Why God allows evil

[MyChainsAreGone]

And that usually points to corruption in the government and police, when there's one set of rules for them, and another set for everyone else.

Of course there's one set of rules for government and police and another for the citizens.

I can't impose taxes on you. The government can. I can't penalize you with fines for driving without insurance. The government can. I can't implement and pass new laws. The government can.

I can't arrest you on suspicion of some crime. The police can. I can't compel you to pull your car over because you ran a red light. The police can.

Those charged with the responsibility of enforcing the law definitely have the valid authority to do things that others cannot.

Circular logic. Your source for the claim that God is beyond our comprehension and therefore unjudgable is the Bible, and it is also the Bible that is your evidence to support this claim.

Actually, I didn't use the bible to support that claim. It's simply a logical deduction from natural evidence.

Do you or I or anyone know the full scope of the universe? No. But the God who is... the God who created it knows it all.

Do you or I understand why and how gravity works? No, but the God who invented it does.

Do you or I understand what holds the nuclei of atoms--with all those positively-charged protons (which repulse each other)--together? No. They've made guesses, but we don't really know. The God who is... does.

Do we truly know what life is and how and why it works? How it got started? How it reproduces? Functionally (from observation), yes. But what really makes life, "life," No, we don't.

Do we understand how the human brain (or any other brain) actually works? how it stores memories or does calculations? Um... no, we don't. But God does.

So... I'm claiming that we as humans do not and cannot comprehend the One who invented this thing we call the universe, and this odd conglomeration of molecules and chemistry we call life. The God I'm describing is not based on the Bible, but on what we can observe in the natural universe.

I could just as easily say "The human mind can never comprehend everything in the universe" as I can say "the human mind can never comprehend God."

There is no such thing as objective morality.

HURRAH!

And with that one admission, you have dismantled every single assertion of moral judgment against God or any person that you have made.

We literally don't need to even talk about it any further, because if morality isn't objective, it doesn't exist at all.

Argument from incredulity. Just because you can't conceive of an explanation other than God doesn't mean there is none.

By all means, provide me one.

I was pointing out that you don't seem to understand what survival of the fittest means. It's not like the Hunger Games where only one survives. Fitness refers to the ability for an organism to survive in its environment. Or, more specifically, the genes within its DNA. If there are two variants of a gene and one conveys a reproductive advantage, then that gene is fitter and that is the one that will get passed on and survive in the population.

And you missed my point...

Evolution provides NO basis for making ANY assertion of morality.

I was only observing that the ONLY thing that might provide a basis for preference between any two outcomes is "Survival of the fittest." I agree... it's a lousy foundation for any sort of moral assertion, but hey, it's the only thing that evolutionary theory can offer.

Yeah, it's not like the Bible describes God as a father...

And it also describes him as Sovereign... and Creator... and Judge...

You simply cannot judge God by how He meets your personal perceptions of what a parent does or does not do.

Even with God, I don't see how you can claim there is any kind of objective morality.

Let me explain.

God IS the ONLY measure of what is Good. God's own values are the ONLY measure of true value. God's perception of reality is the ONLY true representation of reality.

Therefore, God's ethics are the ONLY objective ethics. There's simply no basis for any "morality" apart from the person of God Himself.

As I've stated several times now, there is no such thing as objective morality.

There is SUBJECTIVE morality, and most people agree with many parts of that - rape is wrong, helping people is good - but that near universal agreement doesn't mean it's

What makes rape wrong? If it's not the value of a human life, granted that person by God Himself, what's so bad about a male impregnating as many females as he can to propagate his own DNA and pass on his "fitness" and help evolution along? Isn't that what all other animal species do as a matter of course?

Is there any concrete reason that any one of us should feel obligated to follow "subjective" morality? If it's in our own interest to ignore such subjectivity, isn't it subjectively reasonable to ignore such morality?

Could you quote the specific part of whatever post where I made that specific claim?

In any case, I fail to see how God would allow something if he refuses to accept it, considering that there's nothing that could prevent him from stopping it if he so desired. And if he doesn't want to accept it, then it sure seems like there's sufficient desire there.

