Evil means a Christian God cannot exist?

[jc104]

And evil can also be used to prove God, as you obviously know that there are some things that are evil.

Do you mean disprove, or is this something I've not heard before?

 

[cantab]

Do you mean disprove, or is this something I've not heard before?

Gack. That was part of the quote of League; it 'fell out' when I was fiddling with the tags. I edited my post to delete it.

 

[drifblim70]

You say that God does not associate with the wicked, and I say bullshit. God is supposed to be omnipresent, unless we're going outside the arbitrary realms of the Christian God here, in which case you're still wrong. What does it mean to "associate" with someone? Does it mean to be their best friend, to know who they are, or to simply sit near them? If a killer or a sex offender moves into the building two houses down from me, does that mean I "associate" with them?

The answer is that it doesn't matter whether or not I associate with them. If I don't interact with them, their actions likely remain unchanged; if I don't associate with drug addicts, for example, they'll still be addicts. Their habits, their inclinations, will never change because they have no reason or example by which to alter them. To say that you do not "associate" with a certain type of people is to fear them, to be afraid that you cannot change them.

If God does not associate with the "wicked," whoever they might be (you'll have to give me some guidelines on that), why doesn't he? Is it because they are destined to commit evil regardless? But if they're destined to commit evil, that means they never truly turn from God themselves--they're preordained to turn from God by God, which means that they're both not sinning and simultaneously fulfilling God's will (they're doing what their fate says they will do, and fate is established by God, yes?). Oh, and on a side note, nice attempt at swiping Barack Obama at the end there with the racist preacher. Too bad you failed completely. I don't give a damn who he associates with as long as he continues to make rational, justifiable decisions; unfortunately, God's actions/nonactions to date (within the constructs of Christianity) are both irrational and not justifiable based upon the scientific knowledge humans have amassed since the era of Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[League]

Hey, all Christians believe they were once wicked. You're somewhat missing the point. Obviously, since Christians believe Christ is God, they don't think he just sat idly by.

Meanwhile, you don't understand the nature of gathering wheat, at least in the time of the NT. That is an important concept for one small thing you'd probably skip over. As well, you may have (or may have not) heard about the 100 sheep. You know, the one that left? Either way, you're characterizing God as not being Christ, and that is quite frankly who the Christian God is.

I'm not going to talk about Barack Obama. He's a politically savvy man. He has an air about him that is not off-putting. He's a charming guy, really. Rational and justifiable are far from good terms for actions, however. Robbers do things rationally. A whole mess of things are justifiable.

Meanwhile, "the scientific knowledge humans have amassed" don't bear any meaning on God's actions/nonactions. What do Ash, Misty, Brock, etc. know about, in their context of the world, the doings of their makers? Nothing really.

 

[Altmer]

Exactly.

And humans look down upon humans for doing it, which makes no sense since we are animals.

I don't look down upon humans for acting in their own interest and forging corporate relationships to get something out of it... I consider that normality.

 

[League]

You consider that rational? Great, I do too. However, that's just a tame way of generalization. The more and more questionable an example an offense/crime/act is, and soon you'll know that something was done that was wrong. I don't consider businessmen or workers here: of course they are acting in their own interest, to no one's detriment.

The concept of evil is that a thing is wrong. You're saying that looking out for #1 is normal. What makes an extreme example of looking out for #1 wrong? The concepts of good and evil aside, such things would be rational.

 

[Ferrouswheel]

Hey, all Christians believe they were once wicked. You're somewhat missing the point. Obviously, since Christians believe Christ is God, they don't think he just sat idly by.

Quick comment here, not all Christians believe that Christ is god, only the ones who believe in the Trinity do so. There are Christians who don't believe in the Trinity.

Meanwhile, you don't understand the nature of gathering wheat, at least in the time of the NT. That is an important concept for one small thing you'd probably skip over. As well, you may have (or may have not) heard about the 100 sheep. You know, the one that left? Either way, you're characterizing God as not being Christ, and that is quite frankly who the Christian God is.

Umm, what? First, the correct name of the parable is the Parable of the Lost Sheep, not the 100 sheep one. Second, I think that the parable makes his point. God goes to save sinners, that's why he sent his son. You were the one who said "God doesn't associate with the wicked."

