Why does God not stop the evil?

[quatona]

Well I agree that humans should be treated with dignity, respect, and honor, but unlike you, I have a basis for making that assertion

And which basis would that be?

Under a godless view of reality, man is merely one of many accidental by-products of a blind, uncaring, ultimately meaningless evolutionary process. He is an ape-like creature reproducing and evolving on a cosmic speck of dust in an uncaring universe and is beset by delusions of morality ingrained in him over a millenia of evolution. His sole existence is survival and reproduction.

 

[Davian]

When I think of "better", Roger Water's The Gunner's Dream comes to mind:

A place to stay
Enough to eat
Somewhere old heroes shuffle safely down the street
Where you can speak out loud
About your doubts and fears
And what's more no-one ever disappears
You never hear their standard issue kicking in your door.
You can relax on both sides of the tracks
And maniacs don't blow holes in bandsmen by remote control
And everyone has recourse to the law
And no-one kills the children anymore.

...
Of course everone wants these things, but why do we consider these "hypothetical worlds" where there is no evil "better" than the one we are living in? Because humans are treated with dignity, respect and honor? Well I agree that humans should be treated with dignity, respect, and honor, but unlike you, I have a basis for making that assertion,

Yes, a basis that allows for genocide and child rape as permissible. Care to provide a serious response to this post?

you do not.

Yes, I do. Do I need to link back to those posts to show you wrong?

Under a godless view of reality, man is merely one of many accidental by-products of a blind, uncaring, ultimately meaningless evolutionary process. He is an ape-like creature reproducing and evolving on a cosmic speck of dust in an uncaring universe and is beset by delusions of morality ingrained in him over a millenia of evolution. His sole existence is survival and reproduction.

Presenting a strawman of [an] argument, then attacking it, is not good argumentation.

Do you even listen to yourself?

 

[Elioenai26]

What he thinks is wrong is pretty much irrelevant to the point.
Your allegedly existing God´s allegedly objective morality says it is objectively wrong. So in your God´s eyes a world without it would be a better place.

The burden of proof is on you to provide one reason why God could not abhor wrongdoing and at the same time create a world in which free moral agents have the capacity to commit wrongdoing.

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.

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

What we are not trying to do: demonstrate an inconsistency between different views. We are demonstrating a problem that´s inherent to your theology.

Evil is not a problem to Christianity, in fact, Christianity is the only worldview that can provide an accurate account of the existence of evil, and provide a solution as well. Evil also points to God's existence, not away from it.

Hence, all the rest of your post with the tired old attacks on relative morality is just an attempt to distract from what´s actually being shown.

Not at all. Since no one is actually a moral relativist, it really is not something that needs to be attacked. I would be attacking a strawman if I did. Demonstrating why people are not actually moral relativists is a whole other ballgame, and is sometimes necessary.

 

[Elioenai26]

Yes, a basis that allows for genocide and child rape as permissible. Care to provide a serious response to this post?

Possible, not permissible. You used the wrong word.

 

[seeking Christ]

What he thinks is wrong is pretty much irrelevant to the point.
Your allegedly existing God´s allegedly objective morality says it is objectively wrong. So in your God´s eyes a world without it would be a better place. 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.

What we are not trying to do: demonstrate an inconsistency between different views. We are demonstrating a problem that´s inherent to your theology.

Thank you, and let's build on that. What do you perceive as the problem inherent to theology? (I'm guessing you're going to say that earth is not heaven?)

 

[quatona]

The burden of proof is on you to provide one reason why God could not abhor wrongdoing and at the same time create a world in which free moral agents have the capacity to commit wrongdoing.

That´s a different point than the one that I addressed in my post. Does that mean you concede that your point has been refuted?

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

Sure I have thought of that. Assuming for a moment it is authored by an omnipotent omniscient creator God which even invented natural laws and all - the option are almost countless.

Evil is not a problem to Christianity, in fact, Christianity is the only worldview that can provide an accurate account of the existence of evil, and provide a solution as well.

Well, if there is a solution from the Christian pov, it is somewhat unlikely that God needed to create this problem along with a possible solution.

Evil also points to God's existence, not away from it.

And a perfect world would point away from his existence?

Not at all. Since no one is actually a moral relativist, it really is not something that needs to be attacked. I would be attacking a strawman if I did. Demonstrating why people are not actually moral relativists is a whole other ballgame, and is sometimes necessary.

