The problem of evil

[bahman]

The problem of evil refers to natural evils that are caused by God. God is assumed to be good though so there is a tension between the existence of a good God and natural evils. People use this problem as an argument against the existence of God. God however could be good and evil, so His creation is as well good and evil. So the problem of evil is resolved.

[LuckyR]

To my understanding the "problem of evil" presumes an all good single (monotheistic) god. Though resolving this problem on no way resolves the objective presence of gods.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The problem of evil refers to natural evils that are caused by God. God is assumed to be good though so there is a tension between the existence of a good God and natural evils. People use this problem as an argument against the existence of God. God however could be good and evil, so His creation is as well good and evil. So the problem of evil is resolved.

It is not with reference to only natural evils but any thing that is regard as evil, e.g. genocides, mas rapes, mass tortures, and the likes.
If one believe in a God it has to be absolutely good and omni-whatever that is good.
As such, the actual existence of evil [as defined] enable doubts to creep into and erode the believers' confidence on the existence of a real God.

The above is significant because the majority of theists [>90% - Abrahamic, Hindus and others] rely in their belief of a God to assure them of eternal life in heaven or paradise or reincarnation to higher life.
God is this case must be omni-good, i.e. omnibenevolent, omnipotent, etc.
But because evil [events] of all kinds is evident, that is the 'Problem of Evil'.

If no one believes in a God [must be omni-good if believed], then there is no Problem of Evil.

The Problem of Evil is targeted at the majority of theists [>90% - Abrahamic, Hindus and others]
There are theists who merely believe in a God but don't give a damn with it. They do not have the Problem of Evil dilemma.


The fact is
It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229
so there is no No Problem of Evil in the first place.

[Dontaskme]

The problem of evil refers to natural evils that are caused by God.

Based on what you said earlier about a ''not knowing'' of any causal agent who is able to be blamed for the creation of evil. Then I understand what you are referring to. There can be no problem with evil, when there is no known agent who created it. Except to say, when there appears to be an imagined agent, but even an imagined agent is impossible to exist as real. So the problem of created evil is resolved. I understand that and agree with you.

God is assumed to be good though so there is a tension between the existence of a good God and natural evils. People use this problem as an argument against the existence of God. God however could be good and evil, so His creation is as well good and evil. So the problem of evil is resolved.

Yes, the problem of good or evil will be null and voided... when the assumption that there is a known agent creator known by man is negated by man leaving nothing left but to be this obvious not-knowing. So until humans relinquish their need to know what they can never know, the problem of evil will continue for him/her. In other words, no claim, no blame.

[bahman]

To my understanding the "problem of evil" presumes an all good single (monotheistic) god.

True.

Though resolving this problem on no way resolves the objective presence of gods.

What do you mean by gods?

[bahman]

The problem of evil refers to natural evils that are caused by God. God is assumed to be good though so there is a tension between the existence of a good God and natural evils. People use this problem as an argument against the existence of God. God however could be good and evil, so His creation is as well good and evil. So the problem of evil is resolved.

It is not with reference to only natural evils but any thing that is regard as evil, e.g. genocides, mas rapes, mass tortures, and the likes.
If one believe in a God it has to be absolutely good and omni-whatever that is good.
As such, the actual existence of evil [as defined] enable doubts to creep into and erode the believers' confidence on the existence of a real God.

The above is significant because the majority of theists [>90% - Abrahamic, Hindus and others] rely in their belief of a God to assure them of eternal life in heaven or paradise or reincarnation to higher life.
God is this case must be omni-good, i.e. omnibenevolent, omnipotent, etc.

Where do you take the omnibenevolent from? God created Hell for those who are not following His command. Is Hell good?

But because evil [events] of all kinds is evident, that is the 'Problem of Evil'.

If no one believes in a God [must be omni-good if believed], then there is no Problem of Evil.

Or God exists and He is both good and evil.

The Problem of Evil is targeted at the majority of theists [>90% - Abrahamic, Hindus and others]
There are theists who merely believe in a God but don't give a damn with it. They do not have the Problem of Evil dilemma.


