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

[Mystic]

The premises are as follows:

If there was a benevolent Creator, there would not exist unnecessary suffering or suffering that would not bring about a greater good.
There exists suffering that is unnecessary and doesn't bring about a greater good.
Therefore a benevolent Creator does not exist.


Now this argument is not stating there is no need of any suffering. For example, the existence of poverty, promotes the good intentions of charity.

But I would argue there is things like:

1) People with multiple personalities where they can't even decide whom they want to be, there personalities are out of control.
2) All sorts of mental disorders which goes against soul development (not saying all do, but some do).

I understand the argument that suffering brings character. But what is the point of a person having a multiple personalities and can hardly function? What good does it bring upon others or towards the person sufferring?

It seems whatever good can come out of it, is not necessary. For example, compassion towards the person. We can have compassion towards people in poverty sufferring, and actual be able to help them. In the case of multiple personalities, what can we do for them, but feel sorry for them?

This a significant point. The same can be said about diseases in general.

I would like to hear a defense for this.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

In my opinion,the problems of evil and suffering are incompatible with the notion of an Abrahamic/caring/powerful God.


I agree with the pithy summation attributed to Epicurus:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

[genkaus]

The premises are as follows:

If there was a benevolent Creator, there would not exist unnecessary suffering or suffering that would not bring about a greater good.
There exists suffering that is unnecessary and doesn't bring about a greater good.
Therefore a benevolent Creator does not exist.


Now this argument is not stating there is no need of any suffering. For example, the existence of poverty, promotes the good intentions of charity.

But I would argue there is things like:

1) People with multiple personalities where they can't even decide whom they want to be, there personalities are out of control.
2) All sorts of mental disorders which goes against soul development (not saying all do, but some do).

I understand the argument that suffering brings character. But what is the point of a person having a multiple personalities and can hardly function? What good does it bring upon others or towards the person sufferring?

It seems whatever good can come out of it, is not necessary. For example, compassion towards the person. We can have compassion towards people in poverty sufferring, and actual be able to help them. In the case of multiple personalities, what can we do for them, but feel sorry for them?

This a significant point. The same can be said about diseases in general.

I would like to hear a defense for this.

It seems you are off to a bad start with your premises. For example, how do you determine what is "greater good" and how much suffering is necessary?

[FallentoReason]

In my opinion,the problems of evil and suffering are incompatible with the notion of an Abrahamic/caring/powerful God.


I agree with the pithy summation attributed to Epicurus:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

As a former Christian, I used to say to this that Epicurus lived before the time of Jesus. God was willing to an extent to do something about it, hence why he sent Jesus. Do you think this is theologically satisfactory?

[genkaus]

As a former Christian, I used to say to this that Epicurus lived before the time of Jesus. God was willing to an extent to do something about it, hence why he sent Jesus. Do you think this is theologically satisfactory?

Nope, especially since a) he didn't send Jesus from the start and b) Jesus failed.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

God was willing to an extent to do something about it, hence why he sent Jesus.

Really.-

Do you think this is theologically satisfactory?

Theology is intellectual masturbation. RATIONALLY, the argument is nonsense:


Human society lived and suffered for thousands of years before Jesus. What took God so long? Why to this day,does this help,um not help so as I've noticed,and such a small proportion of humanity? Why does evil and suffering still exist,on a massive scale,even among the most devout and innocent?

[Ben Davis]

Why does evil and suffering still exist,on a massive scale,even among the most devout and innocent?

Because they haven't truly accepted Jesus as their personal saviour?

[FallentoReason]

As a former Christian, I used to say to this that Epicurus lived before the time of Jesus. God was willing to an extent to do something about it, hence why he sent Jesus. Do you think this is theologically satisfactory?

Nope, especially since a) he didn't send Jesus from the start

Hence why I said theologically

and b) Jesus failed.

I take it as a non-believer this is obviously your view because the Bible simply fails. Yes... I agree, but I was merely talking hypothetically/theologically. Learn to think outside the box a little

---

God was willing to an extent to do something about it, hence why he sent Jesus.

Really.-

Do you think this is theologically satisfactory?

Theology is intellectual masturbation. RATIONALLY, the argument is nonsense:


Human society lived and suffered for thousands of years before Jesus. What took God so long? Why to this day,does this help,um not help so as I've noticed,and such a small proportion of humanity? Why does evil and suffering still exist,on a massive scale,even among the most devout and innocent?

They're all really good questions. I never went beyond my initial argument because my 'opponent' would get stumped after I said God sent Jesus. Mind you, these people were some non-Christian friends I had who don't have debating experience.

[genkaus]

Hence why I said theologically

And how does adding that qualifier make the delay any more satisfactory?

I take it as a non-believer this is obviously your view because the Bible simply fails. Yes... I agree, but I was merely talking hypothetically/theologically. Learn to think outside the box a little

I accept your hypothetical in this scenario. My point is, even by your standard, your god failed. Given the tardiness in sending Jesus to remove evil and suffering means he isn't always willing and given Jesus's failure to actually remove the evil and suffering, his ability is questionable as well.

[Faith No More]

MysticKnight, you seem to have been bringing up the argument against evil frequently in recent memory. Are you having doubts that a benevolent creator exists?