Both would be irrelevant to the argument at hand.
It should, however, be mentioned that your attempts to demonstrate why people aren´t actually moral relativists are countless, and none of them had been successful. You have tried this with me alone only three times, and each time you ran away or ended up throwing ad hominems at me.

 

[quatona]

Thank you, and let's build on that. What do you perceive as the problem inherent to theology? (I'm guessing you're going to say that earth is not heaven?)

Actually, I was only correcting Elioenai in his perception as to what the actual argument of the poster was.

But since you ask me: One problem I perceive is the contradiction between the Christian idea that the world is fallen, sinful, evil etc. and the Christian idea that God had to create the world in this way that came out as not to his liking.

 

[Davian]

Yes, a basis that allows for genocide and child rape as permissible. Care to provide a serious response to this post?

Yes, I do. Do I need to link back to those posts to show you wrong?

Do you even listen to yourself?

So shall I take this response to the above questions as no, no, and no?

Possible, not permissible. You used the wrong word.

A distinction without a difference.

I can see why you don't invite your brother here.

 

[seeking Christ]

Actually, I was only correcting Elioenai in his perception as to what the actual argument of the poster was.

But since you ask me: One problem I perceive is the contradiction between the Christian idea that the world is fallen, sinful, evil etc. and the Christian idea that God had to create the world in this way that came out as not to his liking.

Thank you

I can show you why this is not the case in Christian theology if you like.

 

[seeking Christ]

A distinction without a difference.

If you are unable to discern the difference between possible and permissible maybe you should be asking instead of flaming.

I can see why you don't invite your brother here.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

You, like Baz, are saying that some things in this world are objectively wrong or evil. You like Baz, must borrow from a theistic worldview regarding the infinite intrinsic worth of a human being to make such a statement. You cannot have humans who are intrinsically worthy of respect, honor, and dignity, without God. Read Nietzsche, read Dostoyevksy.

No, what I'm actually saying is that I feel that there are ways this universe could have been constructed so that I am better off than I am now. Where is this fabled "objective wrong" of which you speak?

 

[quatona]

Thank you

I can show you why this is not the case in Christian theology if you like.

Thanks for offering!
Gotta admit, though, that I have seen countless attempts to solve such theological problems - none of which was convincing.
Don´t take it personally but I am not really too enthusiastic about seeing this stuff again and again.
IOW: if it´s one of the standard defenses I sure would take a look at your argument.

 

[seeking Christ]

Thanks for offering!
Gotta admit, though, that I have seen countless attempts to solve such theological problems - none of which was convincing.
Don´t take it personally but I am not really too enthusiastic about seeing this stuff again and again.
IOW: if it´s one of the standard defenses I sure would take a look at your argument.

I think that last sentence came out wrong, and you'd prefer something non-standard? To begin with, it accounts for this statement:

No, what I'm actually saying is that I feel that there are ways this universe could have been constructed so that I am better off than I am now. Where is this fabled "objective wrong" of which you speak?

My previous reference to "heaven" is in its simplest meaning: the best we can imagine. We can ALL imagine how this world could be better than it is now. Agreed?

So, why is the world, and this life, less than perfect? Or in childishly simple terms, why is it not heaven?

God's plan is for earth not to be heaven. If we ever doubt that He recognizes the difference and the implications to us in the midst of our suffering, well that is one use for the symbol that is my faith icon. It serves as a reminder that He knows COMPLETELY.

He sees the finished product, and we do not. Even as a Christian, I do not. Even those Christians that have had great visions of heaven, they will be the first to tell us that they do NOT comprehend the finished product.

In the meantime we are still aware that this life and this world are indeed, not "heaven." This is theologically consistent, even though we would all like it to be different. And it will be! And no, its not a question of "just waiting for the sweet by and by." We all have an active role to fulfill between now and then, and each individual is both unique and important.

Here is a passage of Scripture that zeroes in on this:

"For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved."

I quoted this in a modern translation (ESV) rather than the KJV. This one reads kind of clunky, and the original language has no punctuation. The part I emphasized tells us we are subjected to hope in the KJV, which despite being archaic drives home a point I hope you find relevant to our discussion?

 

[Elioenai26]

That´s a different point than the one that I addressed in my post.

How is it different? You said that in God's eyes, a world without people hurting others (which is wrongdoing and something you incidentally dont deal in anyway, but I will overlook this) would be a better world. That is what you said quatona.

I then asked you to prove why this would be God's only view. You can't, that was my whole point in saying: The burden of proof is on you to provide one reason why God could not abhor wrongdoing and at the same time create a world in which free moral agents have the capacity to commit wrongdoing.

