Vexen Crabtree 2015

vexen

Vexen Crabtree's Live Journal

Sociology, Theology, Anti-Religion and Exploration: Forcing Humanity Forwards


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Vexen Crabtree, LS Meet
vexen

Absence Theodicy

"The Absence Theodicy is the argument that seen as "God" is "goodness", anything not good such as evil and suffering, is the absence of God. Therefore, the absence theodicy claims that God is not responsible for evil, merely for good.

What this does is put "good" and "evil" either side of a scale. We define many scales as part of our experience. From "hot" to "cold", from "rich" to "poor", we measure all kinds of things on all kinds of scales. What all of them have in common is that God created them. God, in most monotheistic religions including Christianity and Islam, created heat and cold, created the "ups" and "downs" and created every little in-between bit of all those scales. Likewise, God created the scale of good and evil. God could have created a scale of "amazing goodness" through to "medium goodness" down to "amateur goodness", and therefore let all beings experience no evil or suffering. That God decided to create evil, suffering and pain and put them on the scale is an inexplicable act for a supposedly all-good god. The explanation that suffering is the absence of good is not sufficient to explain why God created suffering in the first place. Either God is evil or it does not exist.
"

  • 1
"Either God is evil or it does not exist."

Or god is basicly good but not perfect.
After all to say God is evil is as poor a statement as god is good.
(He could of course be totaly evil but really incompitent.)

That's a perfectly reasonable conclusion, too. An imperfect God is beyond the scope of anything I write - I stick to the Greek tri-omni God, or the Pantheist omnipresent impersonal God, it gets too confusing and pagan and I can't figure out the logic (or need) for imperfect gods.

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/opengod.html discusses a form of God that is not tri-omni under Greg Boyd, a Christian evangelist with interesting views.

I can't see how God could be anything other than imperfect. unless one assumes he was not responsible for the creation of pretty much anything. After all most things are imperfect and it's not really possible for a perfect being to create anything imperffect as that would be an imperfect act.

which unless you work purely from the possition that god was not responsible for much in the way of creation means that you really have to start concidering god as imperfect. Of course feel free to assume god was not responsible for creation in the first place.

Agreed, that if there is a need for a god as part of the natural rules of the universe, that god would have had to have been imperfect. Or indeed if the rules of the universe themselves were created by a god, that god is evidently imperfect.

But, why would we assume that the current state of affairs isn't what God wants? Without assumption, God is morally neutral (not concerned with suffering) or evil, but if we assume God is good (although on what grounds we'd make that assumption I do not know), then god would evidently have to be imperfect.

If you accept that god is not perffect then I would have to agree that there is no way of knowing weather God is good, evil, somewhere in between or genrally appathetic.
If god is imperffect then the state of the world dose not have to be a mirror of his true state in that reguard so a good god could proside over a totaly evil world and visa versa. Good is also of course subjective dependant on your moral code.

Moral code and species! What is good for us is bad for others... for example, weed killer is good for one plant for bad for another, antibiotics are good for humans but bad for bacteria etc, clearly if there is a god it has created a *system* where no objective good is possible... why would a good God create nature in such a self-perpetuated mode of violence that life has to feed on life in order to live?

This is on argument on http://www.dpjs.co.uk/god.html where I make the counter-argument that the evidence is that god is evil, not merely neutral and definately not good (assuming that a god exists, anyway, without a god the good/evil problem doesn't exist)

Of course once you entre in to the relm of moral codes being subjective nothing is evil except in the eyes of other things unless it wants it's self to be evil. God's moral code may include some kind of thing about beings consuming other beings in some kind of circular motion as being a good thing. This isn't entierly rediculus either prehaps not wanting other things to eat you is selfish and therefor evil. It gives one of the many purpouses to life (Suvival). maybe it's only humans who think in a manor abstract enough to really care about suvival at more than an instinctive level (Although I think that's where we care about it most). A good god may want to maximise the number of people who are happy or at the least content, but you have to look at this over the whole of history (Prehaps even here and in the here-after). That would make it hard to see weather god is aiming for good or bad over all due to our narrow vison in terms of the whole of creation over the whole of forever. In short it's probably beyond us to know.

But as an agnostic I have no trouble saying all religon is a matter of best guesses.

