The argument against "evil", theists please come to the defense.

[fr0d0]

First, this

Nothingness is what we might denote as evil, bad, decay etc.. As you've mentioned (I think), the default state things should return to.

Contradicts this

Now the creator didn't create nothing.God didn't create nothing, he created something. God is something. Gods opposite > evil > gravitates towards nothing.

No it doesn't lol!

It is contradictory because God created the potential for nothing, which is effectively creating nothing. Practical nothing.
You are equivocating the word "nothing". Things don't tend toward absolute nothing; they tend towards a practical nothing.

Excuse me for finding that stupid. "Creating the potential for nothing". That's a hard belly laugh joke right there

Ok back in the room.

What's the difference between a practical nothing and nothing? lol. Sorry... that makes everything into joke material. You're not serious right? And you're accusing ME of equivocating here?!?

Sorry for that. Perhaps you could explain that better. Because it just looks like nonsense.

Can I just point out: Christians don't go along with the definition of God as omnibenevolant AFAIK. Benevolant, yes.

News to me. I was under the impression that the reason the argument from evil/suffering had such a foothold was due to that very belief.
Oh, and by the way, you just conceded the argument. I'll still argue against benevolence, but for all intents and purposes omnibenevolence was the target. The reason people don't like to relinquish omnibenevolence is due to the fact that, once omnibenevolence has been taken out of the picture, so has the notion of a "perfect God".
But you and "Christians" don't go along with that.
And that's fine.

Yay! You won!

If you address a subject, you should address it exactly, or else you might not end up answering the question. Accuracy is all important.

This "all good" you make it into, is innacurate. If you can't get over that, then I guess you're whistling in the wind. If this makes your argument innefective to you, then you have to move on.

God is perfect. Sure. But God is love; and God is a loving God. I don't know where you get "all loving" from that. If you could explain, with references, then I'd be happy to concede the point. No hard and immovable stick in the mud here. I presume your enquiry to be ernest. *shakes hands and welcomes Ernest*

All I can understand from that is that God could have created nothing and spared us all the suffering. To me that reads: God could have left evil (nothing) in place and done nothing constructive. (unintentional pun).

Nothingness isn't evil. Nothingness is nothingness.
Your God is capable of anything that is logically possible. Not creating a universe is logically possible and doesn't contradict any of his attributes, except for the one you made up- he doesn't have to create a thing.

Erm... which one did I make up?

I'm presenting you with a logical position > nothingness = evil, to help you to understand my POV.

If we strip it down to basics, it seems quite clear. And I don't see that you have any objection. But then I'm used to people refuse to accept the most basic facts just to avoid conceding a point.

Let me try one more time.

1. Nothing < this is before the begining
2. Something < the begining has happened.
3. Nothing < the end. Something was removed.

Now this is our (theoretical) universe. It's all that it ever contained. 'Something' is good. Good because it is a positive. What created it must've been good also. Because only a positive force could have spawned 'something'.

Once positive is established, in 'something'. Then what detracts from something is negative. Negative = destruction = bad (for this reality, because the reality will cease to exist if the negative force causes 'something' to be 'nothing' again.

---

Not creating Something is nothing to consider. God could have created Nothing. Erm.... sure...

So Yes, God created a world with no unnecessary suffering: this one.

This world is full of unneeded suffering. If there could be a potential world with less suffering, this world has too much.

then please give a working example. I'm not saying you're wrong. I just need to be shown how. If you can't think of one, please just say.

2. Now I can think of an answer: God had to create the world because it was in his nature to do so. Being a creator is part of what makes him him. He couldn't not create.

Your God couldn't resist the will to create? Why? I thought the strongest thing in the universe was God's will. Being a creator is one of his assumed attributes which I grant for the sake of argument, but it is by no means an integral part of a God's nature. He has the power to create, and so he has to?

God is creator. It's a pretty major attribute that is widely accepted in major religions, yes. I don't know why or how you find this surprising. God is an irresistable creative force, yes. It is in his nature to create, and therefore he creates. One of Gods strongest attributes is love. "God is love". Love boils down to the positive force.

Yes, creation is an integral part of God's nature.

The situation with the militia is a end point of a series of events that inevitably ended up here. No chance involved. It is merely a playing out of parts.

In this world. In another world nearly identical to this one, a God could have easily made that woman live and her child survive.

Then that would be the natural logical progression in that reality. Gazillions of other permutations. So what? So you think that in one possible permutation no one dies? Quickly the food and water runs out. What permutation kicks in then to prevent death? Does everyone die happy by some coincidence?

Nature works because of the cycle that you seemingly despise and hold God to account for. I hold that this POV of yours is in fact the entertaining of a fantasy, which is unhealthy when this reality is perfectly beautiful as it is. Maybe that's my perspective kicking in. Factoring in a loving God, the world makes sense from a positive point of view.

The child suffers and dies because of the situation it's born into.

And God doesn't care. Scary, huh? How he could have made a world without the death of the child?

