The problem of evil

[jcampbell]

Right basically the arguement is as follows (more or less) and i'm interested on what people think.
Premise1- God exists
Premise 2- God by definition is all knowing and all powerful and benevolent
Premise 3- All benevolent things are opposed to evil (true by definition)
premise 4- Therefore God being benevolent should seek to destroy all evil and logically he can
premise 5- evil exists
Notice how premise 5 is paradoxical to the previous line of thought

I'm not sure if this belongs under the philosophy thread but either way...

[AAFCE]

Right.. (not sure if im going in the right direction.)

If ANY "Zomgz, I r teh superiorz" religion was real, no other religions would exist. "God" would smite those that tried to bring up new beliefs.

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 07:42 pm
Right basically the arguement is as follows (more or less) and i'm interested on what people think.
Premise1- God exists
Premise 2- God by definition is all knowing and all powerful and benevolent
Premise 3- All benevolent things are opposed to evil (true by definition)
premise 4- Therefore God being benevolent should seek to destroy all evil and logically he can
premise 5- evil exists
Notice how premise 5 is paradoxical to the previous line of thought

I'm not sure if this belongs under the philosophy thread but either way...
I've brought this up a while ago, no answers were given.

Right.. (not sure if im going in the right direction.)

If ANY "Zomgz, I r teh superiorz" religion was real, no other religions would exist. "God" would smite those that tried to bring up new beliefs.
That's not very convincing for those who believe in a Prophets second coming which will lead the followers of that very religion to victory over all other unbelievers they believe to not be part of that 'true' faith.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 02:42 am
Right basically the arguement is as follows (more or less) and i'm interested on what people think.
Premise1- God exists
Premise 2- God by definition is all knowing and all powerful and benevolent
Premise 3- All benevolent things are opposed to evil (true by definition)
premise 4- Therefore God being benevolent should seek to destroy all evil and logically he can
premise 5- evil exists
Notice how premise 5 is paradoxical to the previous line of thought

I'm not sure if this belongs under the philosophy thread but either way...
premise1-humans exist
premise2-humans are inteligent species
premise3-all things whitch humans made are in serve to human species
premise4-therefore humans are inteligent they should seek to destroy all misery in the world
premise5-humans are not inteligent?

[jcampbell]

Originally posted by hajduk+November 02, 2007 12:24 pm--> (hajduk @ November 02, 2007 12:24 pm)
[email protected] 02, 2007 02:42 am
Right basically the arguement is as follows (more or less) and i'm interested on what people think.
Premise1- God exists
Premise 2- God by definition is all knowing and all powerful and benevolent
Premise 3- All benevolent things are opposed to evil (true by definition)
premise 4- Therefore God being benevolent should seek to destroy all evil and logically he can
premise 5- evil exists
Notice how premise 5 is paradoxical to the previous line of thought

I'm not sure if this belongs under the philosophy thread but either way...
premise1-humans exist
premise2-humans are inteligent species
premise3-all things whitch humans made are in serve to human species
premise4-therefore humans are inteligent they should seek to destroy all misery in the world
premise5-humans are not inteligent? [/b]
Hmm i think i see what you've done, but i disagree with premise 3 when we consider pollution, weaponry etc

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by hajduk+November 02, 2007 07:24 am--> (hajduk @ November 02, 2007 07:24 am)
[email protected] 02, 2007 02:42 am
Right basically the arguement is as follows (more or less) and i'm interested on what people think.
Premise1- God exists
Premise 2- God by definition is all knowing and all powerful and benevolent
Premise 3- All benevolent things are opposed to evil (true by definition)
premise 4- Therefore God being benevolent should seek to destroy all evil and logically he can
premise 5- evil exists
Notice how premise 5 is paradoxical to the previous line of thought

I'm not sure if this belongs under the philosophy thread but either way...
premise1-humans exist
premise2-humans are inteligent species
premise3-all things whitch humans made are in serve to human species
premise4-therefore humans are inteligent they should seek to destroy all misery in the world
premise5-humans are not inteligent? [/b]
We do seek to destroy all misery. We're just not doing it very well. God wouldn't have that excuse.