I'm not going to talk about Barack Obama. He's a politically savvy man. He has an air about him that is not off-putting. He's a charming guy, really. Rational and justifiable are far from good terms for actions, however. Robbers do things rationally. A whole mess of things are justifiable.

For not talking about Barack Obama, you manage to get a few choice comments in. First, there is a difference between perspectives for the who Robbers argument. If he does what is rational for a POTUS, then it's a good thing, you might disagree that his actions are rational, but I doubt anyone wants a irrational POTUS.

Meanwhile, "the scientific knowledge humans have amassed" don't bear any meaning on God's actions/nonactions. What do Ash, Misty, Brock, etc. know about, in their context of the world, the doings of their makers? Nothing really.

Wow. I'm impressed with a Pokemon analogy.

1. The knowledge we have of God and God's actions/nonactions are present in this world, so the context is correct.
2. If Pikachu got run over by a bus, that would should that the story board (God) was evil.

 

[League]

God doesn't associate with the wicked. It's a paradox, but I didn't contradict myself. For one, God is Christ yet they are seperate. For another, God, if the OT record bears truth, (or even if it doesn't, within Christianity itself) constantly "associated" with the people of Israel, if by that you mean sent messengers to get them back on the right path. The name Israel fittingly means "he wrestled with God" btw (or something like that).

Regardless, Christians believe that Christ was righteous for all his life, save one moment. And in that moment, he got turned on. Regardless, Christ is the means and price for such an "association." I only used that word because of the politician I was alluding to. And he did suffer somewhat for that connection. The fact that people knew what/who I was talking about proved it. I believe the controversy arose while he was still in the primary.

Speaking about the POTUS, I said nothing but good. I said that rational and justifiable aren't good terms, however, to describe someone's actions. If your friend does something stupid, and you know that it is stupid, yet you try to tell someone else that it might've been somewhat reasonable in a certain light, then what you're trying to do is (somewhat) justify it.

 

[Ferrouswheel]

God doesn't associate with the wicked. It's a paradox, but I didn't contradict myself. For one, God is Christ yet they are seperate. For another, God, if the OT record bears truth, (or even if it doesn't, within Christianity itself) constantly "associated" with the people of Israel, if by that you mean sent messengers to get them back on the right path. The name Israel fittingly means "he wrestled with God" btw (or something like that).

Look, the concept that God is Christ, yet separate, is part of the theological teaching of the Trinity, you know the whole the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost, thing.

Well, not all Christians believe it. I won't argue about it's correctness one way or the other, as this isn't the thread for it. But there are Christians who don't believe in the divinity of Christ. Just FYI.

 

[Brain]

The flaw as I see it comes in the second line - God can be able to prevent evil, but not willing. That's because without evil you can't have good, and knowing good is (or at least can be argued to be) one of the purposes of life. You can conceive of yourself as a loving person for example, but unless / until you do something loving, you don't actually know that you are loving.

Problem: I really, really, really don't care about actually knowing that I'm loving. Knowing good is not "purpose", it is narcissism. You can't argue that knowing good is one of the purposes of life any more than I can argue that baking the perfect pie is, which I never would, because it's retarded. See, the very concept of "purpose of life" is begging the question - purpose cannot be absolute, only relative, which means asking for it assumes two things: first, it assumes the existence of God (oops); second, it assumes God's intended purpose for us is not itself subject to moral inspection (at this rate, the purpose of life might as well be to die). I mean, you have to wonder, first, why an omnibenevolent God would make the purpose of life so inane, second, why we would give a shit about the purpose he sets us out to fulfill.

And therefore God can be able to prevent evil, but not willing. Suppose for example that there were no hit-and-run drivers. That's great, but that also means there aren't any good Samaritans who help the victim either.

Oh no! No good Samaritans! What are we ever going to do?!? Without good Samaritans, how are we ever going to help people who... people who... uh...

If there were no Haiti earthquake, then there would be no chance for the shows of compassion the rest of the world offered. And so on and so forth.

Oh no! No compassion! Having a world so awesome that we don't need compassion is a greater tragedy than a nation-wrecking natural disaster!

You argued in the first post that if God were omnipotent, then he should be able to provide good without evil. That's a fair argument, but one that brushes straight up the omnipotence paradox. Can God create a stone so heavy he can't lift it? Given that 1 + 1 = 2 and 2 + 2 = 4, can God make it so that 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 =/= 4? I have no answer to these questions, but if we assume that God is bound by logical constraints (which means he cannot do something that's logically inconsistent, such as make 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 =/= 4), and if we further assume that good cannot exist without evil, then there is no contradiction. If good cannot exist without evil, then the ability to experience good may be more than enough reason to also have evil.

