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

[fr0d0]

This reality without suffering is illogical.

Why? There technically could exist a reality outside suffering, if you delve into what a God is capable of.

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.

Same as a loving God creating beings to love him without suffering is illogical.

Seems to me a loving God creating any suffering in the first place is the more illogical of the two.

And that is a logically bankrupt statement for the reasons already offered.

Neither (love or suffering) can exist alone. They're interdependent.

No, I don't think so, but I won't bother to take the time to prove it.
Like I said, infinite love and any degree od suffering are contradictive, regardless of whether or not they must come as a pair in reality. Your point in null because a perfectly loving creator would rather avoid creation altogether rather than create something that is destined, rather, by your interpretation, necessarily, subject to suffering that is often times needless and unavoidable.

The infinite love of god is towards us, is what you're addressing if you're addressing my God. You seem to be mis-applying the attribute. God's creation is this reality. That includes all the suffering and death. This god you address is a straw man of your own creation, and doesn't resemble mine.

So only a loving God would create this reality.

Dafaq?
How, even if I granted you every single point you made, did you get to the statement you made above?
A malevolent God could have made the universe by your same criterion, because good and evil must coexist. The love, in this case, would simply be a byproduct.
You are really going to have a hard time justifying this point.

I've justified it many times. God is the potential that is the creation. The positive force as it had to be to create. Evil is the opposing force that would resist God. A malevolent God, in this construct, is an impossibility. This would have to be a lesser entity, as a destructive force couldn't have created anything. It needs something already created so that it has something to destroy.

[Nemo]

Why? There technically could exist a reality outside suffering, if you delve into what a God is capable of.

i like this line as it expresses the very thing we all agree on. Life has its up and downs yet its wonderful and brilliant

[Skepsis]

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.

I haven't dismissed yours or I would have stopped talking to you.
Suffering and love aren't necessarily linked. A creator God with the capacity to create anything could potentially create... anything. Therefore, if there is possibly a world where there doesn't exist suffering but includes love, God failed to create that would and is thus morally unjustified to do so.

And that is a logically bankrupt statement for the reasons already offered.

Whatever you say, Fr0d0.
I'm not here to help justify your God. I don't have to prove any one universe is compatible with your deity.

The infinite love of god is towards us, is what you're addressing if you're addressing my God. You seem to be mis-applying the attribute. God's creation is this reality. That includes all the suffering and death. This god you address is a straw man of your own creation, and doesn't resemble mine.

If I am misaddressing your God, just tell me. Tell me what you mean when you say "God". I understand Christianity and religion as a whole is little more than a trip through the cafeteria, picking and choosing what you want. I should have known better than to assume you meant the traditional Christian God that has all his omnis attached.
However, despite the fact I have no clue what you were trying to say in that last rebutall, I don't see how you got past my objection than an all-loving God wouldn't have created a place of suffering in the first place.
Edit: You believe in a literal hell, do you not? That would be even stronger, though you would have to ignore all those verses abot a lake of fire and that stuff about fire and brimstone. But then again, Christians don't usually have much of a problem discarding the verses they don't like.

I've justified it many times. God is the potential that is the creation. The positive force as it had to be to create. Evil is the opposing force that would resist God. A malevolent God, in this construct, is an impossibility. This would have to be a lesser entity, as a destructive force couldn't have created anything. It needs something already created so that it has something to destroy.

God creates and evil destroys? Why can't evil build, if not only to watch its creation crumble?
What of the death star?
No, I sincerely disagree that evil is incapable of creation. Evil people are capable, so why not an evil God?
It looks to me you are hitting a mental block that you expect me to see clearly, but instead my reasoning is unclouded and I see no such block.
Or maybe you are just terrible at putting your thoughts into words. Either way, you know?

[fr0d0]

Well thanks for not answering. You don't get my reasoning. But fail to present anything for me to even consider. And that's ok to you. Then you insult me. Fine. I have no need to discuss this. And no, I don't believe in a literal hell. Cheers.

[StatCrux]

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.

Quite clearly your initial premise is flawed. Does "unnecessary suffering" exist? There may well be sufficient moral reason for all suffering. For example, if Stalin had been born with the type of mental illness you describe the lives of millions would have been saved. I'm not saying that all mentally ill people are somehow mass murderers being punished, I'm simply showing that morally sufficient or even "necessary" reasons can exist for suffering, which negates your initial premise.

[Skepsis]

Well thanks for not answering. You don't get my reasoning. But fail to present anything for me to even consider. And that's ok to you. Then you insult me. Fine. I have no need to discuss this. And no, I don't believe in a literal hell. Cheers.

Running away?
Typical. I never insulted you with the intent to anger you or provoke you, maybe I absent-mindedly said something but I can't think of it.
I don't understand the God you are presenting nor your line of reasoning, and if you fail to clarify I'll have to assume it was just garble like I thought it to be.
If that's all you have, it must be your iron will that allows you to remain a theist on an atheist site.

[Epimethean]

"Quite clearly your initial premise is flawed. Does "unnecessary suffering" exist? There may well be sufficient moral reason for all suffering. For example, if Stalin had been born with the type of mental illness you describe the lives of millions would have been saved. I'm not saying that all mentally ill people are somehow mass murderers being punished, I'm simply showing that morally sufficient or even "necessary" reasons can exist for suffering, which negates your initial premise."



Pure rubbish above.

So, because Stalin was the way he was, therefore god and satan? Holy shit is all that is.

[fr0d0]

Not running away Skepsis just tired of waiting for you to answer. That you don't get the logic is of no concern to me.

[fr0d0]

Ok I have some time so let me try to explain some more.

You saying that your deity could destroy...
What I'm talking about is the root creator. The creator from nothing.

Now if you assert that an originating source was destructive, how does that work? From nothing he... erm... couldn't make anything.

See what I mean?

A destructive force has to be a subsequent force. It cannot be the originating force > God.

Likewise, as this force has to be only positive, then God can only logically do good. So observations of a god that does evil cannot possibly be this God. And this is exactly what the Christian bible asserts about God.

Do you understand that?

[Epimethean]

Why couldn't your god of abstraction destroy nothing-if by destroying nothing it created something. All of this stuff gets pretty zany, but if we're going to talk about irrealities and speculative fantasy, it's as good as anyplace to roam.