The problem of evil

[no evidence no belief]

Lets pretend God exists, and he's the omnipotent creator of the universe.


If that is so, the following argument stands:

Premise 1: Evil exists in the universe
Premise 2: Every single thing that exists in the universe is part of God's plan
Conclusion 1: Evil is part of God's plan
Conclusion 2: God is evil

Does anybody disagree?

[Bust Nak]

If He created those who can, but don't...how is that different from creating those who cannot?

The difference is those who can, can, and those who cannot, cannot.

If He created those who can, but who CHOOSE THEMSELVES not to, how is that different from creating those who can, and do choose evil?

Clearly the first would be perfect, the latter sinners, right?

One cannot give away control and keep it at the same time.

Sure, but one can control certain aspects and give away control for others. And I would suggest that even in heaven, there would be aspects controlled by God only, which the occupants have no control over.

I am sure you know what my question was leading up to, so I'll just skip to it: God should have made Adam as a being who can choose to sin, who can sin but would chooses for himself not to sin, and avoided all sorts of suffering, without compromising his goal of making companion who truely love God.

[Iam]

Morphine wrote:

That's fine. But now you've created another problem with your rationale. If eating from the tree was allowed, then where does original sin come into play? And why create a death tree in the first place???

Original Sin was an artificial doctrine made up by the early church to use as propaganda to frighten people into joining their church to be "saved."

it's also one that not all Christians believe in. Just sayin'.

Apparently there's a lot of that in alleged denominations! Just sayin'

Interesting use of vocabulary. Why 'alleged?"

As to the fact that there ARE a great many viewpoints in Christian...and from there on out to theistic...thought, well, yeah. There are. Is there a problem with that? Consider all the different philosophies that a simple disbelief in deity allow. Should I call you an 'alleged' non-believer, because there are other such philosophies that you might not share?

Or are you simply throwing out the emotionally laden, intentionally snide, rhetoric just because you really want to show contempt for someone who a: doesn't agree with you and b: makes a point you can't really counter? I have seen this tactic before, you know; mostly used on elementary school playgrounds where the bully/"in-crowd" makes fun of other kids by saying stuff like "well, you are wearing SNEAKERS!" or "you are eating PEANUT BUTTER sandwiches!" in a tone that indicated that wearing sneakers or eating peanut butter sandwiches is some indication of ubber-loser status.

But I'm not in grade school, Iam. Guess what: you are correct; there are a great many different beliefs out there, in a great many different denominations and sects. It's not an insult to say so, no matter how much you want to imply that it is.

What your response IS, more than anything else, is utterly irrelevent. As in, not responsive. As in, not an answer. As in, a non-sequitur. As in...pretty much an admission of defeat and a throwing of dung on your way out the loser's gate in order to hide the fact that you have nothing substantive to say.

You MIGHT want to rethink your approach here.

Guess what I am correct and you aren't. But then persecution complex comes with your territory. Just don't get it do you? Never mind I'm sure you consider yourself incredibly insightful. I won't stoop to the level of personal abuse you have, but a step out of your simulator and into reality may be of benefit occasionally.

[Faith Leads to Knowledge]

If God's gift of free will and the potential of evil can be accepted as a necessary precondition for being human, it would allow one to make a more informed appraisal of life on earth, and the crux of the matter, how are we supposed to live in a world where evil can exist and may abound?

The very fact that evil is committed, means in most all cases that either the committer of evil, the one aggrieved by evil, and anyone impacted by evil has to do something in order to ensure the life of the world is to a great degree free of evil. That is, it means we have work to do. God gave Adam a garden to tend and keep. Many say we want the world God ought to have given us, free of evil. We have the potential to create it. With God synergistically.

How? The way we have to be is absolutely loving. To love is to suffer as well as to frolic like a seal in the sea from joy. Love in its highest form is totally sacrificial. You probably perform it regularly, example "sure my love, I'll wait for you for as long as it takes" or "here, take my plate" or staying up beside your sick child all night, or taking something on the chin for peace keeping sake, or seeing someone angry and showing them love by listening to them, or cleaning the toilets at work when the cleaner looks pale and might lose his job for seeming like he can not do his work, or helping others.

the point is we have to be loving. Now, the world is full of many good people but evil abounds. Many people are in irreconcilable situations. Does love have a place there. My word it does, and Christ came to show us how. The suffering for the sake of others truly must kick in. We must learn to always be loving which requires a healthy

[dianaiad]

If He created those who can, but don't...how is that different from creating those who cannot?

The difference is those who can, can, and those who cannot, cannot.

If He created those who can, but who CHOOSE THEMSELVES not to, how is that different from creating those who can, and do choose evil?

Clearly the first would be perfect, the latter sinners, right?

One cannot give away control and keep it at the same time.

Sure, but one can control certain aspects and give away control for others. And I would suggest that even in heaven, there would be aspects controlled by God only, which the occupants have no control over.

I am sure you know what my question was leading up to, so I'll just skip to it: God should have made Adam as a being who can choose to sin, who can sin but would chooses for himself not to sin, and avoided all sorts of suffering, without compromising his goal of making companion who truely love God.

No...because creating someone who could sin but will not is no different from creating someone who could not sin; the 'will not,' if it is programmed into the psyche, is no different from 'cannot.' Only when 'will not' is arrived at by the chooser, rather than the designer, is the ability to choose protected.

[dianaiad]

Guess what I am correct and you aren't.

....and the evidence for this is, what, precisely? Or is this a declaration by fiat, where simply saying 'I win!" means that you do? Interesting approach, if so.

But then persecution complex comes with your territory. Just don't get it do you? Never mind I'm sure you consider yourself incredibly insightful. I won't stoop to the level of personal abuse you have, but a step out of your simulator and into reality may be of benefit occasionally.

