There is No Sufficient Reason for God to Allow For Evil

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is No Sufficient Reason for a supposed God to Allow For Evil

God would NOT have any sufficient reason to allow any evil at all.

But this is not because He lacks potency; it's rather because He never has to nor wants to act in contradiction of his own nature; and being all-powerful, He is never compelled to do so.

That is my point, your supposed God will logically not act in contradiction of his own nature.

But you've got his nature wrong. You've listed only the features you, yourself choose to assign to Him, and none that don't serve your purposes. No Theist I know would agree with your list, beyond that God is "good." Those other terms, you just made up yourself.

Therefore when God began to create humans, logically and it follows that God would have imbued human nature with Good and no possibility of evil.

This is time #6, and the last time I'll bother to try to explain it to you: your key problem is as follows:

How do you know that God can have no sufficient reason for the allowing of some evil.

I have given you the answers to the above question but somehow you are unable to grasp it due to confirmation bias.

The point is, it is not logically and is contradictory for God as defined omni-GOOD intrinsically to have sufficient reason to allow for any evil at all.

I believe this is the critical point your overlooked:
It is not me who listed those omni-features for God but your highest regarded theologians [St. Anselm, Descartes and others] who assigned your supposed-God the maximally or whatever omni-Good qualities as an Ontological God.

It you don't backed your God as an ontological God [no greater can be conceived], then your God is an inferior God which leaves room for another superior God to kick your God's arse. No theist would want to do that, so they have to insist their God is an ontological God.

Here is my argument;

• 1. For all ideas of what is supposedly a God, they are all reducible to the Ontological God - St Anselm, Descartes.
  
  2. The Ontological God is 'a Being than which no greater can be conceived'.
  
  3. In this case, God has to be 'a Being than which no greater GOOD or Power can be conceived' - i.e. logically that means OMNI-GOOD and omni-potent respectively.
  
  4. No greater Good or Omni-Good means no possibility of EVIL in whatever the circumstances.
  
  5. Since God is omnipotent, God has the power to prevent Evil in any circumstances.
  
  6. Therefore it follows logically that God would NOT have any sufficient reason to allow any evil at all.

Since there has been real terrible evil and violence committed by humans, a supposed God as defined above cannot exists as real.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why theists twist and turn to defend the impossible to refute Problem of Evil is due to the following alternative explanation;


What is more critical question is this;

• 1. Humans exists [empirical fact].
  
  2. Humans are endowed with an existential crisis, a cognitive dissonance [psychological fact]
  
  3. Humans [theists] conjured [ASSUME] an all-powerful GOD [illusory] as a consonance to resolve the dissonance. [speculation]
  
  4. To maintain the consonance, theists speculate humans are given absolute free will. [speculation]
  
  5. Thus there is no problem of evil, i.e. God exists as real.
  
  As such your conclusion begs the question, i.e. you merely assume [3] God exists in giving absolute freewill to humans [4].

Theists has to cling to the above, else they will suffer very primal terrible cognitive dissonance and its existential pains.
I believe most theists are not aware of how terrible the existential pains are since they are at present "saved" from it and most will never dare to give up their theism.

• To get an idea of how terrible the existential pains are,
  -note for the sake of rationality, theists has to suffer years of cold turkey when they jumped from irrational theism to rational non-theism.
  -the existential pains are so terrible such as the saying, 'there are no atheists in foxholes',
  -theists will even resort to killing those who threaten [even the slightest] their theistic beliefs - note past and current death penalties for committing blasphemy.

The main problem is a psychological one [2].
If we resolve the fact of the existential crisis and cognitive dissonance [2] like Buddhism and other non-theistic spirituality and philosophies, there would be no need for a belief in a God [an illusion] and wrestling with the Problem of Evil.

[Dontaskme]

Evil will exist as long as knowledge exists. Same goes for the concept of good. Goodness will also exist as long as knowledge exists.

Knowledge can only point to the illusory nature of reality in that it's source is absolutely unknowable.

However, the illusion is real, simply because knowledge exists.

.

[seeds]

I believe this is the critical point your overlooked:
It is not me who listed those omni-features for God but your highest regarded theologians [St. Anselm, Descartes and others] who assigned your supposed-God the maximally or whatever omni-Good qualities as an Ontological God.

