Problem of evil

[3Sum]

One thing I've always wondered about theists is how do they reconcile the problem of evil with a supposedly omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent god and also how it affects their ideas of heaven and hell.

Just to get one thing straight before I start. I'm using the common theistic definition of god as a being who created everything and is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. So, when I say "god" or "good god" I'm referring to the concept of a god I just defined, not an abstract deistic or a pantheistic god.


1) God's lack of reaction to evil - Some people try to argue that god should remove evil in the world and complain about god's absence of action during horrible acts throughout human history. However, even though the reasoning in those arguments is correct, it's based on false premises - that a good god would PURPOSELY create evil and let it occur in the world. I intend to go to the root of the problem - Why would a good god create evil in the first place?

2) A good god wouldn't create evil - A god is omnipotent, therefore he is capable of creating a world without evil. He is omnibenevolent, therefore he wishes to create a world with maximal goodness. And he is omniscient(which is a little redundant considering he already has omnipotence) so he knows how to realize his plans. Evil and good are reversely proportionate -> The less evil there is in the world the more good there is in the world. If there is no evil in the world then there is a maximal amount of goodness in the world. Therefore, a god would strive to creating a world with maximal goodness and no evil.

Just consider this and tell me which god is the better one: a)god X creates a world A which is maximal in goodness. No living being ever suffers and everybody and everything lives in perfect harmony without ever hurting each other. Like an utopia we humans(or at least I) strive towards so much. God doesn't require of us to be irrational and have faith(belief without evidence) and instead interacts with humans daily, helps them and provides divine guidance to our race. Now, THAT sounds like a good god.

b)god Y creates a world B full of suffering. Now I'm talking about our world, earth. Billions and billions of living beings suffered, enduring agonizing pain and dying in various brutal ways. Thousands of people die of hunger and horrible diseases, people are getting shot, raped and beaten to death every day. And what about carnivores? Seriously, an organism (supposedly) designed purely for BRUTALLY KILLING others? If predator doesn't catchy it's prey, the predator dies of starvation. If predator catches its prey, the prey dies an agonizing and frightening death. Not to mention how much I could write about all the various nasty diseases. Ever heard of smallpox and black plague? What kind of a SICK, SADISTIC designer would design something like that? And what about natural disasters? Tornados, earthquakes, volcano eruptions, floods, tsunamis etc. Such phenomenons wouldn't happen in a perfectly designed earth, now would it? That means that god either: 1) Couldn't have made it better(not omnipotent and omniscient), 2) Didn't want to make it better(not omnibenevolent) and 3) Maybe, just MAYBE... god doesn't exist .


I think I'm justified in saying that god X is better than god Y, am I not? Apparently not, according to some believers. I'm anticipating that many of you will say "YOU FORGOT ABOUT FREE WILL". No I didn't. In my experience it's the most frequent argument used against problem of evil and it fails for numerous reasons, first of all it doesn't even address all evil, it just TRIES to address evil from humans. I'll divide evils in 2 categories:

1) Evils in nature. Mostly what I described in b). Natural disasters and diseases. Your free will argument doesn't touch on those, so even if free will was a valid argument(and it's NOT), the problem of evil still wouldn't be solved since you have to account for a supposedly good god creating such monstrosities. In fact, I have never even heard of a good argument against natural evils and most believers would either stop arguing with me or completely ignore my points about them. I remember once when a guy attempted to justify natural disasters and diseases by saying god has a plan for us. Do I even need to explain why that is an invalid argument?

2) Evils occuring as a result of human nature. Here is where believers try to explain everything away by free will... and they fail.

REFUTATION OF FREE WILL ARGUMENT

1) Free will is an illusion. I can't really DO what I WANT, I don't even have the free will to CONTROL what I WANT. Example for the former: I can't survive without nutrition. Example for the latter: I'm a male and I can't want to have sex with another man since I'm not biologically determined to be homosexual.