Sure, but "good cannot exist without evil" isn't just a false assumption, it's a downright outrageous one. You have to realize that none of your previous arguments support the existence of actual evil. At best, they support the appearance of evil. For instance, imagine that there are hit and run drivers, but that they are puppets or robots controlled by God, hitting other puppets. You would have good Samaritans, responding to what they perceive as evil in order to help injured puppets, but no actual evil would ever have taken place. Similarly, if everyone in Haiti is, also, a robot, then the earthquake did not actually harm anyone. No actual evil would have occurred, yet the compassion would have been the same. In a sense, you could imagine that this is how the world really works - maybe there isn't any evil in the world, only appearance of it.

One argument one could make is that happiness requires a certain amount of suffering, for contrast. But obviously one cannot justify the existence of any more suffering than that precise amount.

You are asking how evil can exist in a world where God exists. It can't exist in a world where He doesn't.

Ultimately, should He exist, the world is founded to His demands. Should it not, it is structured to no one's. Thus, your concept of evil is just a concept.

You really know fuck all about semantics. "Evil" is a word, and as all words, it serves a communication purpose, and that's it. "Evil" means whatever the word communicates when it is uttered. Of course it is just a concept. The thing is, it would still be just a concept if God existed. "Cat" is nothing more than a concept too - it refers to anything that has some cat-like shape, meows, purrs, has some biological properties, and so on, but it's not some precise thing, it's just some logical combination of patterns. Same goes for evil. And the referent of the concept of evil has nothing to do with the existence of God. The evidence for this is that two atheists can talk of good and evil and understand each other. Clearly, whatever they are talking about isn't divinely inspired.

Let me put it this way: when you say "morality", you refer to a code put forth by the God you believe in, a sort of "objective", divinely inspired morality. Unfortunately, it so happens that when I say "morality", I don't mean that, even though most of the code is the same. By "morality", I mean a human convention, perhaps slightly tainted by my own personal convictions. I would not care about what God thinks is moral even if he existed, unless of course he convinced me to, using rational arguments. You wouldn't care either, if God's morality happened to deviate too much from your expectations. Hence why evil does not hinge on the existence of God.

You see, for this to be a world of consequence, there must be ultimate consequence. For instance, you may want not want to die. There may be someone who does. Death, without consequence, is ultimately not a bad thing. And ultimately then, death being the fate of all living things, evil cannot befall the living.

You know, the most important part of having consequences for evil acts is to make damn sure people are aware of them. Take your Christian hell, for instance. Where is it? Has anybody come back from it to tell us how it is? How are we even supposed to know it exists? Let me phrase it in another way: If God told everybody that hell existed behind closed doors (which is probably exactly what you believe), but didn't actually send anyone there, how the fuck would we know? We wouldn't. This, of course, means that our moral actions are not conditioned on the (impossible) knowledge of the existence of hell. But pray tell, what is the point of punishment when a lack of punishment would lead to the exact same results?

Look, your idea of "justice" is extremely naive. You think justice for evil acts "requires" consequences, as if there existed some sort of cosmic scale that had to be balanced that way. Truth is, the only reason we punish evil here on Earth is to condition evildoers into stopping doing evil, and of course to impress potential evildoers, so that they never do evil. If punishing someone doesn't stop him from doing evil and doesn't stop anybody else from doing evil, what do you think you're achieving? The answer, of course, is that you're achieving absolutely nothing, you're just wasting resources. Hell doesn't stop anyone from doing evil any more than just plain death. Hell doesn't stop anyone else from doing evil either, because unlike fines, prison and death penalty, we can't tell whether it exists or not. Sure, maybe you believe hell exists, and maybe it makes you a better person - but hell doesn't need to actually exist for you to believe it does. Hell is overkill when all that matters is that people believe it exists. Any God with half a brain would realize that.