And what in the world makes you think that “St. Anselm, Descartes, and others” (mere humans) are the ultimate and infallible arbiters of the truth of God’s nature and motives?
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

I believe this is the critical point your overlooked:
It is not me who listed those omni-features for God but your highest regarded theologians [St. Anselm, Descartes and others] who assigned your supposed-God the maximally or whatever omni-Good qualities as an Ontological God.

And what in the world makes you think that “St. Anselm, Descartes, and others” (mere humans) are the ultimate and infallible arbiters of the truth of God’s nature and motives?
_______

It is not from my thinking.

That claim is made by “St. Anselm, Descartes, and others” when they are cornered with the claim their God is limited and inferior.

From their supposed perspective, they provided valid logical arguments that their supposed God is "a Being than which no greater can be conceived".
As such, whatever the quality-X that is assigned to the supposed God, it is supposed to have the maximal quality-X [no other greater], as such omni-quality-X.

[seeds]

I believe this is the critical point your overlooked:
It is not me who listed those omni-features for God but your highest regarded theologians [St. Anselm, Descartes and others] who assigned your supposed-God the maximally or whatever omni-Good qualities as an Ontological God.

And what in the world makes you think that “St. Anselm, Descartes, and others” (mere humans) are the ultimate and infallible arbiters of the truth of God’s nature and motives?
_______

It is not from my thinking.

That claim is made by “St. Anselm, Descartes, and others” when they are cornered with the claim their God is limited and inferior.

Your answer has nothing to do with the point I was making in my question.

It may be true that the claims that St. Anselm, Descartes, and others have made may not be a part of your thinking, however, what is a part of your thinking is that you believe that by refuting the claims of those fallible mortals, it somehow proves something about God.

You have managed to convince yourself that just because you can step inside of the closed bubble of the doctrinal assertions of a particular religion (in this case, Christianity) and point out the flaws upon which that bubble is founded, that it thus refutes the existence of God.

And that (IMO) is total nonsense.

It is nonsense in this situation because you have erected a strawman that is composed of the false assumptions made by, again, fallible (clueless) humans who have absolutely no irrefutable knowledge of God’s ultimate nature and motives (just presumptions based on speculation).

And no matter how much you expose the weaknesses of your strawman, it (the strawman) has nothing to do with whether or not God (for some perfectly good and logical reason) might allow for the existence of evil.
_______

[Impenitent]

and we know the mind of god...

/incredulity

-Imp

[Scott Mayers]

There is No Sufficient Reason for a supposed God to Allow For Evil

God would NOT have any sufficient reason to allow any evil at all.

That is my point, your supposed God will logically not act in contradiction of his own nature.

But you've got his nature wrong. You've listed only the features you, yourself choose to assign to Him, and none that don't serve your purposes. No Theist I know would agree with your list, beyond that God is "good." Those other terms, you just made up yourself.

Therefore when God began to create humans, logically and it follows that God would have imbued human nature with Good and no possibility of evil.

This is time #6, and the last time I'll bother to try to explain it to you: your key problem is as follows:

How do you know that God can have no sufficient reason for the allowing of some evil.

I have given you the answers to the above question but somehow you are unable to grasp it due to confirmation bias.

The point is, it is not logically and is contradictory for God as defined omni-GOOD intrinsically to have sufficient reason to allow for any evil at all.

@Imanuel that supports Veritas here:

But why would God 'need' humans who could go beyond his 'domain' of influence (ie, become 'evil') unless he created that OR he had no choice? If God was purely 'evil' instead, he'd have potential to IMPROVE upon existence and might even justify why he might have a need for others, like humans, to help him figure out how to BECOME perfectly 'good', if this were possible.


[Before responding Veritas, notice how this is like my argument for absolutely nothing but replaced with Absolute Evil. "Goodness" cannot exist without "Evil" but "Evil", if it exists, would be more appropriately to exist alone, ....meaning technically 'amoral', OR justify 'cause' for anything 'good' in that which follows.]

[Veritas Aequitas]

And what in the world makes you think that “St. Anselm, Descartes, and others” (mere humans) are the ultimate and infallible arbiters of the truth of God’s nature and motives?
_______

It is not from my thinking.

