Why God allows evil

[Freodin]

How such a defense reads to me:
"This is the way it is, and there is no possible alternative, because if there was an alternative, that it wouldn't be the way it is, which it obviously is."

Just take this paragraph as an example:

Heroism:
Evil can lead us into some really, really dark places. But at the same time, virtue & goodness can lead us to great heights. What hero existed in a world where everything’s nice & everyone’s happy? Marvel would go bankrupt if they tried to make “Friendly Man”, the superhero who hangs out & says “Hi” to people because there’s no evil to fight!

What would police officers do? Where would the military go? What would disaster relief teams, paramedics, and firefighters do for satisfaction?

We have disaster relief, paramedics and firefighters. It is good for us to have these... not a situational good, but a general good.
So we need to have disasters, accidents and fires, in order for these heroic individuals to have something to do.

Really? You need to burn the world so that firefighters can shine? A world without firefighter... and without fires... would be a worse place?

That's nonsense. It assumes that you cannot have a meaningful success without also having failures. But in order to make this assumption, you have to ignore all the failures and focus only on the successes.
It is a very common mindset among the theists, like when the sole survivor of a plane crash praises God for their miraculous rescue. No one of these ever blame this same God for killing all others on that plane. The failures are ignored.

The only way around that would be a world without such failures... everyone survives the crash, all the time. Or, no plane ever crashes.
But according to the above reasoning, that would render these successes meaningless. A paradise... without meaning.

It seems that Christian "love" and "heroism" is build on the lifes... the deaths, the suffering, the failure... of uncounted others, only so that their "hero" can shine.

It is a very human attitude. But quite unworthy of a deity.

 

[trophy33]

There's an audiobook of Leibniz "Discourse on Metaphysics" on Audible. I was initially quite persuaded by his explanation of Freewill. I later realised, however, it only applied as far as taste. If you follow through Leibniz's reasoning it leads to pretty absurd outcomes. As Lampooned in Candide.

Leibniz has God as perfect, and only allowing evil, in so far as it will result in a greater good. "God permits Evil, and not that he desires it." He also draws a distinction between necessity(to God what is necessarily good) and certainty(as far as things can be predicted). A bit like that zen/tao story, about bad things seemingly happening to an old villager leading to, perhaps avoiding a worse outcome.

Leibniz's being "really satisfied" when Evil [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] happens, is bizarre.

I know only of Theodicy and monads regarding the work of Leibniz and I am very satisfied with these works.

His reasoning is pure, logical and with respect to the highest qualities of God. So I really like him.

 

[ruthiesea]

The man asked G-d, “Why do you allow so much evil?”
G-d answered, “Why do you?”

G-d gave use the greatest gift of all - free will.
G-d gave us the greatest curse of all - free will.

People do evil things. Things such as earthquakes and other natural disasters are just the result of the universe that He created. They are neither good nor evil.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Yepp, if the church would be one, a lot of change would happen. Regrettably, the way the denominations and traditions are set up, the church is engineered to not ascend past a certain level of maturity so seminary novices can rule over them.

You've got that right.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Are you seriously suggesting using violence is a reward for following commands from your god?

Not at all. Apparently you do not know the story. At any rate, God is telling the Israelites that He WILL take care of them. This is repeated throughout scripture and always true- except when they get away and start violating God's law. Even then, God restores them eventually.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Yes, that's the most salient point. Other than faith in what the Bible and religious tradition claims, how do you know that God is truly loving?

Consider this as a thought experiment: If God's nature was evil, it's also possible that God would be deceptive. God could have inspired the Bible authors to describe him falsely, in order to hide his true nature. He would allow some love, happiness, goodness, and answered prayers to exist. If everything in life was unmitigated misery, we wouldn't know anything different. Looking objectively at how the world operates, it's much more logical to conclude that God is either evil and deceitful, or dualistic--acting both malevolently and benevolently according to his will. The idea that God's moral nature is all-good is not supported evidentially. It can only be believed by faith.

He DOES allow love, happiness, goodness and answered prayers to exist and indeed promises it, if we only obey Him. When we don't, we have consequences, intended and otherwise. There is a "god" of this world, and one is automatically in his camp, if one doesn't choose God.

We have an entire world - with various exceptions - thumbing their collective noses at His principles and wonder why we see what we see.

 

[VCR-2000]

How such a defense reads to me:
"This is the way it is, and there is no possible alternative, because if there was an alternative, that it wouldn't be the way it is, which it obviously is."