Does that mean you concede that your point has been refuted?

In light of the facts that you do not even remember what you are posting and have failed to shoulder the burden of proof for your assertion, I will not concede that anything has been refuted.

Sure I have thought of that. Assuming for a moment it is authored by an omnipotent omniscient creator God which even invented natural laws and all - the option are almost countless.

Ok. Name one. Just one.

You should be able to do that if the options are almost "countless"?

Well, if there is a solution from the Christian pov, it is somewhat unlikely that God needed to create this problem along with a possible solution.

How does that follow? How does it follow that if Christianity provides a solution to the question of evil, that it would therefore be unlikely that God needed to create the problem of evil along with a possible solution?

The objection is incoherent at best for it misconstrues the nature of evil for one. Evil is not something that is "created" as if it is a material object like a rock, or a human. Evil is a privation, or a lack in something that is inherently good.

You also would have to shoulder the burden of proof and provide a good reason why God could not create free moral agents with the capacity to do good or evil and at the same time, not provide a solution to the problem of evil. Once again, you have your work cut out for you. You are neither omniscient, nor omnipotent, and you definenetly are not omnibenevolent.

And a perfect world would point away from his existence?

Any world that is consistent with what an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, God would create points to His existence.

Both would be irrelevant to the argument at hand.
It should, however, be mentioned that your attempts to demonstrate why people aren´t actually moral relativists are countless, and none of them had been successful. You have tried this with me alone only three times, and each time you ran away or ended up throwing ad hominems at me.

Personally, anyone who can say that they do not deal in right and wrongdoing is morally deficient. That is akin to saying you are a moral nihilist. And you may say that all you want to on this forum, you can try to cleverly side step my questions and use sleight of hand semantics to keep from answering clear cut questions about what is right and what is wrong. But you are no different from anyone else here. You know that raping children is wrong among other things and you know this to be true regardless of what the rapist thinks. Unless, as I have stated earlier you are unable to say that raping children is wrong. If that is the case then you are sociopathic.

 

[Elioenai26]

No, what I'm actually saying is that I feel that there are ways this universe could have been constructed so that I am better off than I am now. Where is this fabled "objective wrong" of which you speak?

You are still using the word "better".

In fact, you cannot not know what this optimal ideal world is because everyone of us intuitively knows that things like murder, theft, rape, are wrong.

You speak of objective moral values and duties as if they are fables. I assure you my friend, contemporary philosophers know very well what objective moral values and duties are. Its called moral realism and the vast majority of philosophers and those in academia adhere to some form of it. Do some research on it.

You speak of rape, murder, and other thinks you dislike. Well I agree, I dislike them too. But according to you, if the objectivity of these actions is simply mythical or imaginary, then you cannot say any of the above are wrong.

Is that what you want us to believe? That rape is not wrong?

 

[quatona]

How is it different? You said that in God's eyes, a world without people hurting others [..]would be a better world. That is what you said quatona.

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.

I then asked you to prove why this would be God's only view.

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

You can't, that was my whole point in saying: The burden of proof is on you to provide one reason why God could not abhor wrongdoing and at the same time create a world in which free moral agents have the capacity to commit wrongdoing.

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

In light of the facts that you do not even remember what you are posting and have failed to shoulder the burden of proof for your assertion, I will not concede that anything has been refuted.

I remember quite well what I wrote, and, besides, me, you and everyone can go back and re-read it if in doubt.
Again: I was refuting the relevance of your attack on "moral relativism" in regards to the argument made. In the following post you changed the subject.

Ok. Name one. Just one.

You should be able to do that if the options are almost "countless"?

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".

How does that follow? How does it follow that if Christianity provides a solution to the question of evil, that it would therefore be unlikely that God needed to create the problem of evil along with a possible solution?

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

The objection is incoherent at best for it misconstrues the nature of evil for one. Evil is not something that is "created" as if it is a material object like a rock, or a human. Evil is a privation, or a lack in something that is inherently good.

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

You also would have to shoulder the burden of proof and provide a good reason why God could not create free moral agents with the capacity to do good or evil and at the same time, not provide a solution to the problem of evil.

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.

Any world that is consistent with what an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, God would create points to His existence.

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.

Personally, anyone who can say that they do not deal in right and wrongdoing is morally deficient.