That claim is made by “St. Anselm, Descartes, and others” when they are cornered with the claim their God is limited and inferior.

Your answer has nothing to do with the point I was making in my question.

It may be true that the claims that St. Anselm, Descartes, and others have made may not be a part of your thinking, however, what is a part of your thinking is that you believe that by refuting the claims of those fallible mortals, it somehow proves something about God.

You have managed to convince yourself that just because you can step inside of the closed bubble of the doctrinal assertions of a particular religion (in this case, Christianity) and point out the flaws upon which that bubble is founded, that it thus refutes the existence of God.

And that (IMO) is total nonsense.

It is nonsense in this situation because you have erected a strawman that is composed of the false assumptions made by, again, fallible (clueless) humans who have absolutely no irrefutable knowledge of God’s ultimate nature and motives (just presumptions based on speculation).

And no matter how much you expose the weaknesses of your strawman, it (the strawman) has nothing to do with whether or not God (for some perfectly good and logical reason) might allow for the existence of evil.
_______

You are too hasty in the above.

Note I qualified, the 'supposed-God'.
Since I was debating with IC who is a Christian, then his supposed-God of Christianity which supposes omni-whatever cannot exist due to the illogical and contradictory claims against the reality of evil.

The point is by default a supposed-God is supposed to be the maximal-God [than which no greater can be conceived] which no other god can be greater.

Otherwise, if any theist do not insist his God is the ultimate superior God than it is possible for his god to be inferior to another God which is greater.

Pantheists are indifferent to the superiority of their God.
In this case, those who claim the ontological God will feel a one-up superiority over the pantheists. Pantheist could just be bothered with those claims of superiority.

However, if pantheists are to insist their God is real, then they will have to verify and justify empirically and philosophically their God is real.

As I had stated, the idea of God is an illusion emerging as a consonance to deal with the inherent existential dissonance. The issue of God is a psychological problem and should be resolved psychologically.

[seeds]

It is not from my thinking.

That claim is made by “St. Anselm, Descartes, and others” when they are cornered with the claim their God is limited and inferior.

Your answer has nothing to do with the point I was making in my question.

It may be true that the claims that St. Anselm, Descartes, and others have made may not be a part of your thinking, however, what is a part of your thinking is that you believe that by refuting the claims of those fallible mortals, it somehow proves something about God.

You have managed to convince yourself that just because you can step inside of the closed bubble of the doctrinal assertions of a particular religion (in this case, Christianity) and point out the flaws upon which that bubble is founded, that it thus refutes the existence of God.

And that (IMO) is total nonsense.

It is nonsense in this situation because you have erected a strawman that is composed of the false assumptions made by, again, fallible (clueless) humans who have absolutely no irrefutable knowledge of God’s ultimate nature and motives (just presumptions based on speculation).

And no matter how much you expose the weaknesses of your strawman, it (the strawman) has nothing to do with whether or not God (for some perfectly good and logical reason) might allow for the existence of evil.
_______

You are too hasty in the above.

Note I qualified, the 'supposed-God'.
Since I was debating with IC who is a Christian, then his supposed-God of Christianity which supposes omni-whatever cannot exist due to the illogical and contradictory claims against the reality of evil.

The point is by default a supposed-God is supposed to be the maximal-God [than which no greater can be conceived] which no other god can be greater.

“By default” according to who?

Who, exactly, established that rule? Please provide me with a name or names.
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is not from my thinking.

That claim is made by “St. Anselm, Descartes, and others” when they are cornered with the claim their God is limited and inferior.

Your answer has nothing to do with the point I was making in my question.

It may be true that the claims that St. Anselm, Descartes, and others have made may not be a part of your thinking, however, what is a part of your thinking is that you believe that by refuting the claims of those fallible mortals, it somehow proves something about God.

You have managed to convince yourself that just because you can step inside of the closed bubble of the doctrinal assertions of a particular religion (in this case, Christianity) and point out the flaws upon which that bubble is founded, that it thus refutes the existence of God.

And that (IMO) is total nonsense.

It is nonsense in this situation because you have erected a strawman that is composed of the false assumptions made by, again, fallible (clueless) humans who have absolutely no irrefutable knowledge of God’s ultimate nature and motives (just presumptions based on speculation).