We humans are simply acting according to our DNA, brain and chemical reactions in it. Who (supposedly) designed them? God. So, god is ultimately responsible for whatever we do since he supposedly designed us. And since he is omniscient and omnipotent he could have designed us any way he wanted and he knows what the repercussions will be of any particular type of design and knows what we will do before us.

We are limited by natural laws, state laws and even our own mind and imagination.

2) Free will, evil and morality. - A good god wouldn't create beings wanting to do evil. Besides, god supposedly already made a lot of limitations already(as I listed above) so I don't see why wouldn't he make a POSITIVE limitation and remove some of the NEGATIVE ones. Removing evil from mankind would be a POSITIVE limitation. Even us humans are moral and rational enough to determine that absolute freedom is negative for the society and that we need limitations(LAWS) and that an individual is free as long as he doesn't hurt others(do evil). Not only is wanting to do evil unnecessary in being a moral agent and a free person, it's UNWANTED since us moral humans DON'T WANT others to want to do harm and evil, even at the expense of their freedom (prisons). So why doesn't god realize that and remove evil from mankind? Why didn't god make us FREE FROM EVIL? God could have given us the ability to make choices but between good choices, not good and bad choices.

I'll try to illustrate another point with the following question:

If you see a pedophile trying to rape a child would you: A) Stop him from hurting the child or B) Say: "Oh well, it's your free will to rape that child and I can't interfere with other people's free will, so go ahead".

I assume that you would do A. So why does god do B? What kind of a sadistic, perverse, psychopath monster creates a psychopath and then lets it rape a child, CARING MORE ABOUT THE PEDOPHILE'S FREE WILL THAN THE VICTIM'S?


3) Heaven and hell, concerning free will. This argument only applies to those who believe in heaven and hell, the rest can skip it

So, a presumably good god creates evil beings in a world full of evil and lets them do evil to innocent, good beings. He thinks that somehow a world WITH evil is BETTER than a world without. Or does he?

Do we have free will in heaven and hell? The answer for hell is an obvious NO. Setting aside the ridiculous concept of hell, an infinite punishment by torture for a finite sin which ultimately won't benefit anybody since the victim will be tortured forever AGAINST HIS FREE WILL in god's personal torture chamber I'll mostly focus on heaven.

Assuming that in heaven nobody ever does anything evil, do we have free will in heaven? Pick: A) No - We lose our free will in heaven or B) Yes, free will can be had without ever doing evil.

Also, if there is a heaven what's the point of this life? In comparison to heaven this life seems pointless. There's no reason to live in an imperfect world full of evil and suffering if you can live in a perfect world full of goodness. So why wouldn't everybody just suicide and go to heaven? Though if heaven really existed you wouldn't even call it "death" and "suicide", but transcendence to a higher, better reality. And since god is supposedly good I'm sure he wouldn't mind us avoiding unnecessary suffering. So why don't we massively commit suicides?

Simply, because we know that this life is the only one we have and that heaven doesn't exist and that's a proven scientific fact (psychology, brain biology anyone?). About as certain as gravity. Most people know that on a subconscious level anyway, and that's why they don't commit suicide and are still afraid of death and mourn their loved ones when they die.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I'm not completely finished yet, I will also formulate some of my arguments in form of a deductive logical argument when I find some more time.

Sorry for the long post and thanks for reading this far

[Vulcan Logician]

I believe it was John Stuart Mill who proposed a deity who was not omnipotent. (I know this does not fit your definition.) In Mill's conception, God was so powerful that he is assumed to be omnipotent. Just like an ant might recon that a human is omnipotent because he is so large and powerful-- yet, as humans, we know better. Mill postulates then that God created the earth for the pleasure of mankind in the same way an adult may put on a high school dance for the enjoyment of students. The adult could hardly be blamed if someone falls and injures himself during the dance. Nor would he be deemed complicit in violence if a fight breaks out during the dance. The "creator" of the dance intended for the students to have a good time and enjoy themselves... but the students have to meet the "creator" half way.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here... er... God's advocate. This conundrum (as highlighted by Epicurus so long ago) is one of many reasons not to believe in an all-powerful deity. Atheism seems to be the logical conclusion.

