Questioning the Problem of Evil once again

[instantc]

Here is what I find slightly baffling about the Problem of Evil.

The argument essentially says that the present world is not what the universe would look like if it were ruled by a loving and powerful ruler. I.e, there is too much evil in the world.

There is too much evil in the world, that strikes me as an odd thing to say. What would be an appropriate amount of evil for an almighty ruler to allow? Is it logically possible to know happiness without knowing any suffering? Some variants of the PoE say that it is the unnecessary suffering that disproves God, but is any suffering completely unnecessary or gratuitous? I don't think so. Some instances of suffering may be highly disproportionate to the potential positive consequences, but every instance of suffering has at least some conceivable positive consequences.

I think that one who wants to endorse PoE also has to define where he draws the line with regard to the acceptable amount of suffering, i.e he should define what amount/type of suffering would be consistent with the God hypothesis. He would then have to show that a world with those conditions would be (1) conceivable and (2) desirable.

To make it short, if you are to claim that this is not how a loving God should act, then you should be able to explain how it is that a loving God should act. If you say that this is not what a universe ruled by a loving ruler looks like, then you should, according to the rules of inference, first have a vision of what a universe ruled by a loving ruler does look like.

What do you think?

[pokeegeorge]

[Replying to post 7 by pokeegeorge]

You think it's right to hold morally unaware beings morally responsible for their actions?

I think it is morally unright to question God about what He considers right and unright.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 7 by pokeegeorge]

You think it's right to hold morally unaware beings morally responsible for their actions?

I think it is morally unright to question God about what He considers right and unright.

Why would that be? That, as a matter of fact, is a key point in the Jewish faith. The concept is called 'wrestling with God'.

Of course, when it comes to asking God anything, the one thing there is a big derth of is any tangible evidence that there actually was an answer. You got people claiming he did, but they can't SHOW he did.

[Bust Nak]

What would be an appropriate amount of evil for an almighty ruler to allow?

Zero.

Is it logically possible to know happiness without knowing any suffering?

I see no internal contradiction in the statements "I know happiness" and "I don't know suffering," are any external premises you think would contradict these?

God, but is any suffering completely unnecessary or gratuitous?

Given that God is omnipotent, yes.

He would then have to show that a world with those conditions would be (1) conceivable and (2) desirable.

Easy enough. According to Christianity, heaven is perfection, i.e. concievable and desirable. The world would look like heaven if God was omnipotent and omnibenevolent.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 7 by pokeegeorge]

You think it's right to hold morally unaware beings morally responsible for their actions?

I think it is morally unright to question God about what He considers right and unright.

Then you don't think at all. Frightening.

[instantc]

Is it logically possible to know happiness without knowing any suffering?

I see no internal contradiction in the statements "I know happiness" and "I don't know suffering," are any external premises you think would contradict these?

In my experience often the difficult times allow us to truly appreciate what we have, while someone who's been sailing through life might be oblivious to the deeper values of life. I'm not claiming that it is necessarily so, but the one who endorses the Problem of Evil should be able to show that suffering isn't necessary for there to be happiness.

What I want to hear is an idea of what a world created by a loving God would look like. If you have no idea about that, on what grounds can you make the judgment that the present world cannot be that place?

In a place where there is no suffering or evil, I think there couldn't be morally good acts either, nor things like bravery. An act is morally good only if it is a free choice between the right and wrong. In a place where no evil would permitted, nobody could freely choose between the right and wrong, and thus everyone would become a moral automaton. On these grounds I submit that at least moral goodness cannot exist without moral evil.

He would then have to show that a world with those conditions would be (1) conceivable and (2) desirable.

Easy enough. According to Christianity, heaven is perfection, i.e. concievable and desirable. The world would look like heaven if God was omnipotent and omnibenevolent.

I'm in agreement here. Someone who believes in Heaven is indeed in no place to suggest that any amount of suffering is necessary.

[Bust Nak]

In my experience often the difficult times allow us to truly appreciate what we have, while someone who's been sailing through life might be oblivious to the deeper values of life. I'm not claiming that it is necessarily so, but the one who endorses the Problem of Evil should be able to show that suffering isn't necessary for there to be happiness.

Isn't pointing out the lack of contradiction between "I know happiness" and "I don't know suffering" enough to show suffering isn't necessary for happiness? I suppose there is a deeper question of what happiness is. Without real suffering, is a lower level of happiness, the new suffering? I would think that isn't the case.

What I want to hear is an idea of what a world created by a loving God would look like. If you have no idea about that, on what grounds can you make the judgment that the present world cannot be that place?

On the ground that I can concieve of a better world than this one, and that is enough to show this world isn't the best.