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

That is akin to saying you are a moral nihilist. And you may say that all you want to on this forum, you can try to cleverly side step my questions and use sleight of hand semantics to keep from answering clear cut questions about what is right and what is wrong.

I have answered all your questions regarding my subjective value judgements. I just refused to answer your loaded questions concerning what is "objectively" right/wrong.

But you are no different from anyone else here.

Well, here´s hoping that I am at least very different from you.

You know that raping children is wrong among other things and you know this to be true regardless of what the rapist thinks. Unless, as I have stated earlier you are unable to say that raping children is wrong. If that is the case then you are sociopathic.

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

 

[quatona]

I think that last sentence came out wrong, and you'd prefer something non-standard?

Yes, it came out wrong. Thanks for correcting me.

My previous reference to "heaven" is in its simplest meaning: the best we can imagine. We can ALL imagine how this world could be better than it is now. Agreed?

I would prefer to speak for myself. I can.

So, why is the world, and this life, less than perfect? Or in childishly simple terms, why is it not heaven?

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?

God's plan is for earth not to be heaven.

Obviously - but the question is "why?".

If we ever doubt that He recognizes the difference and the implications to us in the midst of our suffering, well that is one use for the symbol that is my faith icon. It serves as a reminder that He knows COMPLETELY.

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

He sees the finished product, and we do not. Even as a Christian, I do not. Even those Christians that have had great visions of heaven, they will be the first to tell us that they do NOT comprehend the finished product.

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.

In the meantime we are still aware that this life and this world are indeed, not "heaven." This is theologically consistent, even though we would all like it to be different. And it will be! And no, its not a question of "just waiting for the sweet by and by." We all have an active role to fulfill between now and then, and each individual is both unique and important.

Here is a passage of Scripture that zeroes in on this:

"For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved."

I quoted this in a modern translation (ESV) rather than the KJV. This one reads kind of clunky, and the original language has no punctuation. The part I emphasized tells us we are subjected to hope in the KJV, which despite being archaic drives home a point I hope you find relevant to our discussion?

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.

 

[mathetes123]

There is one common question which is often posed as an objection to God's omnibenevolence and that is the question: "why does God not prevent or stop the evil in the world?"

"Why does God not stop all the child molestors and rapists and murderers, why does God not stop this or prevent that or do this or that...."

These types of questions, surprisingly are raised by many atheists. But I find it ironic that the few instance in which we see God acting to stop and to prevent such heinous acts in the Bible, these same objectors claim that God was wrong in in stopping these people!

On one hand, God is blamed for tolerating evil, and on the other hand when He is shown to act in judgment on people who commit such atrocities, He is branded as being a murderer and genocidal!

If there were known to us today, to be civilizations and societies in existence that behaved the way the Canaanites, Amorites and Amalekites, did in making it a regular practice to offer their newborn babies and young children on fiery pagan altars to gods, atheists would be among the many to cry out: "If God exists, then why does He not stop these atrocities!"

Yet, in cases where it is clear that this was happening, when God does act, He is judged as being a genocidal murderer!

It seems to me that the qualm with God is not that He does not act to judge sin, but that He indeed does exist and holds us morally accountable for our sins. It is evidently clear, that in some people's eyes (those who lack belief in God) that whatever God does, He fails to meet their moral standards. Which is ironic, for if there is no objective moral standard, then all we have is opinions, none being any closer to the non-existent standard than any other. And the opinion that God was somehow wrong in ordering the children to be killed is no closer to adhering to this non-existent moral standard than the opinion that God, since He is the author and giver of life, was justified in taking that life.

So what is the objection?

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.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

You are still using the word "better".

In fact, you cannot not know what this optimal ideal world is because everyone of us intuitively knows that things like murder, theft, rape, are wrong.

You speak of objective moral values and duties as if they are fables. I assure you my friend, contemporary philosophers know very well what objective moral values and duties are. Its called moral realism and the vast majority of philosophers and those in academia adhere to some form of it. Do some research on it.

You speak of rape, murder, and other thinks you dislike. Well I agree, I dislike them too. But according to you, if the objectivity of these actions is simply mythical or imaginary, then you cannot say any of the above are wrong.

Is that what you want us to believe? That rape is not wrong?

Moral subjectivity has nothing to do with this. But better I mean objectively better - why doesn't the Earth have more iron? More gold? More neodymium? 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 are we physical beings with strict reliances on food, water, shelter? Why are we not more logical? Why, why, why?

 

[Davian]

If you are unable to discern the difference between possible and permissible maybe you should be asking instead of flaming.

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