[bobevenson]

I refer you to Revelation 17:17, "For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled," and "The Ouzo Prophecy" at http://church-of-ouzo.com/pdf/ouzo-prophecy.pdf.

[Blaggard]

Well evil will exist if man has free will because men are weak and prone to seeking and using power, but that and the issue of whether he is free is a moot point in itself, assuming he is though... generally though I think good and evil should be replaced with the terms immoral and moral, or ethical broadly, because good and evil are too loaded with religion and emotionally charged. But generally I think both have to exist to make any sort of coherent moral framework so if God is allowing man to act freely, and the Devil is broadly a bit of a tragic pawn then yes.

God would not create evil no, but he is powerless to control the actions of men directly as that would pull up free will issues. God says man has free will, God says that he cannot lie, a subset of omnibenevolence. Therefore evil must and will exist, and almost has to. In the garden of Eden there was no good or evil, but it was a stagnant place, lacking any sort of free will. Hence the serpent which is interpreted as Satan by Christians but doesn't seen to resemble him is a necessary literal Deus ex machina that must happen. Both death and knowledge are necessary if man is to have free will, Adam and Eve were little more than slaves effectively, so they had to eat of the fruit it is a theological necessity, just as Jesus death was.

Incidentally although fantasy the Silmarillion is basically the God and the Devil story with Eru the one God and Morgoth the Devil as the protagonists and Sauron the corrupted "angel". Sauron is a servant of Aule the "Arch Angel" or Valar of law order and construction. Sauron fears mans free will, will destroy the perfect order that Eru created so he is corrupted by Morgoth and seeks to enslave mankind by any means necessary to restore perfect order to the song of Ainu, which Morgoth himself corrupted as he was meant to, Morgoth is brooding over being used as a pawn, and so sets out to destroy or enslave all God has created, that being Middle Earth by stealing tools of great power and ultimately creating hosts of Demons/Maia called Balrogs, spirits of fire, he also uses Ancalog a great dragin 10 times bigger even than Smaug and a host of Spiders under Ungolient the mother of all spiders, but Anculag is killed by Finglor and elf warrior and his death fall shatters and utterly destroys a mountain in Angmar the host is slowly defeated, the war for the heavens is won by the forces of good and Eru seals of the undying lands from ME so that no such powers such as those the "Archangels" posses can ever manifest on the mortal plain again. at the end of the 1st age Eru Iluvatar, attempting to stave of the machinations of Sauron the Black sends five Maia also know as Istari to Middle Earth to try and foil Sauron's will to dominate all life Gandalf protector of Arnor wielder the flame of Anor (Eru's minion), servant of the secret fire (Erus power to create life), Radaghast Protector of all animal life and the forests and trees etc, Saruman also protector of Gondor etc, and 2 green Wizards who are lost in the East lands.

Let's face it it is The war for heaven mentioned in Jewish texts. In The Bible defeated Satan is tossed out of heaven to Earth, in Tolkiens mythos he is cast into the void, prophecied to return in the future for a final confrontation.

[vid=jXlVtk92HPo][/vid]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXlVtk92HPo

I know not strictly on topic but it is a good source of the Jewish texts on the subject with some artistic license.

"There is no life... in the void... only death."

[3Sum]

I believe it was John Stuart Mill who proposed a deity who was not omnipotent. (I know this does not fit your definition.) In Mill's conception, God was so powerful that he is assumed to be omnipotent. Just like an ant might recon that a human is omnipotent because he is so large and powerful-- yet, as humans, we know better. Mill postulates then that God created the earth for the pleasure of mankind in the same way an adult may put on a high school dance for the enjoyment of students. The adult could hardly be blamed if someone falls and injures himself during the dance. Nor would he be deemed complicit in violence if a fight breaks out during the dance. The "creator" of the dance intended for the students to have a good time and enjoy themselves... but the students have to meet the "creator" half way.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here... er... God's advocate. This conundrum (as highlighted by Epicurus so long ago) is one of many reasons not to believe in an all-powerful deity. Atheism seems to be the logical conclusion.

