Solve the Problem of Evil

[El_Machinae]

Well, if I create something which will then do something, and I don't do anything to stop it, then I've created that situation.

If I drop a ball into the puddle, I've caused the splash. If I drop a baby into a puddle, despite its free will, I've still caused the splash.

 

[Gary Childress]

This thread shows why syllogisms are not trusted as the only means of generating truth, else syllogists would put scientists out of business.

There is an unstated assumption in the syllogism, which is "That which God creates can not deviate from behavior instilled in it at creation". The related myth creation stories often have a revolt in heaven whereby one of the creations with enough power to create evil, revolts against the creator. E.g. Frankenstein, Lucifer.

So the argument is wrong? Is it not true that God created everything which exists? Is it not true that evil exists? Is it not true that God does not create evil? Is it therefore logically possible that all these things could be true? God could create everything and not create evil which exists?

At this point your arguement merely becomes circular.

The real crux of the question is this:

If God indirectly allows for evil to occur is he actually creating it?

So God does not create evil then? But I assume evil exists in which case God would not have created everything which exists? I mean if evil exists and God does not create it then he didn't create everything which exists. If God created everything which exists and evil exists he must have created it too?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Well, if I create something which will then do something, and I don't do anything to stop it, then I've created that situation.

If I drop a ball into the puddle, I've caused the splash. If I drop a baby into a puddle, despite its free will, I've still caused the splash.

But no one else's free will was involved in the process. (The baby may have free will, but not against gravity).

 

[GoodGame]

Well, if I create something which will then do something, and I don't do anything to stop it, then I've created that situation.

If I drop a ball into the puddle, I've caused the splash. If I drop a baby into a puddle, despite its free will, I've still caused the splash.

I agree, you have some ethical input if something you own/create does damage on it's own, but yet in real life, we sever that relationship when the kiddie hits 'majority' age, and at least some of us recognize that it's the "tool that kills, not the tool-maker".

That's a bit different then creating a stone, setting it in motion with gravity, and the stone does damage. Generally, no way to wipe your hands completely of that situation, though your defense lawyer might try to mitigate your involvement.

 

[El_Machinae]

But no one else's free will was involved in the process. (The baby may have free will, but not against gravity).

My only begotten son is ready to catch the baby, if the baby were only to ask. Did I still create the splash? The baby is allowing the splash to happen if it does nothing. I set the whole thing into motion.

 

[Gary Childress]

I agree, you have some ethical input if something you own/create does damage on it's own, but yet in real life, we sever that relationship when the kiddie hits 'majority' age, and at least some of us recognize that it's the "tool that kills, not the tool-maker".

That's a bit different then creating a stone, setting it in motion with gravity, and the stone does damage. Generally, no way to wipe your hands completely of that situation, though your defense lawyer might try to mitigate your involvement.

So God created evil. Case closed. Forget the benevolent God theory. Next argument.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

My only begotten son is ready to catch the baby, if the baby were only to ask. Did I still create the splash? The baby is allowing the splash to happen if it does nothing. I set the whole thing into motion.

Well, it's not a baby if it can ask, and if the possibility of its asking exists and it doesn't you are not entirely responsible.

So God created evil. Case closed. Forget the benevolent God theory. Next argument.

Well, or at least not benevolent and omnipotent.

 

[El_Machinae]

Not entirely responsible, no, but still responsible. I had the option of not dropping a baby, or a ball, into the puddle.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Partially responsible, yes, I won't dispute that at all.

 

[Elear]

The best logical explanation I can come with for this:

It is like the silverware manufacture who makes knives. It doesn't make knives so that some insane person can stab their neighbor. That was not their intent, but an unfortunate side-effect. They create knives for a benevolent purpose (let's put aside Adam Smith here ).

So, within the example, if God were to create evil as an indirect result of creating people with free will, yes, God might have created evil in a way, as Eran said, partially responsible for that evil. However, he could still be benevolent because the purpose was not for evil and evil is only consequential when you allow the blessing of a free life.

Let's put it this way: regardless of what you presently believe, suppose we could know for certain that a God created you, but as a result, evil as well? Is your first reaction to curse this God for creating you and allowing you to live a life or curse this God for the evil that humankind brings upon the world?

There is no right or wrong answer, just something interesting to ponder.

 

[Gary Childress]

The best logical explanation I can come with for this:

It is like the silverware manufacture who makes knives. It doesn't make knives so that some insane person can stab their neighbor. That was not their intent, but an unfortunate side-effect. They create knives for a benevolent purpose (let's put aside Adam Smith here ).

So, within the example, if God were to create evil as an indirect result of creating people with free will, yes, God might have created evil in a way, as Eran said, partially responsible for that evil. However, he could still be benevolent because the purpose was not for evil and evil is only consequential when you allow the blessing of a free life.

So God made evil so people could be good? If he really wanted people to be good, couldn't he have just made us good instead of giving us freewill? Why even create evil if he doesn't want people to be evil? That seems counter intuitive. Maybe he wants some people to be evil? Or maybe he created evil but then because he is not omniscient he didn't forsee that there would be Hitlers or Stalins coming from it?