Origins

(Anonymous)
I believe that God is perfect. The real cause of evil is actually from one of his perfectly developed angels or in other words Lucifer. Lucifer was considered the most beautiful angel in existence but, he had no idea of what sin was at this point (here is the theory that sin or "evil" develops). When God discovered that Lucifer achieved of obtaining the attitude "Pride". Pride is what began to corrupt Lucifer as he believed he was God, here is where we this is where we can call this "blasphemy", swooned one third of the angels to his side. As God realized that Lucifer became corrupt, he cast him down along with the angels that decided to rebel against him. This is when the attitude of "revenge" and bitterness spiritually materialized. When he was cast down from heaven, he developed "unforgiveness" which led to the idea of "torment" and "destruction". This "torment" and "destruction" leads to Lucifer, who is now called Satan, who now uses his "angel", now demons, to torment and destroy what God has created. This is why evil exists among us. Lucifer's purpose was to serve God but, he became corrupted with the pride that he had and became "imperfection". This is a truth that can not be proved with science, logic, or philosophy, but with faith that comes from the Holy Spirit (which is a part and yet whole of God). Most people would wonder why Satan would repent and serve God again but, the truth is he also has the attitude of "ignorance" that clouds his judgement up to this day.

Nothing, including God, is all-good. The spiritual realm/God encompasses all. Part of an individual's "coming into being" involves discerning good and evil for himself and gaining understanding of those scales, and becoming firmly cognizant of who he is and what he stands for.

What is "coming into being", why would you want to do that, and why do we need to? Seems like quite a random, superfluous idea to me.

Being able to be cognizant of your own individuality does not logically require God to have created evil, as far as I can tell.

The theodicies listed are related to an all-powerful all-good God, if you believe in a god that isn't all-good then the chances are the problem of evil doesn't cause contradictions for you.

See The Open View of God, for a similar "imperfect" God that doesn't suffer from the contradiction of the existence of evil:
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/opengod.html

I've updated the page I posted to include an introduction to the problem of evil, just to set the context a bit better.

I was using coming into being to mean realizing and defining ourselves through our chosen beliefs and behavior. I think we'd want to because, for me at least, having no personal system means there is no stand taken on anything.

I don't think of God as creating either suffering or evil. I don't think of those things as having been created. They seem to be conditions, not creations and I can't seem to reconcile the two in my mind. If suffering and evil are created in any way, maybe they are created as a natural result of human behavior wrongly motivated and chosen - wrongly for the individual in question.

Necessarily the only conditions possible are the ones created by God.

The only possible results on human behaviour are the possible results created by god: all possible actions are those created by God.

Why do you think "coming into being" has to involve good/evil, and not merely the varying scales of good? God, as creator of the rules of the universe, could easily have made it so that "coming into being" only required the experience and choice between lots of various states of goodness and happiness.

"coming into being" doesn't seem to be a good excuse for the creation of evil by God.

I believe in infinite possibilities. A possibility is a question mark until we make it into a reality. If God defines every possibility (assuming that God is a force apart from us), we are indeed limited.

Also, good and evil don't exist outside of the individual defining it as such.

(Deleted comment)
The problem of evil is one of the major problems that theorists in the existeence of god need to get around in order to justify their position.

Subservience to an evil being makes yourself more evil, even if you believe that being to be good. Subservience to god, who is more likely an evil being than a good one, is too risky and too dodgy. THATS what the problem of evil is. Without a good explanation of why suffering exists, God is a monster.

I don't understand why you're immediately saying if there is a god, he must be evil, because you could make the same arguments against an evil god as you are against a good god: if god was evil, why wouldn't the scale be from ridicilously bad to really bad? He must have put the good in the world, too- which an evil god wouldn't have done.

The world is absurd- too absurd for any of the gods that religion offers.

Crowd Controler ?

(Anonymous)
I really cannot believe religion/god is even being discussed by intelligent people.
A comedian who I never liked was being interviewed on TV, out of the blue he said something which changed my opinion of him, he said “ stay clear of religion it’s only a crowd controller “.

Re: Crowd Controler ?