I think that's a bad analogy. Even though omnipotence isn't required to create the universe, it still does require a LOT of power and knowledge. Just look at the video of the known universe on YouTube. To compare a being which supposedly has the capability of creating all that... with an adult organizing a high school dance... I mean, I could go into detail but I just find it so silly that I consider it to be a waste of time.

[3Sum]

Blaggard did you even read my OP? Cause I read your entire post and I already addressed and, I daresay, refuted most of your points and I hate to repeat myself. But fine.

Well evil will exist if man has free will because men are weak and prone to seeking and using power

Look at my Free will is an illusion argument. Anyway, man doesn't have free will and evil still exists. Everything that we are and that we do is determined by our body, brain and natural laws. Who designed all of these? God. How can you say then, that we have free will? Tell me one thing that we determine by "free will" and not our brain. "men are weak and prone to seeking and using power" Who designed men to be what they are? God could have designed them to be strong and aversive to seeking and using power.

but that and the issue of whether he is free is a moot point in itself, assuming he is though... generally though I think good and evil should be replaced with the terms immoral and moral, or ethical broadly, because good and evil are too loaded with religion and emotionally charged. But generally I think both have to exist to make any sort of coherent moral framework so if God is allowing man to act freely, and the Devil is broadly a bit of a tragic pawn then yes.

WHY does evil have to exist? Again, you didn't address my A good god wouldn't create evil argument. The more good there is in the world the less evil there is. So, not only that good can exist without evil, it is OPTIMAL for good to exist with as less evil as possible, preferably no evil at all because then the world would be maximally good. People can be free if evil exists as a concept, that is people are always wanting to do good deeds to each other even though they know they know what is evil and are capable of doing evil. Aren't us casual people the best example for that? Well, I don't know about you, but I try to be the best person I can be. I know that killing somebody would be wrong and that I could do it. But I don't do it. Thinking that evil is somehow necessary in the world is not only completely illogical, it's also extremely dangerous and one of the exact things that's hindering our progress.

God would not create evil no, but he is powerless to control the actions of men directly as that would pull up free will issues. God says man has free will, God says that he cannot lie, a subset of omnibenevolence. Therefore evil must and will exist, and almost has to. In the garden of Eden there was no good or evil, but it was a stagnant place, lacking any sort of free will. Hence the serpent which is interpreted as Satan by Christians but doesn't seen to resemble him is a necessary literal Deus ex machina that must happen. Both death and knowledge are necessary if man is to have free will, Adam and Eve were little more than slaves effectively, so they had to eat of the fruit it is a theological necessity, just as Jesus death was.

God would not create evil? Then why did he?

Also, are you conceding that god is not omnipotent?

If he doesn't control our actions then I pose you the challenge again: tell me one conclusion you came to using your free will and not using your brain(which was supposedly designed by god). Also, are you saying that god is allowing something to happen against his will? That somebody is succeeding in sabotaging god's plan?

And how is not lying a subset of omnibenevolence? Can't you think of a lie that serves a good purpose? "you're not fat" - this lie not only makes the girl feel better, it also spares you from being yelled at and slapped, and it's arguable how much is it a lie anyway cause of Sorites's paradox. One more common and more serious example. It's World War 2. You're living in Nazi Germany and hiding Jews from Nazis, when Nazis ring on your doorbell. Is it okay then to lie that you're not hiding any Jews to prevent Jews from being killed?

Why is death necessary to having free will? Because not only do I find it not necessary, I find it contradictory with free will if someone's free will is to live forever. I don't want to die, it's not my free will to die. So god is basically taking away my free will.