And no matter how much you expose the weaknesses of your strawman, it (the strawman) has nothing to do with whether or not God (for some perfectly good and logical reason) might allow for the existence of evil.
_______

You are too hasty in the above.

Note I qualified, the 'supposed-God'.
Since I was debating with IC who is a Christian, then his supposed-God of Christianity which supposes omni-whatever cannot exist due to the illogical and contradictory claims against the reality of evil.

The point is by default a supposed-God is supposed to be the maximal-God [than which no greater can be conceived] which no other god can be greater.

“By default” according to who?

Who, exactly, established that rule? Please provide me with a name or names.
_______

It is not by who, it is just logical due to the features of theism.

You missed the point I wrote above;

• If you [IC] don't [claim] your God as an ontological God [no greater can be conceived],
  then your God is an inferior God to another God.
  which leaves room for another superior God to kick your God's arse.
  No theist would want to do that, so they have to insist their God is an ontological God.

For most theists, salvation is the most critical reason to believe in a God-X, as such their God-X must be all-powerful [omni-whatever] to ensure they get to heaven and avoid another more superior God-Y defeating their God and send them to hell.

That is the default, i.e. no theist would accept their God to be a God that is inferior to another God.
The only logical path for all theists to avoid divine inferiority is to claim the ontological God [no greater can be conceived], so no other theists can come up with a one-up God on their God-X.

Note most Muslims has this superiority complex as claimed in the Quran, their Allah is the most superior God [Allah-u-Akbar], others are false god. To them, they believe even the current Christians and Jews believe in a false god because the current holy texts in their hands are corrupted.

Thus the counter for Christians and Jews is to claim their God is an ontological God, i.e. a Being than which no greater can be believed.

[seeds]

You are too hasty in the above.

Note I qualified, the 'supposed-God'.
Since I was debating with IC who is a Christian, then his supposed-God of Christianity which supposes omni-whatever cannot exist due to the illogical and contradictory claims against the reality of evil.

The point is by default a supposed-God is supposed to be the maximal-God [than which no greater can be conceived] which no other god can be greater.

“By default” according to who?

Who, exactly, established that rule? Please provide me with a name or names.

You missed the point I wrote above;

• If you [IC] don't [claim] your God as an ontological God [no greater can be conceived],
  then your God is an inferior God to another God.
  which leaves room for another superior God to kick your God's arse.
  No theist would want to do that, so they have to insist their God is an ontological God.

For most theists, salvation is the most critical reason to believe in a God-X, as such their God-X must be all-powerful [omni-whatever] to ensure they get to heaven and avoid another more superior God-Y defeating their God and send them to hell.

That is the default, i.e. no theist would accept their God to be a God that is inferior to another God.
The only logical path for all theists to avoid divine inferiority is to claim the ontological God [no greater can be conceived], so no other theists can come up with a one-up God on their God-X.

I am not surprised, but it is nonetheless amusing to me that after I posted this,...

...you have erected a strawman that is composed of the false assumptions made by, again, fallible (clueless) humans who have absolutely no irrefutable knowledge of God’s ultimate nature and motives (just presumptions based on speculation).

...you would simply refer right back to that same strawman argument again as if by rephrasing it, it would no longer be a strawman.

As I clearly pointed out to you in one of your other threads on a similar topic:

...if the entire enterprise of the present state of humanity’s take on theism was to be proven false, it still would not be evidence (or proof) of the impossibility of God’s existence.

And neither would it be evidence against the notion that God might have a perfectly good and logical reason for allowing the existence of evil.
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are too hasty in the above.

Note I qualified, the 'supposed-God'.
Since I was debating with IC who is a Christian, then his supposed-God of Christianity which supposes omni-whatever cannot exist due to the illogical and contradictory claims against the reality of evil.

The point is by default a supposed-God is supposed to be the maximal-God [than which no greater can be conceived] which no other god can be greater.

“By default” according to who?

Who, exactly, established that rule? Please provide me with a name or names.

You missed the point I wrote above;

• If you [IC] don't [claim] your God as an ontological God [no greater can be conceived],
  then your God is an inferior God to another God.
  which leaves room for another superior God to kick your God's arse.
  No theist would want to do that, so they have to insist their God is an ontological God.

