if god is truly omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), and omnibenevolent (perfectly good), then it seems logically impossible for significant evil to exist, as god would both know about it and have the power to prevent it.
this is my favorite as the theistic hand-waving needing to resolve it is incredible from the start.
questions about god, which is commonly defined as “perfect in every possible way” are irrelevant when it’s been demonstrated that god, by that definition, doesn’t exist
god didn’t “give” people emotions. people evolved that way
it’s not been resolved, despite millions of apologists dedicating their lives to the problem of evil for thousands of years
every discussion just ends up in “you need to have faith,” which literally just means “believe something to be true simply because you want it to be true, without any good reason.” and no, “because otherwise where did we come from” (god of the gaps–another fallacy that seems to be the best they can come up with) isn’t a good reason
I mean there are some who claim to have solved it. You see, you have to have evil to understand good. Since they think their god is the ultimate good, the more evil you see just proves how good their god is. After all, how can you consider a stick straight if you don’t have a crooked one to compare it to?
This is exactly why I believe in an evil god. The problem of good is then easily solved. All that good in the world just proves how truly evil my god is. Burn in hell you sinners… although his punishments might be good? Cause he’s evil. I dunno. Trust me it works. Just have faith.
I don’t understand why a god would have to be all good as humans understand goodness. I’m more open to the idea that God either set things in motion and stopped caring, or is actively ambivalent and lives to cause a ruckus on occasion for his entertainment. This view allows for the existence of preventable evil.
Because an uncaring or immoral god is unworthy of praise or devotion. Why donate your life or your fortune to a god that created the universe and then fucked off?
omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), and omnibenevolent (perfectly good)
Part of the problem with “The Problem of Evil” is assuming your personal experience turning sour is a sign of an existential “evil”. Take this to a macro-level of the natural world and you can argue the wolf eating the sheep is “evil”. And the sheep eating the grass is “evil”. And the grass polluting our air with coercive oxygen is “evil”. But then you’re in the position of arguing that existence is evil, which flies in the face of the Abrahamic assumptions of creation.
Does your single bad day refute the eternal existence of the Perfect Being? Does your pessimistic view of the natural order refute a Perfect Being? Or is the problem entirely with your personal limited perception and selfish worldview?
it seems logically impossible for significant evil to exist, as god would both know about it and have the power to prevent it.
It seems logically impossible to define “evil” objectively. You’re coming into the conversation as an ill-informed and deeply biased observer.
Is the fly evil because it lays maggots on your meat? Is the spider evil for killing the fly? Is the rabbit evil for killing the spider? Are you evil for killing the rabbit? Well, then why are you complaining about the fly spoiling your dinner?
Humans seem to define evil merely as unpleasantness, as though “pleasant” and “good” are synonymous. But if you just want to feel pleasant all the time, we’ve got a tool for that. It’s called heroin. Shoot up until you waste away and then tell me that God Is Great, because you’ve lost the ability to perceive your misery. Your actions will be perfectly predictable and your behaviors extremely pliable, while your sensations are entirely blissful. Is this the Divine Perfection you’re looking for?
Is the fly evil because it lays maggots on your meat?..
No, as these are things they must do to survive.
However, if these creatures were designed by a creator in such a way that they had to perform “evil” to survive, then they are innocent and the creator is evil.
If you really want to get to the nut of “The Problem of Evil”, you get into how many acts of personal survival impinge on the welfare of others.
However, if these creatures were designed by a creator in such a way that they had to perform “evil” to survive, then they are innocent and the creator is evil.
And if there is no Prime Designer? Does that mean they are evil by their nature?
Again, we’re hand-waving the term “evil”. One of the biggest problems of The Problem of Evil is defining evil. Because, God or No God, what we’re headed towards is a very nihilist philosophy of existence itself being a malicious force.
That side is definitely the most interesting, but the reverse side of the Problem of Evil is interesting too: if there is no god/God, then why do we call things evil. How can we apply some objective morality if everything is random and subjective?
There are good and interesting arguments related to evolution creating a sense of common morality, like an instinct, to drive behavior that is beneficial to the continuation of the species and a bloodline. But some of what we consider moral is uniquely against a ‘survival of the fittest’ framework.
Being kind and giving extra resources to those with disabilities, and to some degree even those of lower status. In theory, pure evolution should operate selfishly (more for me less for you) most of the time and even a more complex evolutionary pressure that seeks the benefit of the species vs the individual. There’s no benefit to caring for and giving resources to those who can’t or objectively (again, to from a pure genetics perspective l shouldn’t be allowed to breed. But morally, as a society, we care extra for them, not less. Anyone who wants to be rid of or take from those unfortunates are (rightly) considered sociopaths.
a better question is ‘the problem of evil’
if god is truly omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), and omnibenevolent (perfectly good), then it seems logically impossible for significant evil to exist, as god would both know about it and have the power to prevent it.
this is my favorite as the theistic hand-waving needing to resolve it is incredible from the start.
