The problem of evil

[bahman]

There is no "problem of Evil" since there is no such thing as evil.

Good and evil are adjectival.

Of course, there is a thing as evil and good.

No.
What is evil for one is good for the other and Vice versa.

It does not matter even if that is true. Have you ever seen a person who lost all his family members and properties to a flood? Can such a person feel good?

[bahman]

And without people, who else could have anything to do with evil intent? Evil intention is a purely human invention, and you should not blame god or the mirror for your ugly face.

I am talking about natural evil rather than evils committed by humans.

Name one "natural evil"! And tell us what makes it problematic. For what?

Earthquake. I think that would be a problem for you. Isn't it?

[Age]

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

BUT those so-called 'natural evils', which are said to be caused by God are NOT 'evils' AT ALL.

And, if ABSOLUTELY ANY one SAYS or STATES that 'they' ARE, then 'they' CERTAINLY DO NOT KNOW what the 'evil' word MEANS NOR REFERS TO, which FITS IN PERFECTLY with OTHER WORDS, and 'their' DEFINED MEANINGS.

God is assumed to be good though so there is a tension between the existence of a good God and natural evils.

ONCE AGAIN what 'we' HAVE here is ANOTHER PRIME example of HOW ASSUMING some 'thing', which could be (and ACTUALLY IS ABSOLUTELY) False and/or Wrong WAS PREVENTING and/or BLOCKING 'them' FROM LEARNING and SEEING, and UNDERSTANDING, what the ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY.

People use this problem as an argument against the existence of God.

BUT there IS NO ACTUAL 'problem' AT ALL here, FOR TWO REASONS.

1. The WORKING definition for the word 'problem' does NOT FIT IN here.

2. Even IF a WORKING definition for the 'problem' word DID FIT IN here, there is NO ACTUAL so-called 'problem of evil' in 'the way' that that term is being REFERRED TO here.

God however could be good and evil,

BUT God, by the WORKING definition, could NOT be evil, as 'this' WOULD BE 'self-contradictory' and/or just 'self-refuting'.

so His creation is as well good and evil.

BUT ONLY IF God could be evil. Which, OBVIOUSLY, God, Itself IS NOT, AND could NOT.

So the problem of evil is resolved.

BUT there WAS NO 'problem', from the outset, and there NEVER IS A 'problem' here.

[bahman]

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

BUT those so-called 'natural evils', which are said to be caused by God are NOT 'evils' AT ALL.

And, if ABSOLUTELY ANY one SAYS or STATES that 'they' ARE, then 'they' CERTAINLY DO NOT KNOW what the 'evil' word MEANS NOR REFERS TO, which FITS IN PERFECTLY with OTHER WORDS, and 'their' DEFINED MEANINGS.

God is assumed to be good though so there is a tension between the existence of a good God and natural evils.

ONCE AGAIN what 'we' HAVE here is ANOTHER PRIME example of HOW ASSUMING some 'thing', which could be (and ACTUALLY IS ABSOLUTELY) False and/or Wrong WAS PREVENTING and/or BLOCKING 'them' FROM LEARNING and SEEING, and UNDERSTANDING, what the ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY.

People use this problem as an argument against the existence of God.

BUT there IS NO ACTUAL 'problem' AT ALL here, FOR TWO REASONS.

1. The WORKING definition for the word 'problem' does NOT FIT IN here.

2. Even IF a WORKING definition for the 'problem' word DID FIT IN here, there is NO ACTUAL so-called 'problem of evil' in 'the way' that that term is being REFERRED TO here.

God however could be good and evil,

BUT God, by the WORKING definition, could NOT be evil, as 'this' WOULD BE 'self-contradictory' and/or just 'self-refuting'.

so His creation is as well good and evil.

BUT ONLY IF God could be evil. Which, OBVIOUSLY, God, Itself IS NOT, AND could NOT.

So the problem of evil is resolved.

BUT there WAS NO 'problem', from the outset, and there NEVER IS A 'problem' here.

Where do you take the fact that God is good?

[Walker]

There is no "problem of Evil" since there is no such thing as evil.

Good and evil are adjectival.

Of course, there is the problem of evil. Not in the sense that evil or good are things but in the sense that they define the quality of an action, situation etc.

- Everything that exists has a purpose.
- Evil exists, therefore evil has a purpose.
- What is the purpose of evil?

- Tracing the purpose of any human activity back to its source, with the tools of how and why, eventually leads to the Principle of Survival. Paleo-man.
- The purpose of evil is to keep folks on their toes, to survive the predators.
- The purpose of evil is to keep open the door to The Big What If that activates strategy.
- The method of using the strategy was for the caveman to say to himself, "Ug, what if bad happens? What if worst bad happens? What if Ug don’t do this or that?" Such questions obviously enhance survival quality and duration, and also indicate a dawning sense of self-consciousness.
- Living so close to death honed Ug’s natural capacity to practice, What If.
- Since Ug’s salad days, What If has spurred humanity’s progress, although that evil's purpose in this progress even exists has been forgotten in comforts fashioned in increments.

[bahman]

There is no "problem of Evil" since there is no such thing as evil.

Good and evil are adjectival.

Of course, there is the problem of evil. Not in the sense that evil or good are things but in the sense that they define the quality of an action, situation etc.

- Everything that exists has a purpose.
- Evil exists, therefore evil has a purpose.
- What is the purpose of evil?