[Lenin II]

I've brought up this same argument with Christians. They say God does not actively destroy evil either because:

1) Satan creates evil
2) God gave us free will
3) Men create most of the evil, and to destroy the evil we create would be to interfere.

Funny how God crated Satan, and Satan is evil. I thought God was good. Therefore, what he crates should be good, right? I suppose they'd use the free will argument again, although it doesn't explain why in the "war on heaven" God couldn't destroy Satan. I don't know--there is a circular thinking to religion that is basically untouchable.

[guerilla E]

Well exploring some other aspects of this would be to look at the reasoning behind why 'satan' is perceived as being evil;
God created Lucifer, chief of Angels.
God made a rule to all angels; thou shall only bow down before me.
Angels serve God without question, Lucifer acts as righthand man in all this.
God makes man.
God tells Angels all 'thou shall bow down before man.'
Lucifer, closest to God, disobeys;
Which brings to three discinct theories (one of which is Suffi, the others I believe stem from discussions regarding Christian beliefs)

1. Lucifer refused God's last command due to contradiction of the first command, hence believed that God had made a mistake (pride), refused to bow down.
2. Lucifer refuses to bow before mortals made of clay and given a choice to serve God, which to him is not fair because the Angels have no choice but to serve God, decided his taking the throne for himself (greed).
3. Lucifer refuses to bow to anyone but God, due to his devotion to God. (suffi)

Hence we get war in Heaven, which most likely acts as one of the most widespread historical examples of propoganda; Lucifer disobeys God's authority for whatever reason, wages a rebellion with the other Angels (1/3 of Heaven) and launches a coup against God. God smites all, Hitler style.

God wins, and in contradiction of 'infinite mercy' casts not just the rebels but the neutrals to Hell. Everyone not 100% loyal to God gets sent to concentration camps aka Hell.

Lucifer's worst punishment is described as being away from God, and the Suffies particulary believe that he punishes evil people because they defied God.

The paradox here is that God made Lucifer, hence his nature was set from the start (there were some other arguements, such as the 'humanity factor' of Lucifer), thus God specifically made Lucifer evil or with flaw, and his infinite wisdom should have been able to predict Lucifer's rebellion, thus God created Lucifer with the knowledge that he would also cast him down - therefore the question of 'evil' is invalid because from the myth of Heavenly War; Lucifer cannot be defined as evil as much as he was created by God for the purpose of being flawed, hence locked into a fate that saw him be branded as 'evil'. If Lucifer is evil, and he was created by God, then God is the source of evil. Lucifer punishes evil people for two possible reasons; because he hates mankind due to being demanded to bow before them -OR- because mankind, evil men, disobeyed the laws of God.

'Satan' and its myth was actually the first universal warning to would-be rebels about fighting authority regardless of the reasons, a warning to anyone who wanted to rise up against their Lord or King.

[Yardstick]

There are a number of solutions to this problem:

The Eastern explanation involves Karma and the denial of evil.

In hindu thought suffering is an illusion and we tend to get caught up in the illusion thus making our suffering seem real.

The other explanation is karma, our position in this life is directly related to karma in our past lives. The secret is to detach ourselves from karma completly.


Also when you look at this you have to look at moral evil and non-moral evil.

Moral evil are things we cause such as war, poverty, loneliness, and cancer.

God allows moral evil because it is in our free will. To use an academic example: A 3 year old dying in a burning building is our own fault, we could create buildings that don't burn down but it's cheaper not to.

Going along with this, Adam and Eve are symbolic of all of us. We chose to be here and asked God to let us learn for ourselves. This goes along with reincarnation, hell could perhaps be those people who don't want to learn.

There is still the problem of non-moral evil. Which is things like natural disasters, and disease.
Most of these are our faults. We can build buildings to protect against tornadoes, we don't need to build towns on known volcanoes. STD's can be prevented.

There is still a small percentage of evil which isn't our fault.
The non-moral evil is necessary.

Our lives are like a classroom, we signed up voluntarily(you chose to be born)
You knew there would be tests. Nobody likes taking tests but they are necessary for learning.

