoulder the burden of proof that God did not have any sufficient reason to not offer a solution to evil "right away". You simply cannot do it. You would have to be God.

So when you speak of "wrong-doing" you are actually referring to mere inaction?

In the post you are replying to I spoke of "evil". Wrong-doing is one form of evil. Wrong doing can be positively doing wrong, or not doing the right one knows one should do. These are referred to as sins of commission and sins of omission. I have said nothing of "mere inaction".

I don´t see why God created "free moral agents" in the first place when the creation of "free moral agents" would lead to those wrongdoings God abhorred.

Ok, so you can't think of a good reason. I can think of several. God no doubt has His own reasons. He may have only had one, or He may have had 1,001 reasons. As long as it is possible that God had sufficient reasons for creating moral free agents, then there is no contradiction in His being omnibenevolent and allowing evil to exist.

Why do men and women come together and have children, knowing that there children may very well grow up to do things that are abhorrent? They consider that having children is worth more than the evil they may or may not hypothetically commit.

Give me one example for a world that you´d consider inconsistent with an omni-God, and you´d have at least a half point.

Any creation inconsistent with God's omnibenevolence would be inconsistent with God.

The only question here is if we deal with it subjectively or allegedly objectively.

No, the real question is DO WE LIVE as if it is subjective or objective.

The dichotomy between "moral objectivist" and "sociopath" is false on many levels.

I never made that a dichotomy. I simply said that if you think raping children is right or that it is just neutral, then you are sociopathic. I stand by that.

It´s just your attempt to distract from the fact that you haven´t given a single substantiation for your claim that an "objective morality" exists by simply pathologizing those who do not swallow your empty assertions.

Save it.

For one, if someone were raping you, you would think that they were WRONG, that they were doing something EVIL even though the person raping you may think he was having a jolly good time and that he was not doing anything so bad. So spare me.

Where I come from, that very bad discussion style. But it would be the first time that your alleged "objective morality" appears to be pretty permissive compared to my subjetive ethical values.

As I stated, if you want to sit behind your computer and maintain that raping children is not objectively wrong, then that is ok. I say you are either lying to keep from admitting that your relativistic views are untenable, or either you are serious and actually think that a child rapist is right in raping children if he thinks it is right. I sincerely hope the former is the case and not the latter. If the latter, I would say you are morally deficient just like a lame person has a physical deficiency.

 

[Elioenai26]

I think for most the objection is that they are answerable to a higher being for how they have lived their life. As you said, they invoke an absolute moral standard to argue against the existence of God, without realizing that abolute moral standards or laws require moral law givers. Relativism is logically inconsistent.

Agreed! +1

 

[Davian]

I think for most the objection is that they are answerable to a higher being for how they have lived their life.

On what do you base this guess?

As you said, they invoke an absolute moral standard to argue against the existence of God, without realizing that abolute moral standards or laws require moral law givers. Relativism is logically inconsistent.

What are these "absolute moral standards"?

 

[quatona]

I am asking you to defend and support your assertion. You claim, I repeat, YOU claim that in God's eyes, a world without people hurting other people would be a better world than the one in which we live. Are you now wanting to say that this might not be the only way in which God would think? You seem to think I just pulled that word "only" out of thin air, as if you did not imply it in your assertion. You imply that this is the only view God could have quatona and you have to support that. I am just asking you to support what you are saying.

Well, firstly I was under the impression that sin, evil, wrong etc. is "against God´s will" by definition, in Christian theologiy. Your entire idea of "objective morality" authored by God makes no sense if God wanted or needed a world with all that in it.
But, of course, there is an alternate option: God wanted a world with evil, sin, wrong-doing in it - so a world like this is the best world in God´s eyes.

Make up your mind which it is you would me believe, and then we can talk from there.

Once again, you seem not to understand that wrongdoing is not something someone CREATES. It is not an object but rather an action that stems from the choices of free moral agents. What do you not understand about this? GOD DID NOT CREATE EVIL because it is not something that can even be created. It is more accurate to say that in CREATING free moral agents, God made it POSSIBLE for evil to exist as a privation or lack in that which is inherently GOOD.