For most theists, salvation is the most critical reason to believe in a God-X, as such their God-X must be all-powerful [omni-whatever] to ensure they get to heaven and avoid another more superior God-Y defeating their God and send them to hell.

That is the default, i.e. no theist would accept their God to be a God that is inferior to another God.
The only logical path for all theists to avoid divine inferiority is to claim the ontological God [no greater can be conceived], so no other theists can come up with a one-up God on their God-X.

I am not surprised, but it is nonetheless amusing to me that after I posted this,...

...you have erected a strawman that is composed of the false assumptions made by, again, fallible (clueless) humans who have absolutely no irrefutable knowledge of God’s ultimate nature and motives (just presumptions based on speculation).

...you would simply refer right back to that same strawman argument again as if by rephrasing it, it would no longer be a strawman.

As I clearly pointed out to you in one of your other threads on a similar topic:

...if the entire enterprise of the present state of humanity’s take on theism was to be proven false, it still would not be evidence (or proof) of the impossibility of God’s existence.

And neither would it be evidence against the notion that God might have a perfectly good and logical reason for allowing the existence of evil.
_______

You are too arrogant and blinded to think I have created a strawman.

I did not invent nor create the above points, I was merely presenting what the Abrahamic and other similar theists' point of view, their beliefs and default position, i.e. the culminating ontological God.

My claim that God is an impossibility to be real is based on their default that God has to be ontological, thus having omni-whatever features culminating in a contradiction when contrasted with reality.

If your God is not an ontological God, the Abrahamic and other believers of the likes [especially Muslims] will insist, from their perspective, your God is relatively a 'shit' God. I agree with their views on that given their circumstances.

Since you have not described the nature of your God, I have no comments on it.

But, if you insist your God is real, the onus is on you to provide evidences to be verified and justified empirically and philosophically it is real.

[seeds]

You are too arrogant and blinded to think I have created a strawman.

Yeah, well, be careful there Mr. Pot, because based on your forum persona, you are in no position to accuse any of us Kettles of being arrogant or blind.

I did not invent nor create the above points, I was merely presenting what the Abrahamic and other similar theists' point of view, their beliefs and default position, i.e. the culminating ontological God.

No, you did not personally create the above points; nevertheless, you shamelessly use them as the “go-to” proof that you constantly point to in support of your insistence on the impossibility of God being real.

However, as I keep trying (and failing) to make you understand, there is nothing that any human has ever said about God...

(be it in the form of a world religion, or simply one’s own personal opinion on the matter)

...that can be used as the ultimate and irrefutable evidence that proves anything whatsoever about the existence (or non-existence) of God.

My claim that God is an impossibility to be real is based on their default that God has to be ontological,...

Good lord, man, can you not see that you keep confirming my point?

Your personal claim that “God is an impossibility to be real,” is based on your erecting and then demolishing a strawman whose stuffings are created from the speculative blatherings of ancient humans.

Let me try to simplify this for you.

Let’s pretend we have two rooms.

In room #1, you have every religious and philosophical claim that (fallible) humans have ever made about God throughout all of time.

And in room #2, you have the question of whether or not God is a real and living Entity.

And my point is that there is absolutely nothing that anyone can do or say about the speculative contents held in room #1 that will provide any definitive answer to the question held in room #2.

And the ultimate point is that you, VA, are fumbling around in room #1 (building strawmen out of fallacious stuffings), and you do not seem to be even remotely aware of the existence of room #2 and that of the erroneous nature of your efforts.

If your God is not an ontological God, the Abrahamic and other believers of the likes [especially Muslims] will insist, from their perspective, your God is relatively a 'shit' God. I agree with their views on that given their circumstances.

So then, what you are basically saying (with your clear and obvious strawman/non sequitur) is that based on the fact that humans are petty and ignorant, ergo, God is an impossibility to be real.

Let me reiterate the lesson from my little two-room thought experiment:

• The status of that which resides in the above mentioned room #2, is unaffected by anything that resides in room #1.

Since you have not described the nature of your God, I have no comments on it.

But, if you insist your God is real, the onus is on you to provide evidences to be verified and justified empirically and philosophically it is real.