So we are making the assumption that you want to learn, why else are you still here?

This solves the problem of evil but we have to change our concept of why we are here and God's role in our lives.


There is also a relativly newer explanation know as Process Metaphysics. I'm not as well versed in it but it basically rejects dualism, and the materialism that is a reaction to dualism.

In process theology, God is a dynamic collection of events, God is not a 'person'

We all have multiple finite choices, some of which result in suffering. God's influence of events consist as 'persuasions'

God's omnisience in this explanation consists of the past and the present. He is unable to know what choice we will make of our finitie choices. He can however see where each of those choices lead.

Sorry I can't explain Process Theology better.

EDIT:
The role of satan in early Jewish mythology was to test people's faith. He then evolved into the source of evil. I've always understood evil to be the absence of good.

[hajduk]

do you know that satan is actualy ancient god of seed called Baphomet?

[Yardstick]

Ancient civilizations borrowed mythology from each other all the time.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 03:33 pm
Ancient civilizations borrowed mythology from each other all the time.
yup

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 03:02 am
Right.. (not sure if im going in the right direction.)

If ANY "Zomgz, I r teh superiorz" religion was real, no other religions would exist. "God" would smite those that tried to bring up new beliefs.
if you actually get into this discussion with a christian, the phrase they most love to use is 'free agency' or as someone else pointed out the god given ability to act independently. The example they most like to cite is adam and eve in eden, when god gave them 'free agency' over wether or not to eat the forbidden fruit.

When bad things happen in the world, like the tsunami or Pakistan earthquake for example they explain that it is Satan excercising his own 'free agency'.

[Yardstick]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+November 03, 2007 06:14 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ November 03, 2007 06:14 pm)
[email protected] 02, 2007 03:02 am
Right.. (not sure if im going in the right direction.)

If ANY "Zomgz, I r teh superiorz" religion was real, no other religions would exist. "God" would smite those that tried to bring up new beliefs.
if you actually get into this discussion with a christian, the phrase they most love to use is 'free agency' or as someone else pointed out the god given ability to act independently. The example they most like to cite is adam and eve in eden, when god gave them 'free agency' over wether or not to eat the forbidden fruit.

When bad things happen in the world, like the tsunami or Pakistan earthquake for example they explain that it is Satan excercising his own 'free agency'. [/b]
(I am a Christian)

Satan causing natural disasters doesn't answer the problem of evil because a benevolent all powerful God would not let Satan cause these things.

Unless you use the explanations I've provided.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by jcampbell+November 02, 2007 02:22 pm--> (jcampbell @ November 02, 2007 02:22 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 12:24 pm

[email protected] 02, 2007 02:42 am
Right basically the arguement is as follows (more or less) and i'm interested on what people think.
Premise1- God exists
Premise 2- God by definition is all knowing and all powerful and benevolent
Premise 3- All benevolent things are opposed to evil (true by definition)
premise 4- Therefore God being benevolent should seek to destroy all evil and logically he can
premise 5- evil exists
Notice how premise 5 is paradoxical to the previous line of thought

I'm not sure if this belongs under the philosophy thread but either way...
premise1-humans exist
premise2-humans are inteligent species
premise3-all things whitch humans made are in serve to human species
premise4-therefore humans are inteligent they should seek to destroy all misery in the world
premise5-humans are not inteligent?
Hmm i think i see what you've done, but i disagree with premise 3 when we consider pollution, weaponry etc [/b]
well wheapon could be good for use if you use it against fascist,criminals,serial killers etc. but in the other hand wheapon is under control of capitalists and other assholes so by premis 3 wheapon is in serve of humans who are assholes

[Dean]

I don't think evil exists as anything more than a theological or zealotous concept.

Evil is used, for the Christians, to refer to active, intentional sin and those sins which are passive but have evil, internal drives for them. Also, often such drives are labelled as "evil." It seems to mean something wrong, sinful, or otherwise bad. My impression of what the Christian concept of it is is an enemy of the religion in general, and a dualityof man absent in God's perfect being.

