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

[fr0d0]

Please explain how any suffering is unnecessary.

You first, how is any suffering necessary?

I just did. Lots.

Thanks for butchering my quote.
Might want to fix that so I can understand what you are trying to say.
ANNNND they're off!

Butchering your quote lol?? Explain if you want.

And like I responded, god is not responsible for evil/ the negative force, that necessarily, in physics, opposes him. God works with physics, in that he provides the positive. In him is life.

Lolwut?
Evil/negative force necessarily opposes God in physics?
I see what you are trying to say, but I won't let you off the hook without proving your statements. Why is God= creator= positive and vice versa, with unknown evil force "x" being the negative force?
You still have'nt proven why creation is necessarily positive, in the general sense nor in the "special" case of original creation.

I have provided my reasoning for that statement. Seems logical to me. Please respond as to why you disagree. I'm not opposed to discussion. I'm open to changing my mind.

Do you think the singularity (not provable, but a good theory) contained positiviy and negativity, or just positivity? Same discussion.

Now a notion of anti physics; of life being possible without death, is logically impossible. It kinda wrecks the happy train before it has chance to leave the station. As many atheist will attest: what we have to do is accept reality as it is. God cannot be logically impossible. I think you conceded that above. So God could not create happy land.

"God cannot be logically impossible."
I can make assertions too.

You agreed with that above dude. If God is logically impossible then God does not exist. Care to back up that assertion? For us to have anything to consider, we have to consider a logical God. So to entertain an illogical God is pointless.

Your argument is that evil must exist in conjunction with good. You still haven't answered why a morally perfect God would have created a world with suffering of any kind, much less the huge amount of unnecessary suffering that exists. Why did he have to create any world at all?

I have explained and I seem to be talking to a wall.

Why is it unnecessary? How could it be any other way? these are the pertinent questions you must answer before this question has any traction. God created/ added something. What takes away from God isn't God adding something. What takes away is an opposite force.

Why did he have to create any world at all? Well that's a completely metaphysical question. A question about purpose. Can I say: I don't know?

Please explain how any suffering is unnecessary. If it is necessary for this logical world to function, then it is encompassed in Gods design. We may not understand fully the scientific processes. But I doubt very much that any scientist would agree that it (the process of suffering as part of life) would be illogical.

The point of contention is NOT that suffering is logically unnecessary in a world without an omnibenevolent creator God.
You must not have ever heard this argument before, or seriously misunderstood it.
So here it is: A perfectly moral God creates a world. He can create ANY world. He creates a world with unnecessary suffering (i.e., suffering that could have been averted by creating a different world or crafting physical laws differently). This created world is incompatible with a God of any kind of compassion. Just because this world must have suffering and you assume it to be God's creation doesn't make it so.
Basically, we aren't assuming a world under natural contexts, but rather under the context of a perfectly moral creator God.
He could make ANY world.
He made this world.
It not only has suffering, but unnecessary suffering.

I'm not interested in entertaining a physically impossible world. He couldn't make a logically impossible world, as I've reasoned above. He cannot make a square circle. Such ideas are a waste of time.

Please show how any suffering is unnecessary.

your argument fails to address suffering in the context of an omnibenevolent creator. You have effectively avoided the objection.

I have justified my objection to such a consideration. If you ignore the reasoning for God, and make up your own, you can come up with all sorts of alternative suggestions. None relevant to Christianity.

If you want to talk about anything but christianity, then I have no basis to object. Because I don't have to tie in what you've saying to something that doesn't fit.

So if we consider an unrelated deity to anything:

Creator = potential to create
Nothing exists (-ve)

This creator is only +ve. Can he create -ve? No

This creator is both +ve and -ve. Can he create -ve? Sure
Can a creator exist; can he possess potential if he contains equally both -ve and +ve? No

Can a creator exist if he is only -ve? No

So we must conclude that your thought experiment is an experiment in illogical premises. In an illogical reality, God can create evil = true. I'll give you that.

God cannot logically remove suffering from a logical world, so an argument against the need for suffering has to dismiss logic.

BLEEP! Wrong answer.
No, a God didn't need to create this world or any world at all. You keep assuming this, but I assure you it hasn't been proven that a God needed to have created this world. He could have created any world, being as powerful as he is. But he chose this one, and therein lies the problem; why didn't your God choose not to create a world with suffering, opting out of creation? Or, why didn't he make the world with no unnecessary suffering?
Unnecessary suffering still kills your argument, any way you cut the cake.

We don't need to prove that God needed to create this world. The world exists, therefore the world needed to be created. Our world couldn't logically exist in any other form, that you can logically postulate.

Unnecessary suffering might kill my argument, and I'd love to see how, if you could explain it.

God never acts contrary to his nature. I've shown what constituted Gods actions, and how the negative counter is not God.

Sorry, I am not familiar to your personal brand of Christianity. If your God created all things, he is directly responsible for all things, including any and all destructive forces or the possibility for destructive forces.

Well it's a quite widely held belief. I'm not different to every other Christian in this respect.

I find it odd that you label creation positive and destruction negative, because anything ever created will eventually be destroyed. Is time the destructive force you are labeling "negative"? Because God created this too- creation directly creating destruction.

And that is logically bankrupt as I've shown without opposition.

But I don't want to lose my mind in your useless waffle, so I won't bother.

Is this running away?

The creation of a world without evil is logically impossible full stop. It does not negate the presence of an all loving god, who's presence serves to counter evil.

Yes! So why does this world exist at all if your God is omnibenevolent?

Because God is +ve.

Please explain.

It's not important. I would prefer to keep this as direct as possible and avoid other topics.
If only I could avoid this positive and negative creation destruction good evil stuff too, as it reminds me of circus kooks and television psychics.