Just take this paragraph as an example:

We have disaster relief, paramedics and firefighters. It is good for us to have these... not a situational good, but a general good.
So we need to have disasters, accidents and fires, in order for these heroic individuals to have something to do.

Really? You need to burn the world so that firefighters can shine? A world without firefighter... and without fires... would be a worse place?

That's nonsense. It assumes that you cannot have a meaningful success without also having failures. But in order to make this assumption, you have to ignore all the failures and focus only on the successes.
It is a very common mindset among the theists, like when the sole survivor of a plane crash praises God for their miraculous rescue. No one of these ever blame this same God for killing all others on that plane. The failures are ignored.

The only way around that would be a world without such failures... everyone survives the crash, all the time. Or, no plane ever crashes.
But according to the above reasoning, that would render these successes meaningless. A paradise... without meaning.

It seems that Christian "love" and "heroism" is build on the lifes... the deaths, the suffering, the failure... of uncounted others, only so that their "hero" can shine.

It is a very human attitude. But quite unworthy of a deity.

That kind of reminds me of something.

There is no fires, medical illness, or any more suffering in Heaven. So, being a "hero" becomes obsolete basically. It's something I think about sometimes.

 

[VCR-2000]

He DOES allow love, happiness, goodness and answered prayers to exist and indeed promises it, if we only obey Him. When we don't, we have consequences, intended and otherwise. There is a "god" of this world, and one is automatically in his camp, if one doesn't choose God.

That honestly sounds like an ultimatum more than genuine free will. "Free will" isn't that effective a term to describe it, that's what I thin

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

That honestly sounds like an ultimatum more than genuine free will. "Free will" isn't that effective a term to describe it, that's what I thin

It is free will. You have a complete choice. All choices have consequences. All choices of any kind mean you get one thing and not another.

 

[Freodin]

It is free will. You have a complete choice. All choices have consequences. All choices of any kind mean you get one thing and not another.

Well... no. You only have one choice, and only one. Which isn't very "free", and you also do not get to chose the consequences. Again, not very "free".

But I said it before: "free will", in whatever form, is meaningless as a moral explanation without infallibility.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Well... no. You only have one choice, and only one. Which isn't very "free", and you also do not get to chose the consequences. Again, not very "free".

But I said it before: "free will", in whatever form, is meaningless as a moral explanation without infallibility.

No, you have endless choices, and people make them every day. Not sure where you are getting that you don't have the ability to choose. You can do whatever you want and God won't strike you dead. But there are consequences to whatever you choose.

That's like arguing that you should be able to have both your wife and your mistress. Well, you can, for awhile. Eventually, that's not going to fly. And there WILL be consequences of either choice that you make.

 

[Freodin]

No, you have endless choices, and people make them every day. Not sure where you are getting that you don't have the ability to choose. You can do whatever you want and God won't strike you dead. But there are consequences to whatever you choose.

That's like arguing that you should be able to have both your wife and your mistress. Well, you can, for awhile. Eventually, that's not going to fly. And there WILL be consequences of either choice that you make.

Well... you are the one arguing for eating your cake and keeping it too... so I wouldn't be to bothered with wifes and mistresses.

But, again, as it somehow seems to be constantly missed by all you "free will means it's all your fault" types: free will without infallibility is meaningless for a moral argument.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Well... you are the one arguing for eating your cake and keeping it too... so I wouldn't be to bothered with wifes and mistresses.

But, again, as it somehow seems to be constantly missed by all you "free will means it's all your fault" types: free will without infallibility is meaningless for a moral argument.

Who is saying "free will means it's all your fault". And what is "it's"? What's your fault? If you choose something - anything - that means you are refusing its opposite. If you choose binge eating, you are also not choosing calorie restriction. If you choose sex, you are also not choosing refraining. If you choose Jesus, you are also not choosing the world's standards.

 

[Cis.jd]

It maybe an unacceptable assumption, but I assume that the allowing of evil is for us to learn/grow. We progress from evil because society learns from it. We know the evils of racism just by what we've learned from the Slavery, WW2, and because of this we vow to not allow this to happen again and at the same time have learned that differences in appearance and culture shouldn't be antagonized or responded to with any form of hatred.

 

[zippy2006]

free will without infallibility is meaningless for a moral argument.

It's not at all clear what you mean by this.

When someone uses free will as a theodicy they are saying that free will entails the possibility of evil. Simple and true.

 

[VCR-2000]

No, you have endless choices, and people make them every day. Not sure where you are getting that you don't have the ability to choose. You can do whatever you want and God won't strike you dead. But there are consequences to whatever you choose.