And evil can also be used to prove God, as you obviously know that there are some things that are evil. Matter moves according to how it is pushed and pulled, attracted and repelled. Animals move to such principles, and to their desires, and to their survival. Humans, too, would be expected to move to their interests. Humans are the only known living creatures, however, that condemn such things. If you are robbed, you feel yourself wronged. If you had a close friend or relative murdered, you feel grieved. (At that point also, you must note that justice and revenge are human concepts that only rule over humans.)

What do you think you know about what animals think? When you move and leave your cat behind, don't you think he might feel wronged? If you had a close friend or relative murdered, don't you think his pets will grieve? If you have two cats who have lived and played together for the better part of their lives and one dies, you think the other doesn't notice, or doesn't care? If a man beats up his wife, do you think the family cat could never sense his mistress' despair and (vainly) try to reassure or protect her (hence showing his disapproval for the master's actions)? What kind of moral idiots do you think animals are? Okay, they don't have language, they can't tell you what they think or how they feel (though they can and do hint to it). Whoop dee fucking doo. Doesn't mean you can assume they don't think and don't feel.

"Animals don't look down upon other animals for doing evil", how the fuck do you think you could know that. They very well might, and it would be quite difficult to prove that they don't. So please stop pulling shit out of your ass. It's not like it really matters to your argument either - maybe God just gave animals more than you think he did.

However, your concept of God, while low to my standards, is actually quite high to God's standards. You see, your potential for knowledge is unmatched. Granted, your knowledge isn't so high, because you question how evil can exist in the world if God made it. For one, you ask a question that has been answered a million times. Your potential for finding the answer is easily there. You've been blessed with answers and knowledge. Now, to whom much is given, much is required.

I can only see two answers:

1) God is not benevolent (but not malevolent either).
2) Evil does not exist, only appearance of evil does.

1) is the obvious solution and by far the most probable. As far as I can tell, 2) is the only way one can satisfactorily solve the problem of evil, but it implies most humans are puppets. Other answers either mistake the necessity of the appearance of evil for the necessity of evil itself or abdicate logical thinking.

Because see, my standards for an answer to this question are much higher than yours.

 

[Altmer]

You consider that rational? Great, I do too. However, that's just a tame way of generalization. The more and more questionable an example an offense/crime/act is, and soon you'll know that something was done that was wrong. I don't consider businessmen or workers here: of course they are acting in their own interest, to no one's detriment.

Where do we draw the line?

The concept of evil is that a thing is wrong. You're saying that looking out for #1 is normal. What makes an extreme example of looking out for #1 wrong? The concepts of good and evil aside, such things would be rational.

Yet what could be wrong for me could be right for you. Evil is not absolutely defined. Evil is only evil in a certain CONTEXT.

 

[Banedon]

@Brain - getting away from the Christian conception of God, but ...

Problem: I really, really, really don't care about actually knowing that I'm loving. Knowing good is not "purpose", it is narcissism. You can't argue that knowing good is one of the purposes of life any more than I can argue that baking the perfect pie is, which I never would, because it's retarded. See, the very concept of "purpose of life" is begging the question - purpose cannot be absolute, only relative, which means asking for it assumes two things: first, it assumes the existence of God (oops); second, it assumes God's intended purpose for us is not itself subject to moral inspection (at this rate, the purpose of life might as well be to die). I mean, you have to wonder, first, why an omnibenevolent God would make the purpose of life so inane, second, why we would give a shit about the purpose he sets us out to fulfill.

Why can't baking the perfect pie be the purpose of life? I see no problem with saying that the purpose of life is whatever you want it to be.

Oh no! No compassion! Having a world so awesome that we don't need compassion is a greater tragedy than a nation-wrecking natural disaster!

It's actually possible to argue that yes, having a world so awesome we don't need compassion is a greater tragedy than a nation-wrecking natural disaster, but (as far as I know it anyway) departs from the Christian version of God. Not sure if I should write why since it might be off-topic.

Finally I think the idea that everyone in Haiti are robots is irrational. That would be almost equivalent to assuming nobody in the world were not robots except yourself. Not impossible, but irrational (your children are robots too? Robots gave birth to a live being? Everyone else also thinks they are the only humans in the world?).

 

[Brain]

Why can't baking the perfect pie be the purpose of life? I see no problem with saying that the purpose of life is whatever you want it to be.

Oh, you can choose the purpose you like, but you can't use it in an argument, you can only live it, since everybody has their own.