(Anonymous)
OK, so yes religion has been used for horrible purposes, and I do not subscribe to any religion. I am a believer in a just (and that is the KEY word) God, and merciful God. I believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God, and his crucifiction set us free form our sins and allowed us to have a deeper, more personal relationship with God after the sin of Adam and Eve. So you being another ignorant individual will title me as a member of the Christian religion just because those are my beliefs. The difference between religion and RELATIONSHIP (unto which I subscribe) is that religion is about what you can do for God or your gods, and relationship is about how you can love and walk with God. Just to clarify for you. Oh yeah, and come up with something more intelligent to say next time.

Re: Crowd Controler ?

Well whether you like it or not, you're a Christian and a part of the Christian religion, and that you call it a "relationship" is entirely up to you, but you can't change the English language just because you don't like the word "religion".

Evil/Good

(Anonymous)
Here's an answer you will not like, nor understand, HUMAN GOOD, minus God, is SATAN's plan. Satan, like you, desires to abolish all religions, especially Christianity, and establish HUMAN GOOD. You see, Satan's plan/desire is that all humans be good ... MINUS GOD/JESUS. Satan's desire is to establish his own eutopia on earth, which he can rule over ... can't rule over rebellious/bad people, can you? However, he forgets, like himself, all of us humans have an old sin nature we are born with ... we are born to rebel. Too bad for Satan ... he can't fix that "old sin nature/rebellion" problem and neither can ANY HUMAN on this earth now or to come. Only one entity, God, had a solution to it (while here on earth), and that was to accept Jesus as our savior for the payment of our rebellious/sinful nature and turn to God. You see, as a born-again, Bible-believing Christian, I STILL SIN and will continue to do so until I die. HOWEVER, I sin less and desire to sin less as each year that passes in my life. Not by my own doing/desire, but because the Holy Spirit resides in my heart. It's hard to explain to a non-believer. I realize when I am sinning immediately and desire more and more to turn from doing it. As God says, when you are born-again, you are a

Re: Evil/Good

(Anonymous)
Well said that man. The sooner Satan (sorry Vexen) shuts up this clap-trap which serves purely to make people miserable the better!

Sorry, Bible believers, but you can't have it both ways.

(Anonymous)
Absence theodicy and the "Holy" Bible can't both be true. Isaiah 45:7 quotes the magic sky daddy as admitting that he creates evil. Then again he also admits to creating darkness; so much for that cute little story.

Re: Sorry, Bible believers, but you can't have it both ways.

(Anonymous)
He in no way says He creates evil. He says that He creates disaster. Evil is not disaster. The disaster that God creates is for His purposes, which are good. These are things like the destruction of Sodom. None of us deserve what we currently have. We deserve death and eternal separation from Him. That He would give us a chance to avoid this and certain disaster proves His mercy and love. (and good, non-evilness) As far as the darkness is concerned, whatever translation you read may not have been clear. If you look at the absence theory from a scientific perspective, you will see that it is very true. The darkness spoken of here is not a lack of light, but an existence of the lack of light. If you go into the for corners of a cave where the sunlight does not reach, there you will find darkness. God created that cave and all parts of it. For this reason, we can conclude that He created an area of space where there is darkness. This is very different than Him actually creating darkness. In the same way, He has not created darkness in peoples' lives; it is there because of te lack of His light in their lives (because they have rejected Him). I think that about covers it....

Re: Sorry, Bible believers, but you can't have it both ways.

(Anonymous)
If God is omniscient then it cannot be denied that He is the author of both good and evil (as we understand it). Does this mean that he is inherently evil, NO. Because He willingly chooses to do things which lead to the ultimate good this makes Him inherently good. What confuses many believers and non-believers alike is that he does sometimes use evil means to achieve a good outcomes. Now depending on who you are and what you understand, it's as simple, complicated, or as impossible as that.

Re: Sorry, Bible believers, but you can't have it both ways.