 

[Ammar]

I consider the evil as a consequence of free will argument to be a fallacy.

But even if you accept it, it can only really explain why bad things happen to people at the hand of other people. Meaning murder, war and general crime would be covered by this.

It offers no explanation why people are killed in natural disasters, by various diseases or even in childbirth. Who exactly is exercising free will there?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Maybe "natural evil" isn't as bad as we think it is - bad enough to be sure, but in the long run just adding to the variety of ways in which we die.

 

[GoodGame]

So God created evil. Case closed. Forget the benevolent God theory. Next argument.

But only if Gary Childress is God.

I'll exercise my own Constitutional rights, thank ya.

 

[Elear]

So God made evil so people could be good? If he really wanted people to be good, couldn't he have just made us good instead of giving us freewill? Why even create evil if he doesn't want people to be evil? That seems counter intuitive. Maybe he wants some people to be evil? Or maybe he created evil but then because he is not omniscient he didn't forsee that there would be Hitlers or Stalins coming from it?

Maybe. Your thoughts are really interesting to think about. I always like to consider challenging philosophy because it continually helps to formulate my spiritual views. I'm just musing here. I don't hold all the answers in life.

What if evil is not so much a direct object to be created as a perceived feeling we experience from actions inflicted upon us or others?

I can provide another example. If I have a wonderful little baby, that baby can grow up, and because it is inherently capable of it, choose to be a mass murderer...the next Hilter or Stalin. It wouldn't make very much sense to then tell me: "You shouldn't have had a child because he could have grown up to be a Hilter or Stalin!" Of course he could have. So, it follows that if God is a parent-like figure responsible in creation, why is he to blame for the actions of any creation? Let's blame Hilter and Stalin for Hilter and Stalin.

 

[Irish Caesar]

I don't think any of the three poll options are false.

The catch is that evil is not a "thing" to be created.

 

[MobBoss]

So God does not create evil then?

Define evil. Bear in mind your definition and Gods may differ. Or maybe not. Who knows?

But I assume evil exists in which case God would not have created everything which exists? I mean if evil exists and God does not create it then he didn't create everything which exists. If God created everything which exists and evil exists he must have created it too?

And if you think those questions confusing, then what about allowing evil to occur so that eventually good will arise from it?

But again I feel compelled to point out the circular nature of your line of questioning. Your're not getting anywhere.

 

[Yeekim]

So God created evil. Case closed. Forget the benevolent God theory.

So do you conclude that God who created evil would be malevolent? But besides evil there is also good in this world.
I can't see why creating evil (or possibility for evil to exist) would mean He is not benevolent.
Without Evil, there couldn't be Good either. I can't see any problem here. And I am even not a believer.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Let's not fall for the assumption that you need to have evil in order to have free will.

Hear hear.

Is not that I try to avoid logic. Any logic created by you or me is "just" a human logic.

Just-human logic is the only logic we got! Use it, or be illogical.

But then again as I stated earlier in my previous posts, a Universe B with humans as mindless robots that are programmed to love God. Programmed to all think and behave the same way. Programmed to always be peaceful and harmony with each other. There will be no concept of good and evil.

Bzzt. Universe C: God creates people with free will, but just before He pushes the final GO button on each one, He foresees whether the person will choose evil. If so, He scraps that one and moves on to the next.

The catch is that evil is not a "thing" to be created.

Explain to me like I'm a 6-year-old: how does that help?

 

[Gary Childress]

But only if Gary Childress is God.

I'll exercise my own Constitutional rights, thank ya.

So what is your conclusion? Did God create everything that exists or did he not? Does he create evil or does he not? Does evil exists or does it not. Or are you simply exercising your constitutional rights to think illogically?

So, it follows that if God is a parent-like figure responsible in creation, why is he to blame for the actions of any creation? Let's blame Hilter and Stalin for Hilter and Stalin.

So God does not create evil then? Then God didn't create everything that exists, unless evil does not exist.

I don't think any of the three poll options are false.

The catch is that evil is not a "thing" to be created.

Well according to Ammar the Bible says God created evil. See post #9.

In any case, So evil is not created? Therefore God does/did not create evil? Does evil exist? If evil exists but was not created by God then he did not create everything which exists did he? Or does evil simply not exist?

But again I feel compelled to point out the circular nature of your line of questioning. Your're not getting anywhere.

I don't see how it is circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is when one premise is supported by a following premise which is supported by the prior one. Example: God must exist because I have a strong feeling of certainty that he does. The existence of God implies that my strong feelings of certainty are to be counted as evidence. This is roughly borrowed from Descartes' "cogito". Do you see the difference in that my statements do not depend upon each other for their validity. The statements stand on their own ground. It's a simple matter of three contradictory statements all being viewed as true when in fact logic dictates that they cannot all be true. It has nothing to do with circular reasoning.

So do you conclude that God who created evil would be malevolent? But besides evil there is also good in this world.
I can't see why creating evil (or possibility for evil to exist) would mean He is not benevolent.
Without Evil, there couldn't be Good either. I can't see any problem here. And I am even not a believer.

I conclude that God is no more benevolent because he creates evil than he is malevolent because he creates good. He's not necessarily malevolent, just not benevolent either.