However, I don't believe in evil. I believe in morality, and right and wrong, but I don't think that people can be evil. I think most things which are evil stem from twisted psychological problems, and sometimes from a lack of mental control over your being. In other words, it is a failing of the human being to actuate his productive, social drives in a realistic way. This can be described by the following scenario:

A man is in a closed room, and he has two buttons which read "Good" and "Bad." His choice in which button to press is reflected by a mechanized being which in turn does a "Good" or "Bad" action to the man's friend based on which button is pressed. However, the buttons are sometimes mislabeled, and sometimes the machinery does not interpret the input the same way the man would. So when he presses the button, he cannot be sure that his actions are ultimately good.

This is not a full picture of man's dilemma, of course. Some people know well that they are doing bad, and others even go out of their way to do bad things. However, I view these people as having deformed drives toward socialization; that is, his internal drives that guide him toward productive social activity have been usurped, misformed, lied to, or even biologically manipulated. But I don't think that these people are evil; I don't see how that makes sense even in the most extreme cases. All people are, basically, struggling to find themselves and relate to others in meaningful ways. Some people have twisted concepts of this, but when it comes to "evil," the term seems to suggest a person or mentality which has no interest in others at all.

[synthesis]

"Evil" is, more often than not, a metaphor for that which is animal in humans, usually either self-serving or psychopathic in nature, and which doctrine demands be subjugated to what is not animal in humans - sometimes referred to as "God."

That is the origin of the dichotomy between the struggle between God and Satan, and we must be careful to preserve that which arose from our ancestors' genuine understanding of human nature when we are casting off the mythology that accompanies it.

[Knight of Cydonia]

Originally posted by jcampbell+--> (jcampbell)Premise1- God exists[/b]
we want proof!!we want proof!! have you ever see him/it? have you met him? what he look like?

Originally posted by [email protected]
Premise 2- God by definition is all knowing and all powerful and benevolent
show me!

jcampbell
premise 4- Therefore God being benevolent should seek to destroy all evil and logically he can
please tell him i want his help to destroy capitalism

[Yardstick]

Originally posted by Maya+November 05, 2007 02:39 pm--> (Maya @ November 05, 2007 02:39 pm)
Originally posted by jcampbell+--> (jcampbell)Premise1- God exists[/b]
we want proof!!we want proof!! have you ever see him/it? have you met him? what he look like?

[email protected]
Premise 2- God by definition is all knowing and all powerful and benevolent
show me!

jcampbell
premise 4- Therefore God being benevolent should seek to destroy all evil and logically he can
please tell him i want his help to destroy capitalism [/b]
LMAO you completly missed the point.

The problem of evil is attempting to show belief in God is illogical

Also, this is a theological problem. When discussing theology you make the presupposition that God exists(the difference between theology and philosophy).

With the problem of evil(suffering) you show that our concept of God is illogical, thus leading to materialism/atheism.

[Knight of Cydonia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 10:12 pm
With the problem of evil(suffering) you show that our concept of God is illogical, thus leading to materialism/atheism.
so you saying that you believe in God (with the "our concept" statement of your)? <_<

then.... can you answer all of my questions above :)

[jcampbell]

hhmmm i saw some-one point out hinduism and other eastern religions, which is fair enough i didnt specify that in order for the problem to exist you need a monotheistic beleif system... the best reply i&#39;ve heard is Spinoza&#39;s substance monoism who argued that if God was everywhere then he must be everything and everything must be God. But heres the catch if everything is God then it not only blurs the lines of good and evil but throws them out the window, because God cannot do harm to itself.... thats a very short, possibly slightly muddled account, for a better one look it up on the stanford online philosophy encyclopedia. :-) thanks for answering everyone

[Yardstick]

Question 1:
A)I do not have scientific proof of Gods existence. I never claimed to, and if anyone claims to, I would avoid that person.

B)Well considering God is a transendent panentheistic being you could say I see a part of him every day.

C)What does God look like? God is not a &#39;person&#39; in the sense that you and I are.

Question 2: The Christian concept of God is an All powerful, all knowing, benevelont god. What do you mean show you? Do you want me to provide a dictinary definition for you?