(Anonymous)
Those who believe that GOD is good and wholesome all the time are fools. God has an overpowering vengance. If you don't know that then you haven't read the bible. I was just getting that out of the way. God is merciful, because he doesn't crush us with his power, and just play with us as toys. I just wanted to know, who out there thinks the bible is a cute little story? Because, God totally destroys people all throughout the Holy Bible. It was pretty naive to believe that all christians beleive the Bible is all fluff and the creation story doesn't have it's bumps. I mean right after the creation of man and women, we do one little thing wrong and he gave women cramps and painfull births. That just isn't fair!!
I'm just saying with all of this that most people in the old days never thought that God was even Merciful. He was portrayed as Vengefull and powerful. And he is, but he is also mercifull. We have no right to question him. Beause even if he isn't perfect. He can beat us all up with a thought and then what could we say about it. He may have already done that. He may have seen fit to destroy New Orleans. The good outweighs the bad. We'll find out eventually how that works. When we die.

Re: Sorry, Bible believers, but you can't have it both ways.

(Anonymous)
OK I agree with you completely that God should be feared, and loved at the same time. He is vengeful and merciful. However, there were a few errors in your comment that I feel the need to correct. God does not destroy people throughout the Holy Bible, that only takes place in the Old Testament, before Christ came to this earth to redeem man for his sin, the sin began by Adam. Christ is often refered to as the new man, or new adam. Also, saying that God destroyed New Orleans is probably not correct...I don't believe God still destroys people as he did in the Old Testament (ie. Sodom). In the case of New Orleans that was because of a natural disaster and the fact that the city had been built on a plain of ground that was sinking, and so it was below the water level and was destroyed when the water broke in and filled it up. Purely natural and through human error.

Re: Sorry, Bible believers, but you can't have it both ways.

1) You said "God does not destroy people throughout the Holy Bible, that only takes place in the Old Testament"

I recommend you read Revelations, the last book of the New Testament, which is by far Gods most dramatic and genocidal spree: Billions upon billions are killed by floods, diseases and all kinds of other horrors, and all by the direct command of God.

2) All natural disasters could be stopped by God; it could simply and miraculously stop them from happening, or stop them from effecting Human Beings. Therefore it *is* correct to say that God destroys people with natural disasters. Everything that happens is because God allows it to happen, even the unfair stuff.

Re: Sorry, Bible believers, but you can't have it both ways.

(Anonymous)
Who ever told you life was fair?

For starters, read the Bible

(Anonymous)
Maybe you all should try to actually read the Bible and do a little bit of research before you make such claims. God did create everything perfect, and without evil. For starters, read Genesis. It was our own sin as humans that brought about the presence of evil (or more correctly termed the absence of God's love). Even if this quote was not from Albert Einstein it does not by any means diminish its logical validity. If God were to have created things perfectly, and without the option for us to screw it up, then how would we possibly have free will and free choice? And then how would God possibly be able to have a deep relationship with us...it would be one sided. I know I wouldn't want that, so why would an all-powerful God? We took that choice, screwed it up for us, and in no way did God create it. You may be thinking that he created it by giving us free choice...for that I defer back to what I said about having a two-sided relationship. Not to mention that a life without free choice would be very unpleasant--can someone say dictatorship or fascism?

Re: For starters, read the Bible

1) The text you are replying to is about God in general, not the Christian god in particular. As such, you'd do as well to read up on philosophy in general rather than rely on the text of one particular religion in order to understand the text.

2) It may well be in the Bible that God created everything perfect, but it doesn't make logical sense and still doesn't answer the questions raised in my text.

3) Free Will Does Not Require the Existence of Evil or Suffering

4) If it can possibly exist, then God created it. That's what an ultimate, absolute or all-powerful creator IS: The creator of *everything*. Good and bad, good and evil, suffering and euphoria. Every emotion and every "effect" of every "cause"; all possibilities were made possible by God.

5) There is no evil or suffering in heaven, there is no sin. Are you saying that being in heaven is like being in a dictatorship, fascist country or when in heaven you only have a one-sided relationship with god?

Re: For starters, read the Bible

(Anonymous)
A person accepts God's invitation to Heaven. He doesn't have to accept it, therefore your statement of Heaven being a dictatorship is flawed.

Re: For starters, read the Bible

(Anonymous)
Yes, God created it...but it is for you to choose and act upon. God is not forcing you to do anything. There is evil in the world because there is also good. Just as there is light and dark. Darkness is simply the absence of light and evil is the absence of God. You aren't forced to have God in your life. It is a choice that only you can make. You aren't forced to go to Heaven. You chose by having Faith in God. Heaven isn't a dictarship.