Well, I suppose you could argue that in so far that a purpose requiring the existence of evil supersedes the policy as per which it is undesirable, it could constitute a solution to the problem of evil, but that only holds weight for people who agree with that such a purpose is desirable. I guess that a lot of arguments to explain the existence of evil indicate precisely this: that people hold certain things which require the existence of evil as more desirable than the absence of evil.

Unfortunately, since the nature of people is conditioned on how the world is constructed, it is reasonable to assume that whatever purpose people think life has is biased to match whatever the world is. If the world contained no evil, presumably, nobody could think of any circumstances under which it would be desirable. Thus the problem of evil, in a sense, means to ask why the world isn't constructed in such a way that inhabitants of that world would perceive it as perfect.

It's actually possible to argue that yes, having a world so awesome we don't need compassion is a greater tragedy than a nation-wrecking natural disaster, but (as far as I know it anyway) departs from the Christian version of God. Not sure if I should write why since it might be off-topic.

Well if you don't want that world, I'll take it.

Finally I think the idea that everyone in Haiti are robots is irrational. That would be almost equivalent to assuming nobody in the world were not robots except yourself. Not impossible, but irrational (your children are robots too? Robots gave birth to a live being? Everyone else also thinks they are the only humans in the world?).

I did not say it was rational. I said it was the best solution to the problem of evil. See, I don't believe the world works like this. But then again, I don't believe God exists. And if I believed he existed, I would not believe he is benevolent. It is only if I believed a benevolent God existed that I would believe everybody but me is a robot - sure, it would be a bit far-fetched, but if I didn't believe it, I would be even more irrational. To pit everyone in their own mini-universe made solely of robots is, hands down, the best way to maximize both an agent's happiness and its free will. There just aren't a thousand ways to do this - if God is omnibenevolent (edit: and smart), then that is what he has to be doing.

Here's another take on it: some people in this thread have argued that life is a test to see if we are worthy of heaven. I don't know about you, but if I was testing moral agents, I wouldn't just pit them against each other in a giant arena, unless I had no other options. To make agents interact with each other would interfere with their evaluation, making it suboptimal. If possible, I would make one world for every moral agent, which I would then populate with robots, and then these robots would enact various situations in order to test the moral agent's behavior. That way, every agent would be tested for the same period of time, in similar situations, so that an objective, unbiased assessment can be made. It would indeed be "irrational" for the agent to think he's the only one around (incidentally, it would also be irrational for the agent to think he's being tested), but from God's perspective, it's far from irrational. It's merely the right way to do it.

 

[Banedon]

I can give you an answer, but it departs from Christian theology. Still, I'll give you it. Note that I do not subscribe (fully anyway) to this interpretation, but I see no fault with it.

The purpose of life is to experience all that life has to offer. Exactly what you want to experience is up to you, but the possibilities are all there. Hence not having evil is undesirable, because it means you can't experience good.

The world is perfect. I don't get what you're pushing at. Even having evil is perfect because evil isn't imperfection.

You want a world without evil? It might be too late for you, but you can create one for your children pretty easily. Lock your son to his bed. Never let him off. Don't let anyone except you see him. Sterilize the entire room so he can't catch infections etc. You'd have created a world without evil for your son to "enjoy". Except that would be more akin to torture than to enjoyment, wouldn't it?

I'm not responding to the latter half of your post because it falls apart if we assume the existence of evil isn't undesirable. Justifying this statement is what I'm trying to do.

PS: @League - if animals have emotions etc and are just like human beings (who are animals after all), why did Jesus send an entire herd of pigs to drown when he could just have easily cast the demons out of the possessed man without killing the animals?

 

[Obsessed]

You want a world without evil? It might be too late for you, but you can create one for your children pretty easily. Lock your son to his bed. Never let him off. Don't let anyone except you see him. Sterilize the entire room so he can't catch infections etc. You'd have created a world without evil for your son to "enjoy". Except that would be more akin to torture than to enjoyment, wouldn't it?

One could argue that your scenario is not a world without evil. Tying down your child, and depriving them of the ability to make any choices could be considered to be a pretty evil action.

 

[Brain]

The purpose of life is to experience all that life has to offer. Exactly what you want to experience is up to you, but the possibilities are all there. Hence not having evil is undesirable, because it means you can't experience good.