You said in post #72:

Because so far he hasn't done a thing to stop this. Are we to assume that this is acceptable to God?

The question was the assertion.

But if the person who delegated the responsibility sees that the person he gave the responsibility to is constantly misusing it, wouldn't the smart thing to do be to say, "Well, I can see you're not ready for this level of responsibility, therefore I'm not going to let you have it anymore."

You forget... in God's "business," the giving of life itself IS the delegation of authority. And to take it away is death, for that's the only way such delegated authority is rescinded.

So, what you're basically suggesting is that if God determines that a person might do "bad" (or "evil" things), He should preemptively kill them. I know you didn't say that, but that's what it amounts to.

God gave us the freedom (and free will) to live our lives. At the end of our lives, we'll give an account for how we used that freedom. His timing... not yours or mine.

Well, what's he waiting for? I mean, you can use that logic to delay things indefinitely. Hey, God, you gonna do something about the people doing horrible things in the Holocaust? I've gotta give those soldiers killing people a chance to repent first. Later: Hey God, there's more atrocities going on now, are you going to do anything about them now that those soldiers from the Holocaust are dead? Well, I can't, there's new soldiers now, gotta give them a chance to repent as well!

Just because you don't know God's reasoning for acting as He does, does not mean that He doesn't have a good reason.

"Argument from incredulity..." you know...

Yes, it is circular logic, just as it would be circular logic to claim that the claims made in the Harry Potter books are supported by the Harry Potter books.

You're still wrong.

If I claim that "in the world of Harry Potter, thus and such is true," where an how would I support such an assertion? By quoting from the HP books, right? No circular reasoning. Only documentation.

If I claim that the Biblical world view states that God is the measure of all morality, and I use the Bible to support that claim, it's not circular reasoning... it's documentation.

But you are assuming the a Biblical standpoint is the correct one. You must first demonstrate that it is correct.

I believe the Biblical standpoint is the correct one.

And this discussion is not about proving that belief, it's about demonstrating that it is internally and logically consistent.

You logged into "Christian Forums" and participating in a thread about why God allows evil.

So the context of this forum is acceptance of a Biblical world view. Belief that the bible is the correct perspective on reality is the presumed standpoint around here. The purpose of this thread is to discuss whether the existence of evil is internally consistent with the biblical presentation of who God is.

But it's hard to imagine that you are here to learn how the problem of evil is addressed within a biblical world view. Rather, it seems that you are here to attempt be antagonistic to theistic beliefs in general, and to promote the problem of evil as the trump card against a theistic understanding.

How can evil even be a problem if there is no God? By your own admission, there's no objective morality, therefore even "evil" is subjective, right?

So if evil doesn't even exist as an objective reality, there can be no "problem of evil" that needs to be resolved.

Rocks have no moral value. So if one rocky asteroid slams into another and blows it to smithereens, was it an "evil"? Of course not. If that same asteroid slams into earth and all life is destroyed, was that an "evil"? No... it can't be. So, if the destruction of ALL life on this planet cannot be considered "evil" from a naturalistic (no God) standpoint, on what basis can you suggest that one person raping or killing another person--or full-on genocide--is "evil"? The answer is that you can't.

The Biblical world view IS internally consistent. Proving that is the best world view is way outside the scope of this thread.

 

[Kylie]

Of course there's one set of rules for government and police and another for the citizens.

I can't impose taxes on you. The government can. I can't penalize you with fines for driving without insurance. The government can. I can't implement and pass new laws. The government can.

I can't arrest you on suspicion of some crime. The police can. I can't compel you to pull your car over because you ran a red light. The police can.

Those charged with the responsibility of enforcing the law definitely have the valid authority to do things that others cannot.

But those laws apply to ALL people, whether they are in the government or not. Politicians are required to pay tax just like everyone else. And when a group of people try to get out of being bound by the rules that apply to everyone else, we cry corruption.

Actually, I didn't use the bible to support that claim. It's simply a logical deduction from natural evidence.

No it isn't. It's argument from incredulity.

Do you or I or anyone know the full scope of the universe? No. But the God who is... the God who created it knows it all.

Unsupported claim.