In a place where there is no suffering or evil, I think there couldn't be morally good acts either, nor things like bravery. An act is morally good only if it is a free choice between the right and wrong. In a place where no evil would permitted, nobody could freely choose between the right and wrong, and thus everyone would become a moral automaton. On these grounds I submit that at least moral goodness cannot exist without moral evil.

Why do you want to choose evil? If I do not have the option to choose something I don't want to choose, what have exactly have I lost?

If there is no suffering, there would indeed not be any situration where I could show bravery, so what? Such things are only needed because things aren't perfect. It's plan B because plan A has failed.

[instantc]

What I want to hear is an idea of what a world created by a loving God would look like. If you have no idea about that, on what grounds can you make the judgment that the present world cannot be that place?

On the ground that I can concieve of a better world than this one, and that is enough to show this world isn't the best.

That world would necessarily be open to the same objection, there could always be one less evil deed in the world, at least seemingly so. On the face of it, removing one instance of suffering would make the world a better place, but that would then apply until there is not a single negative thing left. A world with no possibility of suffering of any kind seems dull, boring and rather pointless to me. Perhaps then this is the best possible world. In the absence of any point of comparison, the assertion that a world governed by a loving God would look different from this one seems bold and speculative.

[ttruscott]

...

He would then have to show that a world with those conditions would be (1) conceivable and (2) desirable.

Easy enough. According to Christianity, heaven is perfection, i.e. concievable and desirable. The world would look like heaven if God was omnipotent and omnibenevolent.

Any place filled only with people who have dedicated themselves to YHWH's loving holiness by their own true free will would be as free of suffering as heaven. Heaven is HIS place, and HIS only, which HE wants to share with those who also want what heaven offers, which not everyone does.

On earth we have some people who are dedicated to their own way and blame GOD for the attenuating suffering mixed with those who at first dedicated themselves to GOD's (heavenly) way but got misdirected, led astray from that goal into living the life of those who reject GOD.

Our lives are to teach all those who who can be brought out of sin into readiness for heaven from all those who can't ...and when the separation is final, heaven and the universe will be as advertised.

Peace, Ted

[tariki]

Any place filled only with people who have dedicated themselves to YHWH's loving holiness by their own true free will would be as free of suffering as heaven. Heaven is HIS place, and HIS only, which HE wants to share with those who also want what heaven offers, which not everyone does.

On earth we have some people who are dedicated to their own way and blame GOD for the attenuating suffering mixed with those who at first dedicated themselves to GOD's (heavenly) way but got misdirected, led astray from that goal into living the life of those who reject GOD.

Our lives are to teach all those who who can be brought out of sin into readiness for heaven from all those who can't ...and when the separation is final, heaven and the universe will be as advertised.

Peace, Ted

Hi Ted, after a few weeks on the forum I've come to the conclusion - having seen a number of your posts dotted about - that you are indeed serious.........and not what is known as a troll.

I have difficulty relating your various statements with each other, such as the foetus that dies having "chosen sin", proven by the sheer fact of dying, and thus deserving of condemnation - this statement as related to the above where you inform us of what our lives are given to us for.

No matter, I'm sure you have tit-bits drawn from your theology that can appear to justify your claims, at least to you. All I wish to say is that as I see it, there is the rejection of God and there is the rejection of your views. As I see it they are not one and the same thing. Thank God!

There is the peace that passeth understanding.......and there is the peace that is all too understandable. Each time I meet someone on the net who "knows", and is certain of what they know, having had it revealed to them by God Himself..........I think back to all the previous such claims and views given by others equally convinced of having "truth", yet whose claims were different.

All the best

[Project I.D.]

Perhaps I am just a simple thinker at times, but I wonder why, if God is who he is, why he didn't just take all those he knew would accept him and go straight to heaven and by-pass all this. God certainly knew what each and everyone of us would choose to do with our lives, so why not alleviate all the suffering by just skipping the game on this earth, it doesn't make sense.

I noticed that someone mentioning the Garden of Eden in an earlier post. I know many Christians that believe that sin and suffering entered the world at this time, and that this was man's fault and that evil exists because of man. The way I see it is that God is to blame according to the story found in Genesis.

Evil entered the world because God planned it that way. He created Adam and Eve ignorant of good and evil, sets a tree in their midst, tells them not to eat of it. God then allows a being (serpent) that he created to be there, to tempt Adam and Eve who had no knowledge of what was good or evil ( because they had not eaten of the tree yet). So how could they know what they were doing was wrong, bad or even evil if they had no knowledge of what these things were? So who here is really to blame for this problem? Of course this is only a problem if you believe that the Bible is from God.

As what was stated in an earlier post, the problem of evil is only a problem if you believe in a perfect God.