Why would you come to someone’s question, not engaging with the question in the slightest, to say “my thing is better”?
questions about god, which is commonly defined as “perfect in every possible way” are irrelevant when it’s been demonstrated that god, by that definition, doesn’t exist
god didn’t “give” people emotions. people evolved that way
it’s not been resolved, despite millions of apologists dedicating their lives to the problem of evil for thousands of years
every discussion just ends up in “you need to have faith,” which literally just means “believe something to be true simply because you want it to be true, without any good reason.” and no, “because otherwise where did we come from” (god of the gaps–another fallacy that seems to be the best they can come up with) isn’t a good reason
I mean there are some who claim to have solved it. You see, you have to have evil to understand good. Since they think their god is the ultimate good, the more evil you see just proves how good their god is. After all, how can you consider a stick straight if you don’t have a crooked one to compare it to?
This is exactly why I believe in an evil god. The problem of good is then easily solved. All that good in the world just proves how truly evil my god is. Burn in hell you sinners… although his punishments might be good? Cause he’s evil. I dunno. Trust me it works. Just have faith.
I don’t understand why a god would have to be all good as humans understand goodness. I’m more open to the idea that God either set things in motion and stopped caring, or is actively ambivalent and lives to cause a ruckus on occasion for his entertainment. This view allows for the existence of preventable evil.
Because an uncaring or immoral god is unworthy of praise or devotion. Why donate your life or your fortune to a god that created the universe and then fucked off?
And allows for free will.
Part of the problem with “The Problem of Evil” is assuming your personal experience turning sour is a sign of an existential “evil”. Take this to a macro-level of the natural world and you can argue the wolf eating the sheep is “evil”. And the sheep eating the grass is “evil”. And the grass polluting our air with coercive oxygen is “evil”. But then you’re in the position of arguing that existence is evil, which flies in the face of the Abrahamic assumptions of creation.
Does your single bad day refute the eternal existence of the Perfect Being? Does your pessimistic view of the natural order refute a Perfect Being? Or is the problem entirely with your personal limited perception and selfish worldview?
It seems logically impossible to define “evil” objectively. You’re coming into the conversation as an ill-informed and deeply biased observer.
Is the fly evil because it lays maggots on your meat? Is the spider evil for killing the fly? Is the rabbit evil for killing the spider? Are you evil for killing the rabbit? Well, then why are you complaining about the fly spoiling your dinner?
Humans seem to define evil merely as unpleasantness, as though “pleasant” and “good” are synonymous. But if you just want to feel pleasant all the time, we’ve got a tool for that. It’s called heroin. Shoot up until you waste away and then tell me that God Is Great, because you’ve lost the ability to perceive your misery. Your actions will be perfectly predictable and your behaviors extremely pliable, while your sensations are entirely blissful. Is this the Divine Perfection you’re looking for?
No, as these are things they must do to survive.
However, if these creatures were designed by a creator in such a way that they had to perform “evil” to survive, then they are innocent and the creator is evil.
If you really want to get to the nut of “The Problem of Evil”, you get into how many acts of personal survival impinge on the welfare of others.
And if there is no Prime Designer? Does that mean they are evil by their nature?
Again, we’re hand-waving the term “evil”. One of the biggest problems of The Problem of Evil is defining evil. Because, God or No God, what we’re headed towards is a very nihilist philosophy of existence itself being a malicious force.
That side is definitely the most interesting, but the reverse side of the Problem of Evil is interesting too: if there is no god/God, then why do we call things evil. How can we apply some objective morality if everything is random and subjective?
There are good and interesting arguments related to evolution creating a sense of common morality, like an instinct, to drive behavior that is beneficial to the continuation of the species and a bloodline. But some of what we consider moral is uniquely against a ‘survival of the fittest’ framework.
Like I said, at the very least it is interesting
I’m curious, have any examples?
Being kind and giving extra resources to those with disabilities, and to some degree even those of lower status. In theory, pure evolution should operate selfishly (more for me less for you) most of the time and even a more complex evolutionary pressure that seeks the benefit of the species vs the individual. There’s no benefit to caring for and giving resources to those who can’t or objectively (again, to from a pure genetics perspective l shouldn’t be allowed to breed. But morally, as a society, we care extra for them, not less. Anyone who wants to be rid of or take from those unfortunates are (rightly) considered sociopaths.