- Tracing the purpose of any human activity back to its source, with the tools of how and why, eventually leads to the Principle of Survival. Paleo-man.
- The purpose of evil is to keep folks on their toes, to survive the predators.
- The purpose of evil is to keep open the door to The Big What If that activates strategy.
- The method of using the strategy was for the caveman to say to himself, "Ug, what if bad happens? What if worst bad happens? What if Ug don’t do this or that?" Such questions obviously enhance survival quality and duration, and also indicate a dawning sense of self-consciousness.
- Living so close to death honed Ug’s natural capacity to practice, What If.
- Since Ug’s salad days, What If has spurred humanity’s progress, although that evil's purpose in this progress even exists has been forgotten in comforts fashioned in increments.

I think I agree with you that evil could be right in given circumstances.

[Age]

The human mind works only with comparisons (I will be happy if you can refute).

There IS NO so-called 'human mind'.
There IS, however, A 'human brain', which could only make 'sense' of 'things' by and/or through a PERCEIVED 'separation', which included 'comparing' or 'comparisons'.

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.

What does the 'evil' word MEAN or REFER TO, TO 'you', EXACTLY?

Therefore, these concepts will always go hand in hand as long as they exist, because if one disappears, the other will also disappear.

But what IS called or REFERRED TO AS 'evil' could COMPLETELY DISAPPEAR, and 'good' ONLY could CONTINUE, and 'this' IS BECAUSE OF 'memory', itself. So, although 'evil' DISAPPEARED, the 'other' WILL NOT, necessarily, also DISAPPEAR.

No matter how bad something is, there can always be something worse, against which the first evil can look quite good.

REALLY?

What could be WORSE than having ALL of one's 'loved ones' KILLED or MURDERED?

No matter how good something is, there can always be something better against which the first one may not look so good.

REALLY?

What could be BETTER than ALL living in a Truly Peaceful AND Harmonious world TOGETHER, as One?

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

Do 'things', which happen in 'the visible, physical, and/or material world', ALWAYS ALIGN WITH and/or RESEMBLE 'things' in 'the non visible, non physical, and/or non material world', EXACTLY?

[Sculptor]

Of course, there is a thing as evil and good.

No.
What is evil for one is good for the other and Vice versa.

It does not matter even if that is true. Have you ever seen a person who lost all his family members and properties to a flood? Can such a person feel good?

Yes they can.
But even if not that does not verify the existence of evil in any meaningful sense.
People say it's "unfortuneate", but there is not force in the universe; FORTUNE either.
Good, evil, and Fortuna are just ancient mythical ideas.

[Sculptor]

I am talking about natural evil rather than evils committed by humans.

Name one "natural evil"! And tell us what makes it problematic. For what?

Earthquake. I think that would be a problem for you. Isn't it?

An earthquake here is a settlement of the earth's crush there. One mans fallen building is another man's stable land.

Earthquakes are just what happens. There is no evil intended.

[Age]

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

But what are Truly Wrong behaviors can NEVER be, logically, called 'good', but some can be called 'bad' behaviors, instead. And, conversely, what are Truly Right behaviors can NEVER be, logically, called 'wrong' NOR 'bad' behaviors.

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.

Here 'we' can CLEARLY SEE ANOTHER example of WHY 'adult human beings', in the days when this was being written, and thus at 'that stage' IN evolution, were SO SLOW TO PROCEED and MOVE FORWARD.

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

BUT, ACTUALLY, some of 'us' HAVE, ALREADY.

Given, say, a particular context?

Like 'what', EXACTLY?

[Age]

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?

Do 'you' even KNOW what the 'Heaven' even MEANS, or REFERS TO, EXACTLY?

If yes, then PLEASE PROCEED in INFORMING 'us' here.

[bahman]

No.
What is evil for one is good for the other and Vice versa.

It does not matter even if that is true. Have you ever seen a person who lost all his family members and properties to a flood? Can such a person feel good?

Yes they can.
But even if not that does not verify the existence of evil in any meaningful sense.
People say it's "unfortuneate", but there is not force in the universe; FORTUNE either.
Good, evil, and Fortuna are just ancient mythical ideas.

Good and evil are ideas that explain the quality of a situation, action, etc. They are not things.

[Age]

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.

Will 'you' PROVIDE A DEMONSTRATION or AN EXAMPLE here "bahman"?

If no, then WHY NOT?

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?

[bahman]

Name one "natural evil"! And tell us what makes it problematic. For what?

Earthquake. I think that would be a problem for you. Isn't it?

An earthquake here is a settlement of the earth's crush there. One mans fallen building is another man's stable land.

Earthquakes are just what happens. There is no evil intended.

Good and evil are ideas that explain the quality of a situation, action, etc.

[Age]

Does evil exist in Heaven?

I'm not entirely sure what "heaven" is, but I am sure that evil and its opposite are purely human qualities, thanks to which only man has the ability to do it.

And, 'this' here could ONLY be MORE Factual, True, Right, Accurate, and Correct by just adding the word 'adult' BEFORE, and the two letters of 'h' and 'u' TO and IN FRONT OF the, 'man' word here.

Killing happens all the time in nature, but it is not seen as evil.

BUT SOME DO SEE 'this' AS 'evil', VERY Wrongly, I will add here. For example, some SEE an earthquake, a meteor strike, a tidal wave, and/or a volcanic eruption as 'evil'.

And only a person is able to turn the most innocent things into evil, for example: show kindness 99 times to deceive to gain benefit yourself for the 100th time. How do you like to judge kindness as evil?