I do understand that wrong-doing is not an object. I understand that God has a concept of "wrong-doing" (as a property of actions"). God knowingly created a world in which such takes place.
The entire "wrong-doing is a lack of..." is nonsense, however.

You also must give a good reason why God would not have a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil to exist as a privation or lack in that which He created as good. This is a burden that you simply cannot bear. You are not God. As long as it is POSSIBLE that an all knowing, all powerful God could have a sufficient reason for Him to allow evil, then there is no contradiction.

Ok, so I will accept that God knowingly created a world in which there would be evil, wrong-doing, etc. for some reason that deemed necessary to him.
So evil existing is a good thing, in God´s eyes.

Even if that is true, you still have not addressed the question in the tense in which we are speaking. We are not talking about what God could have done before creating the universe, but what God could do NOW.

In my very first post in this thread I have said that this is not what I would like to discuss because it´s the wrong question.
In the discussion between you and me so far we do have been discussing what God could or could not have done. If you didn´t want to discuss that point, you could have said it right from the beginning. When you suddenly say it is off-topic after having discussed for quite a while (presumably because you have run out of arguments), this makes you look bad.

Here is your quote to prove this:

We can simply compare the world as it is to your God´s own standards and conclude that from within the Christian pov the world could be better.

​

And this was my question:

Of course it could be. But what would have to take place for it to be better? Have you thought of that?

Now quatona notice in the preceeding discussion, we were talking about what God could do to make the world better, not what God COULD HAVE done.

No, we weren´t. We were discussing the latter all the time.

This last reply of yours is about what God could have done, but this is not what I asked you. I asked you what God could do now to make the world better and you have yet to answer this question.

My statement doesn´t imply that I think God could do something now to make this world better. It merely says that the world could be better, and the question "How could it be better?" of course includes consideration as to how it could have been better right from the start.
I notice that you don´t want to touch this subject. Ok - again, we both know why that is.

But since - in the meantime - you have made it clear that God wanted a world with evil, sin and wrong-doing in it (the very phenomena that are against the standards of his own "objective morality"), this point is moot anyway. The world as it is is the world God desired, so there is no point in asking "How could he have done it better (in his own eyes)."

Once again, you are venturing way off into the deep waters of speculation.

Yes, of course all we do here is speculate. But I haven´t started the speculation. Christian theology has, and I am dealing with those speculations.

How do you know that the only reason why God would not have created a "solution" right away to the problem of evil was because He desired "drama"?

Because else he would have created it right away - without the transitional drama. He created drama, so I am concluding he wanted drama.

How can you prove that assertion? God may have any number of reasons known only to Himself for why He would create free moral agents without immediately offering a solution to evil. You must shoulder the burden of proof that God did not have any sufficient reason to not offer a solution to evil "right away". You simply cannot do it. You would have to be God.

Well, Christian theology tells us a lot about God´s will, God´s motives, God´s intentions. So apparently this is not a problem per se. It only becomes a problem when holes are poked into the consistency of these concepts. Then we suddenly hear: "We can´t know about all that."

In the post you are replying to I spoke of "evil". Wrong-doing is one form of evil. Wrong doing can be positively doing wrong, or not doing the right one knows one should do. These are referred to as sins of commission and sins of omission. I have said nothing of "mere inaction".

Yes, therefore the entire "evil is merely a lack of..." is not covering your concept of evil.

Ok, so you can't think of a good reason. I can think of several. God no doubt has His own reasons. He may have only had one, or He may have had 1,001 reasons. As long as it is possible that God had sufficient reasons for creating moral free agents, then there is no contradiction in His being omnibenevolent and allowing evil to exist.

Maybe you - as the defender of Christian theology - could, for a change, come up with some of those reasons?

Why do men and women come together and have children, knowing that there children may very well grow up to do things that are abhorrent? They consider that having children is worth more than the evil they may or may not hypothetically commit.

Parents aren´t omni-everything. Parents have to accept the world and its conditions as it is. They aren´t the creators of everything. The analogy fails in the most crucial points.

Any creation inconsistent with God's omnibenevolence would be inconsistent with God.