Do you or I understand why and how gravity works? No, but the God who invented it does.

Unsupported claim.

Do you or I understand what holds the nuclei of atoms--with all those positively-charged protons (which repulse each other)--together? No. They've made guesses, but we don't really know. The God who is... does.

Unsupported claim.

Do we truly know what life is and how and why it works? How it got started? How it reproduces? Functionally (from observation), yes. But what really makes life, "life," No, we don't.

You missed telling me that God does. And anyway, Unsupported claim.

Do we understand how the human brain (or any other brain) actually works? how it stores memories or does calculations? Um... no, we don't. But God does.

Unsupported claim.

So... I'm claiming that we as humans do not and cannot comprehend the One who invented this thing we call the universe, and this odd conglomeration of molecules and chemistry we call life. The God I'm describing is not based on the Bible, but on what we can observe in the natural universe.

Again, argument from incredulity.

I could just as easily say "The human mind can never comprehend everything in the universe" as I can say "the human mind can never comprehend God."

Except we have evidence that the universe exists.

HURRAH!

And with that one admission, you have dismantled every single assertion of moral judgment against God or any person that you have made.

We literally don't need to even talk about it any further, because if morality isn't objective, it doesn't exist at all.

That's ridiculous. That's like saying that since the claim "Star Trek is better than Star Wars" is a subjective claim, that no one actually likes either of them.

By all means, provide me one.

How Did Life Begin? RNA That Replicates Itself Indefinitely Developed For First Time

And you missed my point...

Evolution provides NO basis for making ANY assertion of morality.

I was only observing that the ONLY thing that might provide a basis for preference between any two outcomes is "Survival of the fittest." I agree... it's a lousy foundation for any sort of moral assertion, but hey, it's the only thing that evolutionary theory can offer.

So you freely admit that evolution doesn't try to make any moral assertions, and then you still turn around and try to find a bit of evolution that makes moral assertions?

And it also describes him as Sovereign... and Creator... and Judge...

And yet he just allows people to go around doing horrible things when he could stop them...

You simply cannot judge God by how He meets your personal perceptions of what a parent does or does not do.

Let me explain.

God IS the ONLY measure of what is Good. God's own values are the ONLY measure of true value. God's perception of reality is the ONLY true representation of reality.

Therefore, God's ethics are the ONLY objective ethics. There's simply no basis for any "morality" apart from the person of God Himself.

So God's morals are objective, and what makes them objectiove is that they are God's.

No, that's not circular at all.

What makes rape wrong? If it's not the value of a human life, granted that person by God Himself, what's so bad about a male impregnating as many females as he can to propagate his own DNA and pass on his "fitness" and help evolution along? Isn't that what all other animal species do as a matter of course?

Excuse me, but you're making the unwarranted assumption that life was granted by God. In court, that's called leading the witness, and it's very naughty.

Is there any concrete reason that any one of us should feel obligated to follow "subjective" morality? If it's in our own interest to ignore such subjectivity, isn't it subjectively reasonable to ignore such morality?

It's called "Empathy", and also the fact that we are social creatures and need to live around others of our own species who tend to not like us when we act like jerks.

You said in post #72:

Okay, thanks.

Let me ask, why would God allow something he does NOT wish to accept?

You forget... in God's "business," the giving of life itself IS the delegation of authority. And to take it away is death, for that's the only way such delegated authority is rescinded.

Rubbish, God's all powerful. He can do it in any way that he wants to. He created the universe, and now you're telling me that he couldn't find a way to make people without giving them the ability to mess everything up?

So, what you're basically suggesting is that if God determines that a person might do "bad" (or "evil" things), He should preemptively kill them. I know you didn't say that, but that's what it amounts to.

Well, God hardened Pharaoh's heart in the Bible. Why can't he do a similar thing but in reverse to soften people's hearts?

God gave us the freedom (and free will) to live our lives. At the end of our lives, we'll give an account for how we used that freedom. His timing... not yours or mine.

Unsupported claim.

Just because you don't know God's reasoning for acting as He does, does not mean that He doesn't have a good reason.

"Argument from incredulity..." you know...

Occam's razor still means I win.