There is so much wrong with the whole concept of garden of Eden and I'm too lazy to state what should be the obvious so I'll just link 2 vids about it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ah5xFMYbP4s, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_a6RjR_AHY

I heard about the connection between LotR and Christianity but TBH I never really cared about it much, even though I like LotR. Come to think about it, I'd probably even like Christianity if people stopped pretending it's true. When I think some more, I'd probably even hate LotR if people pretended that it's true. That's why it's so important to draw a line between fantasy and reality and not pretend fantasy is reality (or that reality is fantasy).

Sauron's voice alone isn't nearly as scary as when watching a movie.

2 great videos about problem of evil for those who find my walls of text boring (I can't really blame you ): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmjFVP6qkiI, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1BzP1wr234

[Blaggard]

lol man doesn't have free will, but the Bible says he does, and if he doesn't your whole post is meaningless. If the Bible is wrong about that it is a waste of time arguing about good and evil most if not all depends on that. I love that statement though: free will does not exist, axiomatic n'est pas? Care to prove it so that the whole of philosophy is sure? Beside the point but the arrogance of stating fact by axiom is wasted on any decent philosopher. Not that I agree free will exists, or doesn't but I don't know it does or doesn't.

I agree that God can not be omnipotent, it makes no sense. I was agreeing with you, but I can see how you might think I was not.

And btw hell and heaven are by far an away the most ludicrous concepts ever created, an all loving God creating a place to torment people nah. Etc. Yes religion is useless and doesn't make sense.

Mind you if there was no evil then there would be no need for God in the first place, which is what I was trying to convey with the garden of Eden, no freedom of will, just peace and prosperity, man that would be hell, I'd be bored in 5 minutes unless Eve was one hell of a lover in the sack or could fire rainbows from her ass, and do magic tricks with her nipples, meh actually even that would become boring in the end, point is adversity is necessary or we die inside. Just how much well enough none at all you might as well not bother existing at all. I did try making that point with the adversary Morgoth, but clearly it was not coherent enough, ok. Morgoth is meant to upset the fabric of Arda and Ea, if he doesn't free will can't exist and existence is meaningless, good and evil is by the by and a consequence of mans ability to chose to do what he does or be a slave for all eternity, no God could sanction such suffering, at least no sane God.

[3Sum]

Mind you if there was no evil then there would be no need for God in the first place

I'm just using the usual theist's argument. This is something a little bit different. If there was no evil then there would be no need for God, true, but it also doesn't contradict the existence of a god. So if there was only good and no evil good god is possible but unnecessary(cause he already made all the conditions right for humans to prosper without him).

In our world there is evil and a good god is contradictory with our reality and therefore a logical impossibility.

I personally wouldn't dare to compare challenges in life to evils. Could you tell a raped woman or a child about to die of cancer or a person being tortured in middle ages that they just needed some "adversary" so that their life wouldn't be boring and pointless?

[Blaggard]

Mind you if there was no evil then there would be no need for God in the first place

I'm just using the usual theist's argument. This is something a little bit different. If there was no evil then there would be no need for God, true, but it also doesn't contradict the existence of a god. So if there was only good and no evil good god is possible but unnecessary(cause he already made all the conditions right for humans to prosper without him).

In our world there is evil and a good god is contradictory with our reality and therefore a logical impossibility.

I edited I think it makes a difference.

As I said free will has to exist or you cannot make an argument against God, because God is wrong and God can't be, and you end up with a paradoxical argument, if you are going to make an argument you need to make it so that it is not something that relies on something that already destroys religion as a whole in the first place, or you may well disappear up your own argument's bottom end.

If you want to disprove God as illogical you have to accept that he is not the God of the Bible in which case he is not the God you are debating, or you have to work within the axioms given in The Bible.

It is necessary that God allows free will, and that he is omnipotent that in itself makes no sense.