You're "scale" theory, or whatever is way off balance. It does NOT matter whether or not Einstein said that or not. What if some bimbo scientist added his name to that??? I could ask you the same questions and the answers would be the same. God did not create evil. Duh! When Satan (with freewill like us all) fell to the temptation of pride and wanting to be like God, he was sent into Hell and thus sin and evil entered into the world. Adam and Eve also fell to the same temptation that Satan succombed to in Genesis 3. This is why. If you cared to know the truth instead of just bashing everything else like your kind do, then I have a site for you, thingsreveled.net click on the Origin of Evil link.

A Thought

(Anonymous)
You can argue about "evil" all day, but there is no other explanation for life other than God. If you want to know why you can e-mail me at: roseceek@juno.com.

The reason I say to e-mail me is because I don't think I'm ever gonna get on this site again. So yeah.

No one is free

(Anonymous)
Freedom is not the ability to "choose".

Freedom is having no constraints or limits; being subject to no laws or rules.

Humans make choices, but this does not make them free.
We act based on incomplete information with finite resources in a finite period of time to satisfy our needs and desires.

Any "god" who would be tormented by the actions of the pathetic little creatures on a small patch of congealed matter in the vastness of space is not a being I would have confidence in.

If "god" is so miserable and embittered (aka Holy) maybe he/she/it should rethink this whole plan instead of being like the old man who screams at the filth on TV, but won't turn it off.

A good craftsman does not blame his tools.
A good god does not blame his creations.




Re: No one is free

(Anonymous)
Oh, really? I guess since we consider "freedom" as a good thing then by your definition societies should already be flourishing more and more. Ironically, the great deal of libertinism, that you so call "freedom", that prevails nowadays it's provoking its physical and moral decay, while the nations that followed the laws and rules established for the good of the country flourished and prospered.

Having a mind that can make decisions on its own is part of the freedom we have. The ability to choose is *not* Freedom but it's part of it.

It's funny that you said "We act based on incomplete information with finite resources in a finite period of time to satisfy our needs and desires." Then immediately you place judgement over God by saying "Any "god" who would be tormented by the actions of the pathetic little creatures on a small patch of congealed matter in the vastness of space is not a being I would have confidence in.
If "god" is so miserable and embittered (aka Holy) maybe he/she/it should rethink this whole plan instead of being like the old man who screams at the filth on TV, but won't turn it off." Wasn't that an act based on *incomplete information* with *finite resources* in an *finite period of time* to satisfy YOUR needs and desires of belittling "God"? Amazing how can you make an statement and then completely ignore it.

Certainly Free Will doesn't require Evil to exist, but Evil does need it to exist. But not only the Free Will to choose but the Free Will to DESIRE it and to DO it.

God is a God of Love. This means that Love is part of his nature. He desires to love and to be loved. There's a dilemma here: in order for one to be able to love, one must have the free will to do so. Otherwise it would be like being machines, doing because we have no other choice. This opens the way, however, to decide not to and even to hate. A love relationship is not unilateral. Since God desires to love and to be loved, when He created the angels and humans, He gave us Free Will so that we could truly love Him and He could truly love us. But we decided not to.

To know, to have the knowledge of what is Evil is not evil in itself. It is the Desire and the Action in itselves. God created the Angels with this knowledge. But one of them, Lucifer, decided to go against God and destroy Him. Thus was how Evil, Sin, came to exist. Lucifer was defeated and humiliated and banished away from the Heavens. From there on he was called Satan, which means Enemy.
When God created Man, he also gave them Free Will to chose Him or choose our own way. Satan persuaded us to do our own way separate and so we chose our own way which lead us to Sin. Because of Sin we became imperfect and so our world not only physically but spiritually. Death and Suffering were the result of this.

Yeah, a good craftsman does not blame his tools (which God doesn't), but also "Dare the clay say to its modeler, "What are you doing?"

-Jacob

i love you vexen

Thanks dude, I know, I know.

If God created us perfect and without suffering then we wouln't be grateful for anything. We'd have nothing to compare "good" to. Statements such as, "She's a nice person," would have no meaning and relationships would have no value. You'd ask, "Nice compared to what?" Without suffering there is no purpose to being alive. We'd all be robots with no free will and THAT is true slavery.