If life offers neither good nor evil, then by definition experimenting them would not matter. See what I mean when I say you fit the purpose you see to life to whatever the world is? We can't fly, so I imagine flying isn't part of the purpose of life. I also don't see you prescribing gender reassignment surgery so that men can experience being women and vice versa. Life works in a certain way and certain experiences permeate it more than some others. Evidently you are fitting the purpose of life to fit what life offers, which is unfortunately a circular argument. Alas, life could very well offer many experiences to the exclusion of good and evil and that would not go against your stated purpose (although it might go against your intended purpose). In any case, I would be quite comfortable giving up all moral experience in exchange for greater freedom in experiencing other things.

Edit: also keep in mind that a usual definition of evil is that evil actions are precisely those that infringe on the freedom of others. That is, many people simply cannot experience what life has to offer because of evil. I mean, repeat what you just said to a slave and see what look he gives you.

The world is perfect. I don't get what you're pushing at. Even having evil is perfect because evil isn't imperfection.

"Perfect" is a very subjective term. From my perspective, the world is dreadful albeit tolerable. In any case, it seems to me that most people would not think the world is perfect. If you do, you're fringe.

You want a world without evil? It might be too late for you, but you can create one for your children pretty easily. Lock your son to his bed. Never let him off. Don't let anyone except you see him. Sterilize the entire room so he can't catch infections etc. You'd have created a world without evil for your son to "enjoy". Except that would be more akin to torture than to enjoyment, wouldn't it?

If it is torture, then it is evil. If, on the other hand, I could shove him in a virtual world that would offer him more than what the real one would, at a lesser risk, it wouldn't seem like such a bad idea. You're needlessly conflating things here. A world without evil doesn't require strapping children to their beds. You can also imagine a world where nobody wants to do evil - that doesn't restrict their ability to do anything else.

I'm not responding to the latter half of your post because it falls apart if we assume the existence of evil isn't undesirable. Justifying this statement is what I'm trying to do.

It doesn't fall apart, it raises the bar. Now you have to justify how actual evil is superior to appearance of evil. Your arguments only justify the latter.

Furthermore, if evil is desirable, then one should condemn human attempts at curbing it. For instance, we might eventually be able to make all human settlements natural disaster-proof. We might enhance the human body to be nearly indestructible. We might manage to track money and assets in such a way that theft becomes unsustainable. More realistically, all parts of the world might become industrialized, new techniques to mass-produce food might vanquish famine, and so on. All these things seem like improvements to me, even though they all cut off potential for evil significantly. So are these "improvements" desirable?

 

[Ferrouswheel]

One could argue that your scenario is not a world without evil. Tying down your child, and depriving them of the ability to make any choices could be considered to be a pretty evil action.

Just to argue again, I think you could discount God as part of the world. After all, if Jack the Ripper makes a watch, it doesn't mean that the watch is evil. It could be though. TIME IS RUNNING OUT.

 

[MetalGearSamus]

[Evil] can't exist in a world where He doesn't

Proof?
Have you seen a world where god doesn't exist? Does it lack evil?

You see, for this to be a world of consequence, there must be ultimate consequence.

Proof?
Have you seen many worlds with consequences? Did they all have an "ultimate" consequence?



You are making assumptions about the world which cannot be know today (maybe never) and even if they were true, they would not be evidence for any specific god. Only that there might be a god or gods.

 

[ezequiel6566]

guys you can't really make the proof argument.

because you can say "show me proof that god doesn't exist" and "there's no proof of god" and be right when saying either one

 

[Banedon]

One could argue that your scenario is not a world without evil. Tying down your child, and depriving them of the ability to make any choices could be considered to be a pretty evil action.

Yes. Absolutely. The same applies to a real world without evil.

@Brain - Do you believe in reincarnation? Because if you do, men can experience what it's like to be women, and so can everyone experience what it's like to fly (just be reborn into a bird or something). If you assume reincarnation, then even saying what I posted to a slave doesn't matter because that slave may be reborn into something that isn't a slave. He is fully able to experience everything. I also have nothing against gender change operations, they're completely up to the individual.

Perfect is a very subjective term. Therefore I think you should stop calling the world imperfect because evil exists in it, because I still call it perfect. I may be "fringe", as you put it, but the point is that there's no logical inconsistency - and so the existence of evil does not disprove God.