[3Sum]

As I said free will has to exist or you cannot make an argument against God, because God is wrong and God can't be, and you end up with a paradoxical argument, if you are going to make an argument you need to make it so that it is not something that relies on something that already destroys religion as a whole in the first place, or you may well disappear up your own argument's bottom end.

I'm really getting tired of the vagueness and ambiguity of the "free will" concept. Free will doesn't exist, as I already proved (and you failed to address any of my arguments or meet my challenge). I could possibly accept that free will exists in the most narrower sense possible(f.e. I choose vanilla ice cream instead of chocolate ice cream). But even then my decision is completely determined by my brain's chemical reactions at that point.

You're constantly asserting stuff and not backing it up with any evidence whatsoever.

So I need to make an argument against religion in a way that it doesn't disprove it? I'm sorry, I realize it's hard to see your favorite fantasy crushed so easily by the most simple logic, but that's how it is.

f you want to disprove God as illogical you have to accept that he is not the God of the Bible in which case he is not the God you are debating, or you have to work within the axioms given in The Bible.

Bible is full of contradictions and outright lies. Most Christians don't really derive their concept of god from there, heck you can't derive one consistent concept because of all the contradictions. There are fundamentalists, true, but they have to "doublethink" aka accept 2 contradictory statements which results in severe cognitive dissonance.

I just chose the definition of god that seems to be the most common one and includes traits of gods from most monotheistic religions. So basically when I disproved that god I disproved the existence of all gods of monotheistic religions who possess those traits.

It's kind of like how you don't need to look inside your pockets to know that planet Jupiter isn't there. You know where planet Jupiter is and you know that its mass and size are way too big for it to be in your pocket. So you can infer that Jupiter isn't in your pocket.

Same reasoning applied to god.

You can also disprove a completely evil god, too, cause of "problem of good" so not everything's that bad

So we're left with 2 options, 1) A god who created the whole universe for no seemingly obvious purpose and has went completely apathetic towards anything since then and maybe even ceased to exist or

2) There is no god, there never was a god and god is just a concept conceived by humans for various purposes. To explain the world in times of ignorance, to manipulate the ignorant masses and provide hope. This is the view that is most compatible with our impersonal, indifferent universe and our scientific discoveries in fields of social psychology so far. It's not as pretty as some fairy tales, but at least it's true and doesn't have any contradictions.

Considering what kind of god 1) is it really makes no difference if he exists or not IMO.

[HexHammer]

Blaggard did you even read my OP? Cause I read your entire post and I already addressed and, I daresay, refuted most of your points and I hate to repeat myself. But fine.

He did read OP and answerd accordingly, it's just you who are too blind to see it.

We are highly intelligent and can solve our own problems, we can invent guns, tanks and airplanes, we have hospitals, computers, and what not, yet we keep whining and wants God to help every problem we have, when we can solve it ourselves.

He won't run a fool's errand in being a slave for us, when it is us who should serve him.

[MMasz]

One thing I've always wondered about theists is how do they reconcile the problem of evil with a supposedly omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent god and also how it affects their ideas of heaven and hell.

Just to get one thing straight before I start. I'm using the common theistic definition of god as a being who created everything and is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. So, when I say "god" or "good god" I'm referring to the concept of a god I just defined, not an abstract deistic or a pantheistic god.


1) God's lack of reaction to evil - Some people try to argue that god should remove evil in the world and complain about god's absence of action during horrible acts throughout human history. However, even though the reasoning in those arguments is correct, it's based on false premises - that a good god would PURPOSELY create evil and let it occur in the world. I intend to go to the root of the problem - Why would a good god create evil in the first place?

2) A good god wouldn't create evil - A god is omnipotent, therefore he is capable of creating a world without evil. He is omnibenevolent, therefore he wishes to create a world with maximal goodness. And he is omniscient(which is a little redundant considering he already has omnipotence) so he knows how to realize his plans. Evil and good are reversely proportionate -> The less evil there is in the world the more good there is in the world. If there is no evil in the world then there is a maximal amount of goodness in the world. Therefore, a god would strive to creating a world with maximal goodness and no evil.