Unfortunately, atheists have this unreasonable expectation of those who label themselves Christian. We're expected to be "perfect" and without hypocracy. I call myself a Christian because I am a follower of Christ. Not because I AM Christ. Only Christ is perfect. I am not, so I am bound to make mistakes. Also, atheists and others who don't believe in Christianity think that Christians are supposed to have all the answers and that just because we can't answer everything logically that the Bible must not be true. Again, we are human and do not have infinite knowledge, only God has that. So quit expecting us to answer every little detail.

Equally unfortunate is that most Christians have never read the entire Bible and have no clue what walking with Christ is about.

I linked to your page on theodicy when the absence-of-god idea came under discussion at exChristian.net, and since you are trying to collect effective refutations of each major justification for the coexistence of evil and god, I thought it would be helpful to comment on your standing argument from several years ago.

Your refutation of absence theodicy relies on a dualism of good and evil which is actually foreign to the theodicy itself. Within its logic, good and evil are *not* on either side of a scale created by god, nor even opposite terms at all.

In one example circulated among Christians who wish to bolster their argument with metaphors from science, the perception of evil and good is compared to the perception of cold and hot. We think of cold as the opposite of heat. From physics, however, we know there is no such energy or force as cold. It is simply the relative absence of heat. If we move away from a heat source, we will feel cold, but it is absurd to suggest that the furnace creates the cold.

The notion that god radiates goodness or perhaps is goodness itself, and that if we move away from this source of goodness we experience pain, works fine for conceptions of god as a sort of presence connecting people or the like. It works rather poorly with a conscious, personified and all-powerful entity such as the god of evangelical Christians. For starters, suffering in the world does not correlate with the absence of Christianity, so either evil is tautologically defined as whatever is not-Christian, or the god to which the absence theodicy points is not the Christian god, or at a minimum not exclusively that god.

Disproving the theodicy with particular notions of creation and the nature of god's power introduces concepts not contained within the theodicy itself. Fundamentalists of all stripes introduce contradictory concepts with stunning frequency, and your refutation would point out a logical inconsistency for those who do. They are easy targets. Theodicies created by some of the West's most thoughtful philosophers are not the straw men that Fundamentalists make them!

scales are arbitrary

(Anonymous)
Scales are arbitrary measuring devices created by the minds of humans. God did not create scales. God may have created certain things on the scale (at various places or on the ends), but as soon as something exceeds the extremes, the scale changes. Thus, I can measure art on a scale of Michaelangelo (10) to my kindergarten fingerpaintings (1) , but as soon as someone creates a better or worse work of art, that scale changes. Or, in material science, a material's hardness is measured from 1 to 10, with 10 being a diamond, the hardest material known. If scientists create a harder material in the lab, the scale has now changed: it now goes to 11.

Things like light, heat, and in this example, good, do not have scales with a set maximum. They do have a set minimum: absolute zero, pitch black, and Hell. (Hell is defined as the complete absence of God.) So a world with absolutely no God would by definition be purely evil. (A zero on the goodness scale). This is why natural things like death, chaos, and destruction are viewed as evil, while things traditionally seen as God-given (like life, intelligence, and creativity) are seen as good, since they are expressions of God.

I'm not totally sold on the absence theodicy, but at least this illustrates that God didn't define the scale of good and evil: human acts are creations -- works of art, you might say. Therefore, I can always create a better or worse work than anybody else has. That stretches the scale to now include what I just did. God created humans, but did not create the actions that those humans do. The humans did.

_Brian

Why did God create Evil?

(Anonymous)
Why is there evil in the world?

~ If God exists, why is there evil in the world? You know, this is a difficult stumbling block and question for many people. The simplest way to look at this question is to examine God's nature and his desire for mankind. Look at the logic. God loves us and wants us to love him back. And how could we love him back unless we have the freedom to not love?

God could have made us like robots who do nothing more than say, "I love you. I love you. I love you." But we'd be forced to do that and that wouldn't be real love. Love is a choice. And if you have a choice you have to be able to choose not to love and that in itself is the nature of evil. Evil is choosing not to love. So when God gave us the freedom to choose, he gave us not only our greatest blessing, but he also gave us our greatest curse because we can choose to do right or choose to do wrong.