So you can´t give an example but have to resort to an entirely tautological response? Noted.
So, when you asked me "How could the world be better?" you actually expected nothing more than the response "It could be better in that it could be better."?

No, the real question is DO WE LIVE as if it is subjective or objective.

I know that this is a question important to you, but that doesn´t make it "the real question". Even if everybody lived as though it were objective we couldn´t conclude that it is objective.

I never made that a dichotomy. I simply said that if you think raping children is right or that it is just neutral, then you are sociopathic. I stand by that.

1. Well, previously you said you were going by dictionary definitions. Look up the definition of "sociopath".
2. Since I never said that I consider raping children right or neutral, the fact that you hold this against me in every single thread - although having been corrected numerous time - just witnesses of your dishonesty.

For one, if someone were raping you, you would think that they were WRONG, that they were doing something EVIL even though the person raping you may think he was having a jolly good time and that he was not doing anything so bad. So spare me.

Yes, I would think that. But I don´t consider my thoughts and feelings objective. They are subjective. So I wouldn´t think they are "objectively wrong".
Besides, the point you are trying to make is not "how we think" but "how we lead our lives". I have repeatedly asked you to show me how I lived my life as though morals were objective, and you abandoned all your examples immediately - because they didn´t hold water.
I told you before: A moral subjectivist can do everything a moral objectivist can, except for saying "this is objectively wrong".
Apart from that, it would be your job to demonstrate what a moral subjectivist can not do, and why.

As I stated, if you want to sit behind your computer and maintain that raping children is not objectively wrong, then that is ok. I say you are either lying to keep from admitting that your relativistic views are untenable, or either you are serious and actually think that a child rapist is right in raping children if he thinks it is right. I sincerely hope the former is the case and not the latter. If the latter, I would say you are morally deficient just like a lame person has a physical deficiency.

We have been there. I have -several times - spend a lot of effort in telling you what my position is. It´s enough now. If you want to continue the discussion, go back to one of the previous, almost identical discussions, read my responses to which you stopped replying, and respond to them. Don´t make up stuff for me just because you can´t handle my actual positions and statements.

You are being dishonest and disingenious, without any remorse. This is - in my subjective opinion - ethically wrong, and not worth being dealt with.
Ironically, this behaviour is considered a sociopathic trait.

 

[FatalHeart]

Can any one of you say you are perfect? Why then complain about imperfection if you help cause it? The pot calling the kettle black... Blame God or not, the truth is you consent to rape if you rape, you consent to murder if you murder, you consent to stealing if you steal, lying if you lie, but I guess the world should be judged by your standards rather than the standards of others. Did you know that that type of thinking makes you a hypocrite? I guess God is right in doing whatever He wants seeing as He is judging the world on His standards and not yours -the very same way you live your life.

As for relativism and subjectivism, "There is no truth" is either true or it isn't. "There is no universal truth," is either universally true or it isn't. "All truth is subjective," is either an objective statement or it isn't. "There is no universally, objective truth," is either universally, objectively true, or it isn't. You really can't have anything without universal, objective truth. Just disagree with me, and think about what that means if you are right...

 

[Freodin]

As for relativism and subjectivism, "There is no truth" is either true or it isn't. "There is no universal truth," is either universally true or it isn't. "All truth is subjective," is either an objective statement or it isn't. "There is no universally, objective truth," is either universally, objectively true, or it isn't. You really can't have anything without universal, objective truth. Just disagree with me, and think about what that means if you are right...

One of my oldest still accessable posts here on this forum...

Must this "relativism" be interpreted by "generalists"?

Is it a "either-or" topic?

I don´t think so.

I am a "relativist", as you may call it. I think that there are a lot of "truths" that are relative, in whatever regard.
That does not mean every "truth" is relative. The problem is only to find out which is, and which is not.

Here my position is: as long as it is not proven that a "truth" is absolute, it is relative.

Somehow I found that this my position has not changed a lot in the last ten years since I made this post.

 

[mathetes123]

On what do you base this guess?

What are these "absolute moral standards"?

1) I wasn't always a believer.