The fact is
It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229
so there is no No Problem of Evil in the first place.

I am not going to discuss that with you again.

[bahman]

The problem of evil refers to natural evils that are caused by God.

Based on what you said earlier about a ''not knowing'' of any causal agent who is able to be blamed for the creation of evil. Then I understand what you are referring to. There can be no problem with evil, when there is no known agent who created it. Except to say, when there appears to be an imagined agent, but even an imagined agent is impossible to exist as real. So the problem of created evil is resolved. I understand that and agree with you.

Cool.

God is assumed to be good though so there is a tension between the existence of a good God and natural evils. People use this problem as an argument against the existence of God. God however could be good and evil, so His creation is as well good and evil. So the problem of evil is resolved.

Yes, the problem of good or evil will be null and voided... when the assumption that there is a known agent creator known by man is negated by man leaving nothing left but to be this obvious not-knowing. So until humans relinquish their need to know what they can never know, the problem of evil will continue for him/her. In other words, no claim, no blame.

True.

[LuckyR]

To my understanding the "problem of evil" presumes an all good single (monotheistic) god.

True.

Though resolving this problem in no way resolves the objective presence of gods.

What do you mean by gods?

Uummm... deities. Those declared by the religious to be superhuman (and are thus commonly labeled as worthy of worship status).

[bahman]

To my understanding the "problem of evil" presumes an all good single (monotheistic) god.

True.

Though resolving this problem in no way resolves the objective presence of gods.

What do you mean by gods?

Uummm... deities. Those declared by the religious to be superhuman (and are thus commonly labeled as worthy of worship status).

I see, so by god, you don't mean the creator?

[LuckyR]

True.


What do you mean by gods?

Uummm... deities. Those declared by the religious to be superhuman (and are thus commonly labeled as worthy of worship status).

I see, so by god, you don't mean the creator?

Many commonly bestow that job description on their gods.

[bahman]

Uummm... deities. Those declared by the religious to be superhuman (and are thus commonly labeled as worthy of worship status).

I see, so by god, you don't mean the creator?

Many commonly bestow that job description on their gods.

Ok.

[nemos]

The human mind works only with comparisons (I will be happy if you can refute). White is white only on a black background, good can only be good as long as evil exists and is recognizable only on the background of evil.
Therefore, these concepts will always go hand in hand as long as they exist, because if one disappears, the other will also disappear. No matter how bad something is, there can always be something worse, against which the first evil can look quite good. No matter how good something is, there can always be something better against which the first one may not look so good.

Just like the poles of a magnet, no matter how many parts you divide them into, each part will still have both poles.

[iambiguous]

The problem of evil that most plagues us [still] is this...that behaviors some call evil others call good. Then what?

Also, different folks living different lives actually confronting how their own understanding of evil is rooted existentially/subjectively in dasein. And, I suggest, given the psychology of objectivism, don't hold your breath expecting that to change.

Centuries pass and neither scientists nor philosophers nor theologians have been able to link us deontologically to objective morality.

Given, say, a particular context?

[bahman]

The human mind works only with comparisons (I will be happy if you can refute). White is white only on a black background, good can only be good as long as evil exists and is recognizable only on the background of evil.
Therefore, these concepts will always go hand in hand as long as they exist, because if one disappears, the other will also disappear. No matter how bad something is, there can always be something worse, against which the first evil can look quite good. No matter how good something is, there can always be something better against which the first one may not look so good.

Just like the poles of a magnet, no matter how many parts you divide them into, each part will still have both poles.

Does evil exist in Heaven?

[bahman]

The problem of evil that most plagues us [still] is this...that behaviors some call evil others call good. Then what?

We can distinguish between evil and good behavior.

Also, different folks living different lives actually confronting how their own understanding of evil is rooted existentially/subjectively in dasein.

Why it is so?

And, I suggest, given the psychology of objectivism, don't hold your breath expecting that to change.

What do you mean?

Centuries pass and neither scientists nor philosophers nor theologians have been able to link us deontologically to objective morality.

I am not talking about objective morality.

Given, say, a particular context?

What?