The reason there's evil in the world is not because of God, but because God gave us the freedom to choose. Now the potential for love outweighs the existence of evil, because you see, evil is only going to exist for a short time, but love is going to go on forever. And all of the suffering and all of the death that we see in the world today are the result because man has chosen to make wrong choices.

God could have taken our freedom, but He didn't. I hope you'll use your freedom to choose God.

Go to:
http://www.secretsofsuccess.com/quest/question1.html

Re: Why did God create Evil?

(Anonymous)
Don't take me wrong, I'm not at all denying God, but to be fair, your argument is based upon the free will. There are however several objections to this approach, and here there is couple of them:

1. The fact that free will is valuable doesn’t entail that God should not intervene to prevent someone from doing murder. On the contrary everyone would hold that a failure to prevent heinously evil actions is wrong, and a morally perfect God should not allow this.

2. Also following the same idea the fact that free will is valuable doesn’t entail the idea that is a good thing for people to have the power to inflict great harm upon others. A morally perfect God should not give people the power to torture others.

3. Generally speaking this argument won’t explain many evils that are caused by natural processes, such as earthquakes or tornados. Again a morally perfect God should not allow them either.

Article

(Anonymous)
You said "...we are therefore left with the truth that either God is evil or does not exist." Then where did "good" come from? B/c there is evil then God is evil. Using that reason is silly. You could say b/c there is good then God is good. Amazing that some people will be ever learning but never come to the truth!

The Problem of Evil

(Anonymous)
There is couple of mistakes in your argument:

1. Your argument sounds like this: "if God exists, then 2+2=5, but 2+2=4, so God doesn't exist". Remember that even though you'd prove that the absence-of-good theodicy is false, you cannot disprove the existence of God. You merely prove that either one of the premises omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect is not true.

2. Moreover let's assume again that you prove that absence-of-good theodicy is false; you still didn't prove by any mean that the existence of evil actually contradicts with God's perfect morality. There are few other arguments that you must consider, including "The universe is better with some evil in it than it could be if there were no evil.", “Evil is due to human freewill." , etc. in order to make your point.

3. If you actually intend to prove that God doesn't exist, then you should get to the root of the problem by considering first all classic arguments, including the ontological, teleological, cosmological, moral arguments, etc, and approach the subject directly (the Problem of Evil Argument will NOT get you there).

I'm assuming I'm replying to the right comment here as It's screened but I've got the comment via Email so here gose.

You destroy your own argument here. You say "I believe that God is perfect." But then you say "Pride is what began to corrupt Lucifer as he believed he was God,"

A perfect being can only create a perfect being but a perfect being must be amoung other things incorruptable froma state of perfection. I Lucifer was corrupted then he could not have been perfect n the first place. As such neither could his creator be.

I beg to differ

(Anonymous)
The problem with all the theories people develop is that they don't truly understand what "evil" is. God created all things. In order for life to thrive good and bad must exist. What we consider to be "bad" or "evil" is of course horrid in our perception. So much suffering and pain but without it, would we truly appriciate the good? Take a look at the universe. Such a dark,violent place but from it are born beautiful nebulas, brilliant stars... Chaos must come before order, pain before pleasure.God understands the importance of balance. It is everyone else's views that are skewed.

Re: I beg to differ

The argument you are making is called the "experience theodicy". Unfortunately, there are serious flaws in what you are saying.

See: "The Experience of Evil Theodicy" by Vexen Crabtree (2003)

For example:

(2) Real suffering is not necessary: God could simply give us an innate knowledge of what evil is like without us having to experience it. We have a lot of instinctive emotional reactions to pain and suffering which are not learned yet very useful in guiding our behaviour. They are proof that innate understanding is valid and God can easily endow us with as much innate understanding about evil as is required. We would then know about it, and not need to experience it. We could all happily appreciate its absence.

(3) We don't need an experience of suffering. Forgetting the fact that unborn babies don't seem to need it and that God could give us knowledge of it without us having to actually experience it, it seems that there is no particular reason why we need either knowledge or experience of suffering and pain. Any advantage that is gained from experiencing these things could simply be granted to us directly by God, therefore bypassing the need.

  • 1
?

Log in

No account? Create an account