Just consider this and tell me which god is the better one: a)god X creates a world A which is maximal in goodness. No living being ever suffers and everybody and everything lives in perfect harmony without ever hurting each other. Like an utopia we humans(or at least I) strive towards so much. God doesn't require of us to be irrational and have faith(belief without evidence) and instead interacts with humans daily, helps them and provides divine guidance to our race. Now, THAT sounds like a good god.

b)god Y creates a world B full of suffering. Now I'm talking about our world, earth. Billions and billions of living beings suffered, enduring agonizing pain and dying in various brutal ways. Thousands of people die of hunger and horrible diseases, people are getting shot, raped and beaten to death every day. And what about carnivores? Seriously, an organism (supposedly) designed purely for BRUTALLY KILLING others? If predator doesn't catchy it's prey, the predator dies of starvation. If predator catches its prey, the prey dies an agonizing and frightening death. Not to mention how much I could write about all the various nasty diseases. Ever heard of smallpox and black plague? What kind of a SICK, SADISTIC designer would design something like that? And what about natural disasters? Tornados, earthquakes, volcano eruptions, floods, tsunamis etc. Such phenomenons wouldn't happen in a perfectly designed earth, now would it? That means that god either: 1) Couldn't have made it better(not omnipotent and omniscient), 2) Didn't want to make it better(not omnibenevolent) and 3) Maybe, just MAYBE... god doesn't exist .

I'm going to address your initial post as I don't have time to read the responses. I am a Christian so will only give my thoughts from a Christian perspective rather than other religions.

First, where do you get your definitions of omnibenevolent, omnipotent, etc ? If they are not coming from the Bible, then you are smuggling definitions which do not apply to the problem of evil, so your argument is baseless.

Second, you then wrote. "A good god wouldn't create evil." Again, I would ask where in the Bible you come up with this idea? What if God has a purpose for the evil that exists? Then it would be necessary for him to bring evil into existence. Additionally, you've not defined good from a Biblical perspective and have posited your own view of what "good" entails.

Third, you wrote, "god X creates a world A which is maximal in goodness. No living being ever suffers and everybody and everything lives in perfect harmony without ever hurting each other." If this were the case, then the concept of "good" would be meaningless given there is nothing to compare it to. “Good” becomes like the color blue. Is blue good or bad or is it just blue?

[Vulcan Logician]

I think that's a bad analogy. Even though omnipotence isn't required to create the universe, it still does require a LOT of power and knowledge. Just look at the video of the known universe on YouTube. To compare a being which supposedly has the capability of creating all that... with an adult organizing a high school dance... I mean, I could go into detail but I just find it so silly that I consider it to be a waste of time.

I wasn't comparing the two in terms of sheer power, simply motivation. Your post dealt with many themes including determinism etc., so I just decided to post simply on God's possible limitations. I invoked Mill to (possibly) answer the question of why there are things in the world like suffering and violence when there is supposedly a benevolent God in charge of everything. I guess my analogy was a bit lackluster, but if you want to hear a better rendering of the idea, read Mill.

[3Sum]

Blaggard did you even read my OP? Cause I read your entire post and I already addressed and, I daresay, refuted most of your points and I hate to repeat myself. But fine.

He did read OP and answerd accordingly, it's just you who are too blind to see it.

We are highly intelligent and can solve our own problems, we can invent guns, tanks and airplanes, we have hospitals, computers, and what not, yet we keep whining and wants God to help every problem we have, when we can solve it ourselves.

He won't run a fool's errand in being a slave for us, when it is us who should serve him.