Now I am not implying that I can’t be wrong, but for more than a dozen years now, not only have I bored the members of this and other forums with my incessant (and illustrated) description of what I believe is the creative source of this universe,...

(http://www.theultimateseeds.com/)

...but I have also explained why it is necessary for that source to remain hidden from us.

And oddly enough, that last part is relevant to the title of this thread.
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are too arrogant and blinded to think I have created a strawman.

Yeah, well, be careful there Mr. Pot, because based on your forum persona, you are in no position to accuse any of us Kettles of being arrogant or blind.

I did not invent nor create the above points, I was merely presenting what the Abrahamic and other similar theists' point of view, their beliefs and default position, i.e. the culminating ontological God.

No, you did not personally create the above points; nevertheless, you shamelessly use them as the “go-to” proof that you constantly point to in support of your insistence on the impossibility of God being real.

However, as I keep trying (and failing) to make you understand, there is nothing that any human has ever said about God...

(be it in the form of a world religion, or simply one’s own personal opinion on the matter)

...that can be used as the ultimate and irrefutable evidence that proves anything whatsoever about the existence (or non-existence) of God.

My claim that God is an impossibility to be real is based on their default that God has to be ontological,...

Good lord, man, can you not see that you keep confirming my point?

Your personal claim that “God is an impossibility to be real,” is based on your erecting and then demolishing a strawman whose stuffings are created from the speculative blatherings of ancient humans.

Let me try to simplify this for you.

Let’s pretend we have two rooms.

In room #1, you have every religious and philosophical claim that (fallible) humans have ever made about God throughout all of time.

And in room #2, you have the question of whether or not God is a real and living Entity.

And my point is that there is absolutely nothing that anyone can do or say about the speculative contents held in room #1 that will provide any definitive answer to the question held in room #2.

And the ultimate point is that you, VA, are fumbling around in room #1 (building strawmen out of fallacious stuffings), and you do not seem to be even remotely aware of the existence of room #2 and that of the erroneous nature of your efforts.

If your God is not an ontological God, the Abrahamic and other believers of the likes [especially Muslims] will insist, from their perspective, your God is relatively a 'shit' God. I agree with their views on that given their circumstances.

So then, what you are basically saying (with your clear and obvious strawman/non sequitur) is that based on the fact that humans are petty and ignorant, ergo, God is an impossibility to be real.

Let me reiterate the lesson from my little two-room thought experiment:

• The status of that which resides in the above mentioned room #2, is unaffected by anything that resides in room #1.

My focus has always been on those who resides in room 1 because the majority of theists in this world, i.e. 90% of theists are in room 1, i.e. their ultimate God is the omni-whatever ontological God.

Since theists in room 1 relied upon the ontological God which is impossible to exists as real due to the obvious contradiction with the existence of real evil by humans.

I did not state room 1 theists are petty, yes, they are ignorant of their own psychology.
I understand room-1 theists has resorted to cling to an ontological God as the most effective belief and a consonance to relieve their existential dissonance.

But because theism has its negatives [especially from Islam] and that the ontological God is impossible to be real, I am highlighting theists are ignorant of their existential psychology. The hope is theists will give up their impossible-to-be-real God and rely on some fool proof methods to relieve their existential dissonance.

Generally I am not interested in those in Room 2 or elsewhere as their numbers are very insignificant and their ideologies [those I have read] are not evil-laden thus do not pose a threat to humanity now or in the future.

Since you have not described the nature of your God, I have no comments on it.

But, if you insist your God is real, the onus is on you to provide evidences to be verified and justified empirically and philosophically it is real.

Now I am not implying that I can’t be wrong, but for more than a dozen years now, not only have I bored the members of this and other forums with my incessant (and illustrated) description of what I believe is the creative source of this universe,...

(http://www.theultimateseeds.com/)

...but I have also explained why it is necessary for that source to remain hidden from us.

And oddly enough, that last part is relevant to the title of this thread.
_______

I have not come across your link before.
I will have a look at your detailed explanation later.

Off hand, I can say your hidden creative source of this universe is not likely to be real.
As Wittgenstein stated,
“Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”
In this case of metaphysics, what is hidden is what cannot be spoken of.
As such you have no choice but to literally 'shut up' about what is hidden in this case.