You can simulate a world without evil by strapping children to beds. Virtual worlds don't work so well since you can't stay in a virtual world forever, but you can stay strapped to a bed forever. It's torture because you evidently agree (I certainly do) that denying a child the experience of evil is an evil act. And therefore God can be able to prevent evil, but not willing.

Appearance of evil and actual evil - what's the difference? If we strap children to beds, we wouldn't actually have eliminated evil for that child, we'd just have artificially removed it from his knowledge. What's the difference? He's still in a world without evil.

The so-called "improvements" you mentioned - at this point things get very subtle, so pay close attention. In the absolute sense there is no good and no evil, there is only what you call good and what you call evil. What I call good may not equal what you call good - that's why some people call Osama bin Laden a hero, while others call him a terrorist. It is only when you define your labels of good and evil do you also define your own personal identity.

The world at present thinks making buildings resistant to earthquakes, medical advances, etc as "good" and desirable. We agree that we don't want to experience what it's like to die in an earthquake. That's perfectly fine. In fact, I think they are good and desirable as well. But they are not a priori good and desirable. Example: A few hundred years ago it was perfectly fine to burn so-called "witches" on the stake. It was not only perfectly fine it was actively encouraged (good). These days we call it barbaric (evil). And therefore perceptions of right and wrong change.

You might wonder how this is relevant to curbing evil. Well if what we call evil changes, then what we do now may be inappropriate in the future. Burning witches was after all curbing the evil of blasphemy, and yet we don't agree with it anymore. We therefore are just defining our own personal identity, and there's nothing wrong with that.

You might also wonder how this is relevant to evil in the first place, i.e. if these efforts are successful then we would have nothing which we call "evil" left. That's too simplistic unfortunately. Evil (as we call it anyway) will always exist because it exists in our history textbooks, and so long as that exists we will always know what it is.

You may not agree with this, but it doesn't matter. It just shows that there exists world views that include God but aren't inconsistent with the existence of evil.

 

[Electrode]

Perfect is a very subjective term. Therefore I think you should stop calling the world imperfect because evil exists in it, because I still call it perfect. I may be "fringe", as you put it, but the point is that there's no logical inconsistency - and so the existence of evil does not disprove God.

Evil is generally defined in this argument as suffering that goes unwarranted; for instance, not all human beings learn from suffering, making some suffering 'useless".

The idea is that if God is "all-good', (good here meaning him wanting to prevent unwarranted evil) then he would either:

1. Make evil not exist at all.

2. Make every case of evil result in improved people.

You can simulate a world without evil by strapping children to beds. Virtual worlds don't work so well since you can't stay in a virtual world forever, but you can stay strapped to a bed forever. It's torture because you evidently agree (I certainly do) that denying a child the experience of evil is an evil act. And therefore God can be able to prevent evil, but not willing.

But if God created a world where there were just no evil options, wouldn't that be less of "strapping someone to a bed", and more of "not handing them a weapon and saying not to use it"? There are more than enough good ways to handle a situation, removing the bad doesn't turn me, or the child, into a robot.

If we strap children to beds, we wouldn't actually have eliminated evil for that child, we'd just have artificially removed it from his knowledge. What's the difference? He's still in a world without evil.

If God created the universe so there were no evil thoughts or outcomes, then that would be nomal, and people wouldn't feel strapped to a bed because it would be the way things were. And yes, if he didn't create evil, then it would be eliminated. It would literally not exist at all.

You may not agree with this, but it doesn't matter. It just shows that there exists world views that include God but aren't inconsistent with the existence of evil.

Yes, when you take away one of the "powers" of God.

 

[Banedon]

Evil is generally defined in this argument as suffering that goes unwarranted; for instance, not all human beings learn from suffering, making some suffering 'useless".

You can't help but learn from suffering, whether you like it or not. For example, if you've gone for a tooth extraction before then you know precisely what to expect. It doesn't matter if you want to know what it is or if you don't, you've picked up the knowledge. If you've had a brush with evil, you'll have learned something from it.

But if God created a world where there were just no evil options, wouldn't that be less of "strapping someone to a bed", and more of "not handing them a weapon and saying not to use it"? There are more than enough good ways to handle a situation, removing the bad doesn't turn me, or the child, into a robot.

In this view, God hasn't handed human beings a weapon and told them not to use it. God has essentially handed human beings a weapon and told them they're free to use it if they want to. Beyond that I don't get what your problem is.