Question 3: As I explained in my previous post, God will not help you destroy capitalism(which is a moral evil btw).

[synthesis]

The problem of evil is attempting to show belief in God is illogical

I don&#39;t believe that this should even be up for debate among rational people. Those who regard mythology as truth should not be considered logical actors and therefore using logic to act against them is missing the point.

The question is, what part of human nature led people to create and accept the concept of God? Were they positive or negative for the time? And are some of its concepts worth maintaining even though the framework denies the scientific approach?

Can there be logic within an illogical framework? Those are the real questions facing us today, in my opinion.

[Yardstick]

As easy as it is to just say "belief in God is illogical" some people like to actually back up their claims. Often times they use the problem of evil to do this.

[synthesis]

"God" as defined by mythology is certainly illogical, for it is fiction; Harry Potter is not "logical." But I disagree that there can be no logic behind the belief in God even when one&#39;s concept of "God" is illogical. In this way I think one could argue that belief in God is rational, in its proper historical context, if not necessarily logical.

[Yardstick]

Originally posted by Kun Fanâ@November 05, 2007 09:26 pm
"God" as defined by mythology is certainly illogical, for it is fiction; Harry Potter is not "logical." But I disagree that there can be no logic behind the belief in God even when one&#39;s concept of "God" is illogical. In this way I think one could argue that belief in God is rational, in its proper historical context, if not necessarily logical.
ok

[hajduk]

my answer on this issue is this song
listen carefuly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCgBVvYDd_g

[Purple]

For the sake of argument:

Evil is very much a significant part of a world created by a divine entity. Firstly, it is important to seperate evil into two categories: moral evil and natural evil. Without the existance of any of these evils the world would be a perfect hedonistic paradise, correct? God is an all-loving being, much like a parent, but would a parent give its child everything that it desired, without giving it the tools for self-maintenance. Also, according to Judiac-Christian beliefs an individual must prove its belief in God in order to be accepted into Heaven. Moral evil is simply the product of free will, and free will implies that the person is to choose freely between right and wrong, and evil and good. If there was no option, and human thought was predetermined by God, then there would be no freedom to choose ones own path, and eventually to choose to be a believer and oppose evil. In regards to the issue of natural evil, the suffering and evil in the world produced by human actions and natural actions are thinning by the moment, with new issues like global warming, starvation, etc. There is a sufficient amount of resources to support the world population, but the capitalists are harvesting the material properties for their own. However, pure natural evil is another challenge where in opposing, a man is enabled to challenge evil and choose good. Even though God is an all loving being, does not mean that our planet is to be confused with paradise.

[RevMARKSman]

God is an all-loving being, much like a parent, but would a parent give its child everything that it desired, without giving it the tools for self-maintenance.

You bet, if they could.

You see, God (assuming he he exists for the sake of argument) could change things so that we were all in paradise forever. Right?
And having that paradise would make us much happier in the long run. Right?
But he doesn&#39;t do that.

Obviously, he doesn&#39;t want us to be happy and therefore is not all loving.

[phasmid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 10:40 pm

God is an all-loving being, much like a parent, but would a parent give its child everything that it desired, without giving it the tools for self-maintenance.

You bet, if they could.

You see, God (assuming he he exists for the sake of argument) could change things so that we were all in paradise forever. Right?
And having that paradise would make us much happier in the long run. Right?
But he doesn&#39;t do that.

Obviously, he doesn&#39;t want us to be happy and therefore is not all loving.
Good is the opposite of evil. An action cant be described as "good" unless it can be compared to an action that is "bad". It&#39;s the laws of the universe we live in. for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Have you ever heard of anti particles? Every particle has an opposite somewhere in the universe, there are electrons and their opposites positrons for example. I beleive it&#39;s called balance. If God changed everything so we lived in paradise, well the brain would never develop because it would never be presented with anything to challenge itself and grow. We would have no concept of "good" because there would be no "evil" We&#39;d just sit in paradise like a bunch of vacant flowers.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by Alicia+November 19, 2007 07:18 pm--> (Alicia @ November 19, 2007 07:18 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2007 10:40 pm

God is an all-loving being, much like a parent, but would a parent give its child everything that it desired, without giving it the tools for self-maintenance.