2) Without absolute moral standards, there is no basis for any moral arguments. Morality becomes subjective, nothing more than personal opinion, yet unbelievers insist on making moral arguments as if there were an objective basis for such arguments.

 

[Tinker Grey]

2) Without absolute moral standards, there is no basis for any moral arguments. Morality becomes subjective, nothing more than personal opinion, yet unbelievers insist on making moral arguments as if there were an objective basis for such arguments.

Yes, there is a basis. The premise of the golden rule is empathy ... and nothing else.

 

[mathetes123]

Yes, there is a basis. The premise of the golden rule is empathy ... and nothing else.

On what absolute standard do you base that statement that I should accept it as more than just your opinion?

 

[FatalHeart]

Some of my objections go like this: Any absolute truth leads to an absolute reality. The problem with needing proof of everything is often used as an excuse not to act based on the proof that has already been founded. While it is important to be right, such things as morals and how you should treat people isn't rocket science and does not take a Ph.D. to act with. We can ignore certain obvious things such as empathy and say it is because we are unsure, but really, for most people, such an excuse is very much like just choosing to be a monster. It is very clear in many instances what "should" or "should not" be done, but we can argue the absoluteness of this or give reason against it, but I will say, it doesn't take an ethics class for me to be equipped to feed someone who is hungry, or be considered in many just ways as an evil person for letting someone starve to death. Sure, situations change and so, certain things are "good" or "less good" on some levels, and maybe we can never really find an absolute or 100% truly know what the terms good or bad mean, but using this as an excuse to always do what you want even if it hurts other people is what many would call an [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], and whether it is justified intellectually or not, giving someone like that a "dose of their own medicine" is fun. The point is, we don't need 100% justification for the things we do. We never act this way. So to say something needs to be 100% confirmed when it comes to God or morals or truth, is rather stupid, because it is plain that certain things are what they are. Maybe we have doubts. Maybe we can never know. But at the end of the day, food is food and starving to death is starving to death, and if you let someone starve to death, why complain if someone lets you die? So also, when you consider the laws of God, when you act like it doesn't matter and perpetuate the destruction of those laws, why should God care if you die? Yet He sent His son to save you...

 

[Davian]

1) I wasn't always a believer.

So you were projecting your experience onto the majority of others. How do you justify that? You certainly don't talk for me.

2) Without absolute moral standards, there is no basis for any moral arguments.

Moral arguments can be based on reason, compassion, empathy, wellness/well being, or some combination of those, so you are mistaken there.

Morality becomes subjective,

It would appear so, although one might find consensus of opinion on many subjects.

nothing more than personal opinion,

Morality is in how a society conducts itself. It is not personal opinion.

yet unbelievers insist on making moral arguments as if there were an objective basis for such arguments.

That people act as if there are objective morals does not establish objective morals.

If you think there are objective morals, please provide a few examples, and demonstrate how they are objective.

 

[FatalHeart]

Well, "truth exists" is a tautology. "Truth is knowable" is a tautology also. Seeing as these things are knowable, it follows that many of the things relating to these things may also be knowable. Meaning, we can act based on knowledge and objectivity. If you don't want to act based on knowledge and deny objectivity, I'm guessing you get what you pay for.

 

[Freodin]

Well, "truth exists" is a tautology. "Truth is knowable" is a tautology also. Seeing as these things are knowable, it follows that many of the things relating to these things may also be knowable. Meaning, we can act based on knowledge and objectivity. If you don't want to act based on knowledge and deny objectivity, I'm guessing you get what you pay for.

If you realize that the statement "truth is knowable" is not only not a tautology, but is in fact false, you might understand why some people disagree with your conclusions.

 

[FatalHeart]

So, what you are saying is that you know that "truth is knowable" is not a tautology, and that that knowledge is true?

 

[Davian]

So, what you are saying is that you know that "truth is knowable" is not a tautology, and that that knowledge is true?

At the bottom of each post you will find a

button that will facilitate keeping your post with the one you are responding to.

Thanks

 

[seeking Christ]

To me the question is rather: If God wanted heaven to be the end result of his creation, why didn´t he create heaven right away?

Obviously - but the question is "why?".