You are assuming two things: that God exists and that he has reasons for not stopping the multitude of horrible things that happen.

I assume only one thing - that there is no God.

You're still wrong.

If I claim that "in the world of Harry Potter, thus and such is true," where an how would I support such an assertion? By quoting from the HP books, right? No circular reasoning. Only documentation.

If I claim that the Biblical world view states that God is the measure of all morality, and I use the Bible to support that claim, it's not circular reasoning... it's documentation.

The Book of Kylie, Chapter 1, Verse 2 says that there is no God. The Book of Kylie, Chapter 1, Verse 1 says that Kylie never lies. So you can be sure that The Book of Kylie, Chapter 1, Verse 2 is truthful, because I've already established that it can't possibly be a lie.

Do you see the mistake in that? It's the same mistake you are making. The source of a claim cannot be used as evidence for the claim as well. Otherwise anything would count as evidence for itself, and anyone could present whatever nonsense they wanted and demand people believe it.

I believe the Biblical standpoint is the correct one.

And this discussion is not about proving that belief, it's about demonstrating that it is internally and logically consistent.

A viewpoint can be internally consistent and still be wrong.

You logged into "Christian Forums" and participating in a thread about why God allows evil.

And "Because God doesn't exist" is a valid answer to that question.

So the context of this forum is acceptance of a Biblical world view. Belief that the bible is the correct perspective on reality is the presumed standpoint around here. The purpose of this thread is to discuss whether the existence of evil is internally consistent with the biblical presentation of who God is.

Well, yes, I have to say that I agree with you there. From what I've seen of the God depicted in the Bible, the suffering and torture of people is not inconsistent. Drowning nearly all life on the planet, ordering soldiers to kill children (except for the girls, they should keep them for themselves), it all fits.

But it's hard to imagine that you are here to learn how the problem of evil is addressed within a biblical world view. Rather, it seems that you are here to attempt be antagonistic to theistic beliefs in general, and to promote the problem of evil as the trump card against a theistic understanding.

As I said, "God doesn't exist" is a perfectly valid answer.

How can evil even be a problem if there is no God? By your own admission, there's no objective morality, therefore even "evil" is subjective, right?

I would say that selfish acts that cause a great deal of suffering to others is a pretty good working definition of evil.

So if evil doesn't even exist as an objective reality, there can be no "problem of evil" that needs to be resolved.

That's like saying that since there's no objective definition of what is too hot or too cold, no one ever experiences hypothermia.

Rocks have no moral value. So if one rocky asteroid slams into another and blows it to smithereens, was it an "evil"? Of course not. If that same asteroid slams into earth and all life is destroyed, was that an "evil"? No... it can't be.

Life forms can suffer, rocks can not.

Do you see the difference?

So, if the destruction of ALL life on this planet cannot be considered "evil" from a naturalistic (no God) standpoint, on what basis can you suggest that one person raping or killing another person--or full-on genocide--is "evil"? The answer is that you can't.

Nice strawman.

The Biblical world view IS internally consistent. Proving that is the best world view is way outside the scope of this thread.

No it isn't. The Bible isn't even internally consistent, let alone the world view it presents.

 

[zippy2006]

Of course the atheist is going to proclaim if God is good, he should stop bad things from happening!

God does bring about good, but he does not do it in the same way a human person does. He isn't a finite, human person.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

Are you suggesting that if a person acts according to God's will, that they will live forever?

Well, the Bible does seem to indicate that had mankind never sinned, that they would have lived forever.

But to your question, we are told that "All have sinned" and "the wages of sin is death." So, I don't see any contradiction with the notion that sinlessness and immortality are linked.

None of us are sinless, so the question is rather moot.

 

[Ken-1122]

God is the measure of "good," just as He is the measure of sin. All that God is... is good. All that is contrary to God's nature, God's character, and God's will... is sin.

So, it is impossible for God to be anything other than good, and it is impossible for God to sin, for He never contradicts His own person.

As a Christian, I'm sure that is your interpretation of good, but for most people it is not. Just because your God says it doesn't make it so.

Man was created good. And it was good that man had the ability to "rule" and make decisions (using delegated authority from God). God determined that this is the way things were to be (and His will is, by definition, good), and He Himself declared it to be good.