If God created the universe so there were no evil thoughts or outcomes, then that would be nomal, and people wouldn't feel strapped to a bed because it would be the way things were. And yes, if he didn't create evil, then it would be eliminated. It would literally not exist at all.

Can you imagine good in a universe in which evil didn't exist? If you answer yes, describe it. If you answer no, then you essentially agree that there is no contradiction (re: what I wrote about the omnipotence paradox a page back).

 

[Electrode]

You can't help but learn from suffering, whether you like it or not. For example, if you've gone for a tooth extraction before then you know precisely what to expect. It doesn't matter if you want to know what it is or if you don't, you've picked up the knowledge. If you've had a brush with evil, you'll have learned something from it.

True to an extent, but there are plenty of cases of children that were raped becoming rapists themselves, etc. In an all-good universe, this would not happen. Those who are raped would go on to fight child rape, making the suffering they went through not useless, or counter productive.


In this view, God hasn't handed human beings a weapon and told them not to use it. God has essentially handed human beings a weapon and told them they're free to use it if they want to. Beyond that I don't get what your problem is.

God hands us evil and tells us not to use it, or else we get punished with eternal damnation.


Can you imagine good in a universe in which evil didn't exist? If you answer yes, describe it. If you answer no, then you essentially agree that there is no contradiction (re: what I wrote about the omnipotence paradox a page back).

I would not know every detail, you're right. But an all-good universe would have to fill its role as being all-good, or else it wouldn't be an all-good universe. I couldn't tell you my exact thoughts or actions in an all-good universe, but I know I wouldn't be thinking of causing unecessary suffering.

 

[Morm]

the problem with this argument (from the OP) is that you are assigning assumed attributes to an unproven entity that exists in a state of invincibility, at least in ability to demonstrate its existence. You cannot argue from that standpoint and expect a result better than a neutral finish.

Lets look at the assertions made throughout:
1. God exists
2. God has all the properties that are applied to him IN DETAIL by modern faith
3. God gives a shit about us and agrees with our notion of sin, a view that even if he DID hasn't changed (without word from him in how long?)

In normal logic processes, this is a big leap. It's a series of connected ifs relying on the previous one. Based on the level of evidence backing up any (never mind just the first step) I'm 100% fair to assert almost anything I would like.

Basically with a nod to the OP: God created everything. Sin falls under the subset of everything. Sin is therefore, by his choice, bad. Sin is therefore a tool which he uses to control people and thereby force to demonstrate their love. There is zero reason for God to make sin bad or, failing that, the negative consequences of sin. For example, God could make premarital sex result in positive outcome every single time. If you remove sin it completely allows for free will but without a negative outcome. To me, this reflects a God that is low on self esteem- constantly and consistently needing reaffirmation that his subjects love him. Something a perfect being would have no time of day for. I could go on and on and on, but I'll keep this concise til an influx of indoctrinated teens flood me with responses.

One last point, about God testing people: God loves us all equally. He therefore should give us all equal attributes. Someone with Cystic Fibrosis is not equivalent to someone with an Olympic gold medal in some good sport. it's a plain and simple observation. So to say that horrible disease or trials of some sort are a test by God is a complete rationalization and cop out of the reality of the situation. In reality, if everyone is made in his image and is loved equally, they should be equal and therefore should be tested equally: If God exists, he has either forgotten about you or doesn't love you as much, unless you are the "Scizor" of humanity. Don't even talk to me about free will. Many things left up to free will, such as addiction, are actually brain malformations or situations created by misfortune. A god that loves you as much as he loves that super charming woman crusher in high school would certainly compensate you for your inability to have sex with anyone...has he? Do you feel you got the same deal and are loved as much as the super handsome, lottery winning man with a high metabolism?

By the way, your God didn't create shit all.

 

[MrIndigo]

guys you can't really make the proof argument.

because you can say "show me proof that god doesn't exist" and "there's no proof of god" and be right when saying either one

I pointed out before: With no actual evidence for a God, it is self-evident that God does not exist. It is not proven that God does not exist, but it means that those claiming His existence hold the burden of producing evidence.

The same is true of all things. You cannot assert a claim of something existing if there is no evidence thereof, and you cannot assert a claim of something not existing if there is evidence that it does. You need to either show contrary evidence or show how the evidence thusfar adduced does not actually form evidence of their point.