Ok, but why did he want the universe and us to be in this state?


Ok, but Christian theology points out differences between earth and heaven, doesn´t it? That would be my starting point. And I am still asking why God - if the "finished product" was heaven, couldn´t or didn´t want to create it right away.

No, sorry, not really - but I appreciate your efforts anyway.
Maybe I am not understanding your argument, but nowhere do I see an answer to the question "Why didn´t God...?". I see assertions that he didn´t, and that he didn´t want to.

I think this counts as progress?

Now before I say anything else, I need to qualify it out the wazoo with things like "as I see it from here," and 'human language and understanding are both limited and incompatible with the fulness of God Himself,' and etc. Proceeding anyway, we are in the midst of a process. We will become not only capable of love, but reliable to love God and one another. And the only way that can be meaningful is for us to have the choice not to do so. We will eventually mature to the point of exercising that choice properly, in other words, faithfully. And God isn't relishing the thought of condemning a single one of us! Instead, He is suffering along with each of us, encouraging us to take the next step, and has taken responsibility for our mistakes, failures, and bad choices.

In the meantime, we still find ourselves subjected to hope, longing for something better, and exposed to suffering.

 

[seeking Christ]

Why are atoms so large? If atoms were much smaller, we would have none of the problems that will plague the semiconductor industry in the next decade. Why, why, why?

I'd be curious to read up on this, got a link?

 

[seeking Christ]

I have asked repeatedly for Elio to clarify his position. Perhaps you would answer for him?

I'm not sure what position he's taking, but the difference between possible and permissable can be seen here:

"And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:12) All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any."

Rephrase that as all things are possible for me, but not all things are permissable, and you have the basic gist. Aren't you one of the people telling me you know all this stuff because you used to experience God just like we do?

 

[quatona]

Can any one of you say you are perfect? Why then complain about imperfection if you help cause it?

1. I´m not complaining, I´m just stating the imperfection.
2. I have been born imperfect, and Christian doctrine tells me that I can´t be perfect - unlike God who allegedly is perfect.

The pot calling the kettle black...

The comparison human - God = pot - kettle was yours. Somehow I have a feeling it doesn´t really match Christian doctrine.

As for relativism and subjectivism, "There is no truth" is either true or it isn't. "There is no universal truth," is either universally true or it isn't. "All truth is subjective," is either an objective statement or it isn't. "There is no universally, objective truth," is either universally, objectively true, or it isn't.

Except that we are not talking about truth in general, but about objective morality - and your nice little play on words doesn´t work anymore.

You really can't have anything without universal, objective truth. Just disagree with me, and think about what that means if you are right...

Yes, that´s unfortunate and inconvenient. However, you are employing the fallacy from consequence.
Plus: it is equally unfortunate and inconvenient that you can´t have anything when merely claiming to be in hold of objective moral truth, either: just like a moral subjectivist you can just disagree with someone and dream up that everybody took your word for it.

 

[quatona]

Now before I say anything else, I need to qualify it out the wazoo with things like "as I see it from here," and 'human language and understanding are both limited and incompatible with the fulness of God Himself,' and etc. Proceeding anyway, we are in the midst of a process. We will become not only capable of love, but reliable to love God and one another. And the only way that can be meaningful is for us to have the choice not to do so. We will eventually mature to the point of exercising that choice properly, in other words, faithfully.

All this is implying that God is uncapable of meaningfully experiencing and exercising love. He doesn´t have the choice to sin, he didn´t undergo a maturing process - all that which you picture as necessary for being a loving entity.

And, since you brought up earth vs. heaven: Why is it that people are still not mature enough short before their death (they still make unloving choices etc.), but suddenly in heaven they are sinless and perfect?
God, quite obviously, must have the means to cause this change.

And God isn't relishing the thought of condemning a single one of us!

So I am confident he won´t.

Instead, He is suffering along with each of us, encouraging us to take the next step, and has taken responsibility for our mistakes, failures, and bad choices.

Full responsibility with all the consequences, or rather a more symbolic responsibility that practically doesn´t change anything?
Please explain which responsibility God has taken for our failures, how he did that, and what that means practically.