Just great for us, right? Now we can kill each other easier. 1) God is the one who supposedly created all the problems in the first place. 2) If I could end starvation, diseases, natural disasters etc. I would. Your god not only won't end them, but created them all. If you could, would you not help starving children? Or innocent old people getting robbed? Or women being raped? Or people with deadly diseases? If you'd act as your god I consider you to be immoral and evil too.

Why should I serve your god and not the Flying Spaghetti Monster? His Noodliness is much nicer. Also, slavery is so out of fashion in 21st century.

First, where do you get your definitions of omnibenevolent, omnipotent, etc ? If they are not coming from the Bible, then you are smuggling definitions which do not apply to the problem of evil, so your argument is baseless.

My problem of evil applies to all monotheistic religions whose definitions of god overlap with my. If you have a problem with it, post your definiton of god and I'll consider it.

Bible? Oh please, not even Christians take the bible seriously. At least I don't hear Christians mass murdering gays, people of other religions... well, at least NOT ANY MORE. Even my theology teacher said that to be a Christian one doesn't have to believe in everything from the bible and that it's not meant to be taken literally. It's so goddamn contradictory that it's impossible to derive one consistent concept of a god from it. It has internal AND external consistencies,it's just such a huge mess and I don't have the time nor the will to go into it.

I'm not sure if bible even has words such as "omniscient" and "omnipotent" but I know enough about the bible and Christianity to know I shouldn't take bible seriously cause not even Christians do. And I don't argue fundamentalists.

Omniscient - All knowing, Omnipotent - All poweful. Omnibenevolent - All loving. Not so complicated, eh?

Second, you then wrote. "A good god wouldn't create evil." Again, I would ask where in the Bible you come up with this idea? What if God has a purpose for the evil that exists? Then it would be necessary for him to bring evil into existence. Additionally, you've not defined good from a Biblical perspective and have posited your own view of what "good" entails.

I gave the definition of good most theists I know would agree with. If you want, you can give me yours.

A purpose for evil to exist? What? Are you plain ignorant of what's been going and what's going on in the world? Or are you simply too immoral and evil? What's the purpose of a tsunami killing thousands of people? What's the great purpose of a child dying of bone cancer? What's the purpose of rape and murder of innocent people? No god who is omniscient (knows how to prevent those evils), omnipotent (has the power to prevent those evils) and omnibenevolent (wants to prevent those evils) would allow such atrocities. I'm not omnibenevolent yet even I cringe at the sole mention of such terrible things and would stop them if I had the power.

If you think that a god who lets all those atrocities happen is good then I definitely agree we have a disagreement about definitions. Not only would I consider such a god not good, I'd consider him to be a sadistic, immoral, reprehensible person if he really existed.

Let's have a thought experiment. Say that we call your kind of god omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent. How would we call a god who actually STOPS evils. Imagine, a true heavenly father, the one who cares. Descends unto earth with his angels and starts removing all illnesses, preaching love and kindness, giving advices and overall making even the most miserable people happy. How would we call that kind of god? Wouldn't we say he's better than the first one?

I'd love for the second god to exist. The difference between you and me is this: 1) I'm not willing to lie to myself and say that just because I'd love for something to be true that it is. I care about actual truth, whatever it might be. Only by knowing the truth can we further our knowledge and actually solve the problem. Your logic not only makes evil permissible, it makes it NECESSARY. And 2) I'm not willing to completely distort my moral system and go against my logic and reason to believe in an evil god.

Third, you wrote, "god X creates a world A which is maximal in goodness. No living being ever suffers and everybody and everything lives in perfect harmony without ever hurting each other." If this were the case, then the concept of "good" would be meaningless.

Why would it be meaningless? With so much goodness and love in that imaginary world I'd say they have a BETTER concept of good than us. Do you really think that you have a better concept of goodness after all you've just said to justify the evils of a supposedly good god?

[MMasz]

Your concept of god is non-biblical, so I do not have to entertain your angst over this. I guess you’ll just have to voice your well thought out objection when you stand before the God you don’t believe in. I’m sure he will be impressed.