There's no basis to argue that God was wrong in that assessment because you added the word "completely" to "good" with the added meaning of "inability to sin."

No, YOU are the one who added the word "completely" to good, go back to post #63; I was just responding to what you said.

This is something of a straw man argument... because no one was arguing for unrestricted free will. To argue against free will because you define it as unrestricted is to argue a false equivalence.

Post #81, the person I was responding to used the term "authentic unrestricted free will". That is what I was responding to. he brought it up, not me.

-----

In both of these cases, you're arguing against a concept by adding meaning to each concept that no one has asserted.

Again; perhaps you should do a little background investigation before posting, everything you accused me of was done by either you or somebody else; not me.

 

[Ken-1122]

God does bring about good, but he does not do it in the same way a human person does. He isn't a finite, human person.

If you aren't capable of determining what is or is not good, how can you judge God as good?

 

[zippy2006]

If you aren't capable of determining what is or is not good, how can you judge God as good?

I do not believe we are incapable of determining what is or is not good, and have never said that.

(It seems that all my time in these threads is spent correcting misrepresentations. It is said that a sign of a strong intellect is the ability to correctly represent one's opposition. That simply isn't happening in these threads.)

 

[Kylie]

If you aren't capable of determining what is or is not good, how can you judge God as good?

Oh, because God says that he is good, of course...

 

[Ken-1122]

Well, the Bible does seem to indicate that had mankind never sinned, that they would have lived forever.

But to your question, we are told that "All have sinned" and "the wages of sin is death." So, I don't see any contradiction with the notion that sinlessness and immortality are linked.

None of us are sinless, so the question is rather moot.

You said:

Keep in mind, that according to God's "business" practice, "stopping" someone from acting contrary to the company's standards or behavior is death.

In a real company, when someone acts contrary to the company’s standards, they are immediately removed to prevent them from doing further damage. But when someone acts contrary to God’s company standards, they are allowed to spend their entire life causing damage until they die of old age, then they are removed via death at the same time they would have been removed had they done things right.

You can’t compare the two because God does nothing to stop his employees from going against company standards, a real CEO would.

 

[zippy2006]

Once again, your argument boils down to...

Apparently what you desire is the echo chamber of a "safe space," a place where authentic consideration and exchange of ideas is prohibited and one is simply encouraged in mantric recitation of their preconceived ideas. If you ever graduate from that form of solipsism, feel free to look me up. Until you do dialogue is only a farce.

 

[Ken-1122]

I do not believe we are incapable of determining what is or is not good, and have never said that.

You sorta hinted at it. On post #123 I stated part of being good is the desire to stop bad things from happening. If God doesn’t want to stop bad things from happening, either God isn’t good, or we are incapable of determining what is good. So which is it?

 

[Kylie]

Apparently what you desire is the echo chamber of a "safe space," a place where authentic consideration and exchange of ideas is prohibited and one is simply encouraged in mantric recitation of their preconceived ideas. If you ever graduate from that form of solipsism, feel free to look me up. Until you do dialogue is only a farce.

No, I desire answers that actually make sense.

So far all I've got are answers that don't make sense, with an assurance that they only don't make sense because we can't fully understand. But anyone can say that about any wild claim. So at the end of it all, I've still got nothing to show that what you say is the truth.

 

[Kylie]

I do not believe we are incapable of determining what is or is not good, and have never said that.

(It seems that all my time in these threads is spent correcting misrepresentations. It is said that a sign of a strong intellect is the ability to correctly represent one's opposition. That simply isn't happening in these threads.)

So we can determine what is good and what is bad?

 

[zippy2006]

You sorta hinted at it. On post #123 I stated part of being good is the desire to stop bad things from happening. If God doesn’t want to stop bad things from happening, either God isn’t good, or we are incapable of determining what is good. So which is it?

You're making a number of dubious assumptions. Does a good person desire to stop all bad things from happening, unconditionally? Does a desire always terminate in action? Does an infinite being bring about good in the same way that a finite being does?