Four ad hominems in four lines. Not a record, but fairly productive as far as these things go. I especially appreciate the irony of the "I won't stoop to the level of personal abuse..." line, all things considered.

[no evidence no belief]

If God is able to identify the kind of people who would not use their free will to commit evil, then why not directly start by creating only those people, and bypass this hell-hole of rape, murder and famine?

....and you are back to creating automotons/computers/puppets.

Why? Create people who have free will - have the capability to do evil if they wanted to - but choose NOT TO do evil.

Completely free. The EXACT OPPOSITE of automatons.

If one can identify someone who will not, isn't that about the same thing as fixing it so he CANNOT?

Yes. That's the logical fallacy at the core of the concept of omnipotence/omniscience. Which is why you are very hard pressed not only to prove God exists, but that God is even POSSIBLE.

Free will comes with the possibility of choosing evil for everybody and anybody. If it didn't, it wouldn't be free will.

Yes but if God is omniscient, he will know what people will choose even though they don't.

If God already knew before he even created the universe exactly what you're going to do, do you truly have free will?

If God does NOT know what you're going to do, is he omniscient?

Also, are you saying that people in heaven are perfect?

Now that's a question...having to deal with very personal and non-mainstream ideas. I'm not certain, but I think that mainstream Christianity has some idea that all in heaven are transformed into perfect beings. I don't think so. We are who we are, and since I believe that pretty much everyone of us is headed for A 'heaven,' (someplace better than here...) then of course perfection isn't required. However, being determined to become so is.

So, on occasion there are rapes or murders in heaven? Or at least petty theft? The occasional groping on a bus? Graffiti?

Because only perfect people are able to NEVER EVER do anything evil if the potential for doing evil exists.

Lastly, are you ignoring my last post addressed to you? Please scroll back. Thanks.

Did I answer it? No?

Then I guess I am. Either that, or I didn't read it. Two things you need to understand: writing a post does not mean that the readers are required to answer it or even acknowledge it, and your readers have a life. That is, sometimes things interfere with reading/posting on this board. I rather doubt that, as fun as this place is, it is first priority for anybody here except the moderators, and come to think of it, I don't think even they, dedicated and admirable as they all are, put this place first in their lives.

Riiiight, the "I'm a busy person" tactic.

To deflect attention from the "I totally do have a girlfriend but she lives in Canada" tactic.

You say that you thought about this subject, and through some as of yet undisclosed thought process, came to the conclusion that your belief in immortality, talking snakes and magical indestructible resurrected bodies from an exploding distant planet (or whatever) are not just an article of blind faith, but consistent with science.

You allegedly hold the secret to bridging the gap between religion and science, but can't tell us because you're too busy.

And that coming from someone with thousands of posts, who is online almost every day.


Don't you see that your belief in heaven, a place where you will still be the same good but imperfect you but will be able to continue doing all the good things you're doing now, is just an extension of your fear of death?

Dying sucks. No longer existing sucks.

I wish I could live forever, just like you and everybody else.

But it's not real, sweetie. We're going to die, and that's that. Use the limited time you have to do something amazing, not to clutter your brain with fairy tales and wishful thinking.

[JohnPaul]

dianaiad wrote:

Interesting idea, this idea of defining evil.

.....and I notice that both of us are considering that evil requires intent, which rather leave out natural 'disasters' like floods, hurricanes, earthquakes and tornadoes...

So evil intent is a necessary ingredient of evil? What about parents who deny medical treatment to a sick child because they believe God will take care of it, and the child dies as a result? Are the parents guilty of murder? Should society allow the exercise of their freedom of religion to cause the death of others who have no choice?

[dianaiad]

If God is able to identify the kind of people who would not use their free will to commit evil, then why not directly start by creating only those people, and bypass this hell-hole of rape, murder and famine?

....and you are back to creating automotons/computers/puppets.

Why? Create people who have free will - have the capability to do evil if they wanted to - but choose NOT TO do evil.

Completely free. The EXACT OPPOSITE of automatons.

You are playing with words. How can there be a difference between creating a being that cannot make a choice, and 'will' not make a choice? If the result is a being that does not choose, because he was created in such a way as to not make that choice, the 'can not' and 'will not' are synonyms.

Unless the one given the choice has the control; all of it. That is, nobody knows whether he will or not until he himself makes that choice. Anything less is not free will.

[instantc]

I am sure you know what my question was leading up to, so I'll just skip to it: God should have made Adam as a being who can choose to sin, who can sin but would chooses for himself not to sin, and avoided all sorts of suffering, without compromising his goal of making companion who truely love God.

It is logically impossible to make someone freely choose something, this objection simply falls flat as long as human free will is in the picture. What does it mean to make someone a being who can choose to do something but doesn't? It seems to me that God simply made Adam with free will, what he chose to do with his free will is not God's fault nor responsibility, or so the story goes.

[Iam]

If God is able to identify the kind of people who would not use their free will to commit evil, then why not directly start by creating only those people, and bypass this hell-hole of rape, murder and famine?

....and you are back to creating automotons/computers/puppets.

Why? Create people who have free will - have the capability to do evil if they wanted to - but choose NOT TO do evil.

Completely free. The EXACT OPPOSITE of automatons.

You are playing with words. How can there be a difference between creating a being that cannot make a choice, and 'will' not make a choice? If the result is a being that does not choose, because he was created in such a way as to not make that choice, the 'can not' and 'will not' are synonyms.

Unless the one given the choice has the control; all of it. That is, nobody knows whether he will or not until he himself makes that choice. Anything less is not free will.

But your god REALLY wanted automatons, that is precisely why we have suffering and death according to the book. Paraphrased "not prepared to be robots, then cop this" Sorrow, disease, famine, drought, death. "That should orta learn ya"