You bet, if they could.

You see, God (assuming he he exists for the sake of argument) could change things so that we were all in paradise forever. Right?
And having that paradise would make us much happier in the long run. Right?
But he doesn&#39;t do that.

Obviously, he doesn&#39;t want us to be happy and therefore is not all loving.
Good is the opposite of evil. An action cant be described as "good" unless it can be compared to an action that is "bad". It&#39;s the laws of the universe we live in. for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Have you ever heard of anti particles? Every particle has an opposite somewhere in the universe, there are electrons and their opposites positrons for example. I beleive it&#39;s called balance. If God changed everything so we lived in paradise, well the brain would never develop because it would never be presented with anything to challenge itself and grow. We would have no concept of "good" because there would be no "evil" We&#39;d just sit in paradise like a bunch of vacant flowers. [/b]
I thought God could change the laws of the universe. He created it, right?

or is he not really that powerful after all?

[phasmid]

Originally posted by RevMARKSman+November 20, 2007 02:25 am--> (RevMARKSman @ November 20, 2007 02:25 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 07:18 pm

[email protected] 19, 2007 10:40 pm

God is an all-loving being, much like a parent, but would a parent give its child everything that it desired, without giving it the tools for self-maintenance.

You bet, if they could.

You see, God (assuming he he exists for the sake of argument) could change things so that we were all in paradise forever. Right?
And having that paradise would make us much happier in the long run. Right?
But he doesn&#39;t do that.

Obviously, he doesn&#39;t want us to be happy and therefore is not all loving.
Good is the opposite of evil. An action cant be described as "good" unless it can be compared to an action that is "bad". It&#39;s the laws of the universe we live in. for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Have you ever heard of anti particles? Every particle has an opposite somewhere in the universe, there are electrons and their opposites positrons for example. I beleive it&#39;s called balance. If God changed everything so we lived in paradise, well the brain would never develop because it would never be presented with anything to challenge itself and grow. We would have no concept of "good" because there would be no "evil" We&#39;d just sit in paradise like a bunch of vacant flowers.
I thought God could change the laws of the universe. He created it, right?

or is he not really that powerful after all? [/b]
Well, maybe to keep the balance there had to be this universe with its laws and a number of other universes with different laws. Maybe your paradise exists there somewhere. I wonder what the people in paradise bother talking about.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by Alicia+November 19, 2007 09:50 pm--> (Alicia @ November 19, 2007 09:50 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 02:25 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 07:18 pm

[email protected] 19, 2007 10:40 pm

God is an all-loving being, much like a parent, but would a parent give its child everything that it desired, without giving it the tools for self-maintenance.

You bet, if they could.

You see, God (assuming he he exists for the sake of argument) could change things so that we were all in paradise forever. Right?
And having that paradise would make us much happier in the long run. Right?
But he doesn&#39;t do that.

Obviously, he doesn&#39;t want us to be happy and therefore is not all loving.
Good is the opposite of evil. An action cant be described as "good" unless it can be compared to an action that is "bad". It&#39;s the laws of the universe we live in. for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Have you ever heard of anti particles? Every particle has an opposite somewhere in the universe, there are electrons and their opposites positrons for example. I beleive it&#39;s called balance. If God changed everything so we lived in paradise, well the brain would never develop because it would never be presented with anything to challenge itself and grow. We would have no concept of "good" because there would be no "evil" We&#39;d just sit in paradise like a bunch of vacant flowers.
I thought God could change the laws of the universe. He created it, right?

or is he not really that powerful after all?
Well, maybe to keep the balance there had to be this universe with its laws and a number of other universes with different laws. Maybe your paradise exists there somewhere. I wonder what the people in paradise bother talking about. [/b]
There "had" to be?

God doesn&#39;t "have" to do anything.

Like I said, he isn&#39;t bound to this shitty "balance rule" or else he&#39;s not much of a god.