But again you misrepresent me, for I never said that God doesn't want to stop bad things from happening. If you are to engage in philosophical discussion it will be important to read carefully and avoid drawing false inferences.

The entirety of the Christian message says that God is bringing about good, albeit in a way that is counterintuitive to our natural minds.

 

[zippy2006]

So far all I've got are answers that don't make sense...

What answer were you given which does not make sense, and why does it not make sense?

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

No, YOU are the one who added the word "completely" to good, go back to post #63; I was just responding to what you said.

The word may have been used, but you added a meaning to it that wasn't there. You added the concept of "unable to sin" which was not part of the original meaning.

Post #81, the person I was responding to used the term "authentic unrestricted free will". That is what I was responding to. he brought it up, not me.

Here again, my point was that you added the concept of "no consequences"... which is not what "unrestricted" means.

 

[Kylie]

What answer were you given which does not make sense, and why does it not make sense?

The insane stretches of logic and reasoning that believers go through to explain why God allows terrible things to happen when he is capable of stopping them, and then trying to claim that God allowing terrible things to happen is actually a good thing.

Honestly, if you can't see how that makes no sense, I'm not sure we'd be able to have a fruitful discussion about it.

 

[Ken-1122]

You're making a number of dubious assumptions. Does a good person desire to stop all bad things from happening, unconditionally?

I didn’t say all bad things, or unconditionally. Does the law prevent you from doing everything that is illegal? unconditionally? If you are driving 36mph in a 35 mph speed zone, you probably won’t get a ticket; but if you go faster, there is a line you will cross when the law will come after you. Where that line is drawn will often depend on the circumstances. If there is a line when man made laws come into play, why can’t God do the same?

Does a desire always terminate in action? Does an infinite being bring about good in the same way that a finite being does?

I assume he would.

But again you misrepresent me, for I never said that God doesn't want to stop bad things from happening. If you are to engage in philosophical discussion it will be important to read carefully and avoid drawing false inferences.

It appears you’ve misunderstood me. I stated part of being good is a desire to stop bad. I concluded because bad things exist, either God isn’t capable of stopping bad, or what we perceive as bad is actually good.

 

[zippy2006]

I didn’t say all bad things, or unconditionally. Does the law prevent you from doing everything that is illegal? unconditionally? If you are driving 36mph in a 35 mph speed zone, you probably won’t get a ticket; but if you go faster, there is a line you will cross when the law will come after you. Where that line is drawn will often depend on the circumstances. If there is a line when man made laws come into play, why can’t God do the same?

If it isn't all bad things unconditionally, then why can't God allow some evils?

The efficacy of the law is off-topic. What a good person ought to desire to do and what the law effects are two vastly different questions.

It appears you’ve misunderstood me.

Okay. At this point I am going to lead by example and do something that I wish others would do. I am going to quote where you said it. In this post you said, "If God doesn’t want to stop bad things from happening, either God isn’t good, or we are incapable of determining what is good. So which is it?" By affirming the dilemma ("So which is it?") you necessarily affirm the antecedent of your conditional statement ("God doesn't want to stop bad things from happening"). Again, I disagree with your statement. God does desire to stop bad things from happening.

I stated part of being good is a desire to stop bad. I concluded because bad things exist, either God isn’t capable of stopping bad, or what we perceive as bad is actually good.

This is a different argument. Now you are saying that God is either incapable of stopping evil or we are incapable of recognizing evil. That's very different from saying that God doesn't want to stop evil. A term that is often used on these forums is "moving the goalposts." Pick an argument and stick to it. Once it is properly evaluated we can move to the next one.

 

[Ken-1122]

The word may have been used, but you added a meaning to it that wasn't there. You added the concept of "unable to sin" which was not part of the original meaning.

Okay perhaps I misunderstood you. My point was; if God is in a way that he is able to live eternally without sinning, why didn't he make mankind this way so he will live without sinning?

Here again, my point was that you added the concept of "no consequences"... which is not what "unrestricted" means.

I disagree. Negative consequences are restrictions; it is the method we use to restrict certain behaviors.
The point I was making was just as a child is restricted by his parents from doing anything he wants, (the point he made) an adult is restricted by the law from doing anything he wants.