How do you know that God doesn't care? Why should God care? What priorities should God have?

If God is good and loving, as in my construct; then what should he be doing differently to make this situation any better?

Can you define your example more so that I can have more to get my teeth into? Would God have to prevent all death? How does that work?

I think to hold your POV, you have to see God as causing unjust death. Now God is the only perfect judge, knowing everything

(God is Just. God is all knowing)

If people commit murder, then that is people choosing to do bad things. Victims of murder are the victims of an unjust act.

God is not involved in peoples choices. People choose to be like God or not. They choose to be good or bad. The question is why.

God's judgement would find the child innocent and the murderer guilty. Justice is served.

Why did God have to let his creations have the ability to choose? why didn't he create humans with no choices.

Are you suggesting that God is incapable of creating the world as he wants, just as he is incapable of withholding the will to create?

God cannot create square circles.

It is impossible to create nothing, which also has to apply to God.

The "nothing" that exists before God created was evil, if I recall. If one can't create nothingness, why is there decay?
This is why you denote change in the meaning a single word like "nothing".
God created the potential for decay and a practical "nothing".

Ok I see what you mean. Nothing then isn't evil. But the force back to nothing is. Destruction. decay... how are these not negative forces? Loosely, negative = nothing.

Evil only existed after something was created. Nothing is exactly that. Nothing.

Evil is the sun block. Sun shines down on us until something gets in the way. Darkness isn't caused by the sun, but by the lack of sun. The sun shines on regardless. Likewise evil is the absence of God. Gods love carries on regardless.

In my understanding, factoring in God, all things lead to him > we end up with a positive conclusion to everything. All souls are saved, all evil is defeated. Love wins.

Creation of everything entails decay of everything, once again creating a state of nothingness. Atoms would be separated by miles.

Creating everything doesn't entail the creation of nothing. Because nothing didn't need creation to create it. Noting pre exists everything, unless you suggest the there never was a nothing in the first place.

There is satan in christian dogma of course. But did satan pre-exist or co-exist with God? No, God is superior, because satan is a lesser force: a force that had to have something to subtract from.

So Satan is responsible for decay? God is responcible for Satan.

Ugh, lol.

Satan is a negative force. I'm not into studying satan so I'm no expert. Same logic as above applies though.

You might think that something could destroy nothing.

I don't.

Good

But then we couldn't have nothing. We would have to live in a world where something was the default position. Like solid is what all things decay towards. the universe would be setting like a large jelly. In this scenario, nothing would have to be the creative force. Nothing God was nothing and he impacted nothingness all over reality ...except that doesn't quite work.. because to create something he'd have to leave a little bit of solid, which would be the bad stuff he existed to get rid of in the first place. And how can nothing be existant??

This is a whole lot of nothing.

LOL

Hurt a guy why don't you!

Hopefully that serves some purpose lol!

Maybe for someone, but not for me.

Fair enough. I tried.

You state it, but I've never seen it explained.

Remind me what "it" is please. Forgot. LOLOLOL.

Hey, you chopped off the original line - you go looksie hehe.

*shouts for Rayaan the search ninja*

As you can see from my address of your African example, I don't accept your point at all. It doesn't explain "unnecessary" at all.

Your answer, in effect, is "The world works like it does because the world works like it does." The laws themselves are subject to change by God, so your defence is paper thin and meaningless.

No. You didn't address my point. My point is that meaningless is not inferred from what you said. If you could prove meaninglessness, then we'd have a start.

I'm sorry, I've missed the part where you came up with a better model for reality.

Any model without unneeded suffering.

Easily said. Square circle in practice.

---

---

"As I already said, the two are linked. Without suffering there cannot be love. Without death there cannot be life. Without disasters there would not be life on earth. I've presented my case. You're dismissing mine without reason."

Hi again Fr0d0, there were quite afew things that didn't add up in your argument but I won't overload you with all of them. Just a few questions if you'd be so kind. :-)

Explain the notion "Without death there cannot be life." and what evidence you have of this.
Also if God is living but is eternal doesn't that mean he doesn't die? Isn't claiming the existence of such a being that cannot and will not die a direct contradiction of this notion?
Also I'd like to establish if God in your view is capable of suffering.

---

Hey Raph. Look at you getting all reasonable! Damn - I might have to un-block you! Glad I clicked anyway .

Life & death. Go together don't you think? This is a material presumption, as it's based on real life. Plants die, their nutrients are broken down and they contribute to new life forming.

Correct on God. He is eternal. Dr Who but with extra powaz. Also... it's life Jim but not as we know it. God is a temporal being, and not a corporeal one. Hence God getting to exist before time. Beat that damn Dr! Grr!

God weeps. Didn't you see it raining? Jesus suffered. If God is love, then not love isn't nice for God. Not that I think that can deter God. God is life in perfection. Life in perfection doesn't make mistakes. What would sufferring entail? Interesting question. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.