That's like arguing that you should be able to have both your wife and your mistress. Well, you can, for awhile. Eventually, that's not going to fly. And there WILL be consequences of either choice that you make.

Really, in the spiritual sense, there are only two eternal choices as a binary (good/Heaven vs evil/Hell).

 

[John0987]

We have disaster relief, paramedics and firefighters. It is good for us to have these... not a situational good, but a general good.
So we need to have disasters, accidents and fires, in order for these heroic individuals to have something to do.

Really? You need to burn the world so that firefighters can shine? A world without firefighter... and without fires... would be a worse place?

It would be the worst possible of worlds, Man would destroy utopia as soon as he gets the chance. Utopia is not only impossible, it is undesirable. Have you ever heard of a certain disease? It's a disease that makes it unable for someone to feel pain, and their lives usually don't last past 30 because they just do not know what is wrong with them. Do you want the entirety of creation to be as vapid as someone who never had a worry in his life? As clueless as those cursed with the lack of pain? Why do you hate us?
Our pains molded who were are. Our unjust sufferings gave us everything. Our compassion, our understanding, our forgiveness and our redemption! Should we throw who we are in the trash for some superficial so-called justice? Never! Justice is found in the GULags, only mercy is desirable and allows for Free Will. To have Free Will is to act against justice and self-interest in favor of mercy and charity.
Suffering purifies Man, suffering is the only way to human growth. All spiritual growth must be paid for in the coin of contrition and misery. I am grateful, and I'd say even fell blessed, to all and everything that makes me suffer unjustly. The Devil might not believe as he works, but he works for God and all his minions exist for our salvation. To be blessed is to unjustly suffer, only this makes us grow and frees us from justice.
What better example of growth than Christ? When the suffering of all mankind came upon him in the garden of Gethsemane, humanity was truly perfected in Him.

Well... no. You only have one choice, and only one. Which isn't very "free", and you also do not get to chose the consequences. Again, not very "free".

But I said it before: "free will", in whatever form, is meaningless as a moral explanation without infallibility.

This is not Free Will, this is the Gnomic Will. Which is removed by the illumination of the Nous by the Grace of God. The alienation between cause and effect is a consequence of Sin, which is healed in New Creation.

 

[trophy33]

Many people use the term "free will", but almost nobody is able to define it.

Free in what sense? Its quite obvious that even though we make our choices, our choices are not free, but dependent on circumstances/causes.

Free will argument is not a good theodicy, because most evils are not moral (dependent on moral choices).

 

[Freodin]

It would be the worst possible of worlds, Man would destroy utopia as soon as he gets the chance. Utopia is not only impossible, it is undesirable. Have you ever heard of a certain disease? It's a disease that makes it unable for someone to feel pain, and their lives usually don't last past 30 because they just do not know what is wrong with them. Do you want the entirety of creation to be as vapid as someone who never had a worry in his life? As clueless as those cursed with the lack of pain? Why do you hate us?
Our pains molded who were are. Our unjust sufferings gave us everything. Our compassion, our understanding, our forgiveness and our redemption! Should we throw who we are in the trash for some superficial so-called justice? Never! Justice is found in the GULags, only mercy is desirable and allows for Free Will. To have Free Will is to act against justice and self-interest in favor of mercy and charity.
Suffering purifies Man, suffering is the only way to human growth. All spiritual growth must be paid for in the coin of contrition and misery. I am grateful, and I'd say even fell blessed, to all and everything that makes me suffer unjustly. The Devil might not believe as he works, but he works for God and all his minions exist for our salvation. To be blessed is to unjustly suffer, only this makes us grow and frees us from justice.
What better example of growth than Christ? When the suffering of all mankind came upon him in the garden of Gethsemane, humanity was truly perfected in Him.


This is not Free Will, this is the Gnomic Will. Which is removed by the illumination of the Nous by the Grace of God. The alienation between cause and effect is a consequence of Sin, which is healed in New Creation.

Salvation? New Creation?

Based on what you wrote here... it is those who chose Satan's side and send themselves to Hell who are the real winners. They get to be eternally "cleansed" and "grow"... while those who linger in Heaven are to be pitied for the loss of their sweet sweet suffering.

Really, there are few Christian positions that are more disgusting than this "suffering is really great" nonsense.

 

[Freodin]

It's not at all clear what you mean by this.

When someone uses free will as a theodicy they are saying that free will entails the possibility of evil. Simple and true.

Simple and true. And the reason why God constantly chooses to do evil. Right?