The point is pivotal to your argument to me. Your argument fails badly without this justification. You seem to want to insist on a logical imposibility. Which I concede is the only way that your argument works.

[Skepsis]

Butchering your quote lol?? Explain if you want.

Not important, other than the fact that I don't bother reading quoted material that has end quote commands and quoted names embedded in random spots. You did nothing to the words, I wouldn't accuse you of that.

I have provided my reasoning for that statement.

You did?

Seems logical to me. Please respond as to why you disagree. I'm not opposed to discussion. I'm open to changing my mind.

Do you think the singularity (not provable, but a good theory) contained positiviy and negativity, or just positivity? Same discussion.

I don't even know what you mean when you say things have inherently positive or negative attributes. I honestly don't even understand the proposition. I wouldn't be the one to prove things don't have these attributes, however. Burden of proof and all that.

You agreed with that above dude.

I agreed that a God could have made the universe, then semi-detracted that statement with the observations I made that directly followed it. You know, the ones about how God how have simply skipped the creation of any universe at all?

If God is logically impossible then God does not exist. Care to back up that assertion? For us to have anything to consider, we have to consider a logical God. So to entertain an illogical God is pointless.

This argument assumes a omnibenevolent creator God. Little bit of disagreement on the issue of God's possible existence, but it was another thing I shouldn't have bothered with.

Your argument is that evil must exist in conjunction with good. You still haven't answered why a morally perfect God would have created a world with suffering of any kind, much less the huge amount of unnecessary suffering that exists. Why did he have to create any world at all?

I have explained and I seem to be talking to a wall.

Irony master indeed.

Why is it unnecessary? How could it be any other way? these are the pertinent questions you must answer before this question has any traction. God created/ added something. What takes away from God isn't God adding something. What takes away is an opposite force.

1. It is unnecessary because there didn't need to be a world at all. Also, this objection might carry much more weight if there was no suffering that could be eliminated in another version of the world. Imagine a parallel world with "greater good" sufferings (granted just because) but no needless sufferings that serve no purpose.
2. It could be literally ANY other way. This God had the power to create or not create, and thus could make a world where no suffering was needless and served no purpose.
God added the universe and everything in it, including this "destructive agent". What takes away is directly descended from that God, making God responsible for it.

Why did he have to create any world at all? Well that's a completely metaphysical question. A question about purpose. Can I say: I don't know?

No, because I am not asking a blanket question. In the context of his moral obligation being a perfectly good being, the question "Why did God make the world?" is perfectly reasonable.
How about this: If I could create a colony of sentient... ants, knowing they would suffer needlessly, would I do so (in the context of mere humanly morality)?
No, because to do so would be immoral.
Same with God. He could have potentially created a world with no needless suffering by changing the world itself to support the change.
you are too stuck with the idea that this world sets the standard and you need to get past that to realize a God such as the one being proposed could have created whatever world he wanted.

I'm not interested in entertaining a physically impossible world. He couldn't make a logically impossible world, as I've reasoned above. He cannot make a square circle. Such ideas are a waste of time.

Please show how any suffering is unnecessary.

Sure thing.
Example: African woman dies giving birth in a faraway jungle running from malicious militia. Her child then dies from starvation/disease.
The reason your "the world must logically have both good and evil" defense doesn't work is because God is capable of creating a world where this type of completely unnecessary evil doesn't occur.

I have justified my objection to such a consideration. If you ignore the reasoning for God, and make up your own, you can come up with all sorts of alternative suggestions. None relevant to Christianity.

If you want to talk about anything but christianity, then I have no basis to object. Because I don't have to tie in what you've saying to something that doesn't fit.

So if we consider an unrelated deity to anything:

Creator = potential to create
Nothing exists (-ve)

This creator is only +ve. Can he create -ve? No

This creator is both +ve and -ve. Can he create -ve? Sure
Can a creator exist; can he possess potential if he contains equally both -ve and +ve? No

Can a creator exist if he is only -ve? No

So we must conclude that your thought experiment is an experiment in illogical premises. In an illogical reality, God can create evil = true. I'll give you that.

Did your God create EVERYTHING?
If your God created every single thing in existence, then he created whatever it is you suggest destroys. If that is the case, then your God is responsible for all destruction.
If you claim your God created all, you basically said your God is illogical.
If there is another entity alongside God that destroys, you have two new problems, the first being that he is un-evidenced and the second being that a moral God would destroy this evil.

We don't need to prove that God needed to create this world. The world exists, therefore the world needed to be created. Our world couldn't logically exist in any other form, that you can logically postulate.

Unnecessary suffering might kill my argument, and I'd love to see how, if you could explain it.

I have explained it, and you just keep coming back with your lame ass excuse for an argument.
You can logically postulate a world with less unneeded suffering than this one. If you can do that, then a benevolent God can't exist. Think back to my African example: a benevolent God could make a world where the timeline is altered in such a way as to spare the life of the woman and child, due to genetics or weather conditions that day or some such anomaly.

Well it's a quite widely held belief. I'm not different to every other Christian in this respect.

If that is this case and you are simply conceding God to have created everything, then by your own logic God can create -ve (by extension).

And that is logically bankrupt as I've shown without opposition.

Yeah, nothing opposes you when you close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, and yell. That doesn't mean I never objected.
I'll once again assert that a God who created everything also created destructive force.

Is this running away?

It's refusing to forfeit my mental faculties to a meritless back-and-forth that would inevitably take place.

Because God is +ve.

I specifically remember you saying God was the potential to create. Hmm.
If you are asserting he must create by nature...
Then his base attributes conflict one another. a God who is infinitely good cannot also be compelled to create as a necessity. Good and evil can only exist as a pair, but that doesn't mean they must be created. A moral God wouldn't allow a world where evil existed, in some situations, without good, like the world we live in.

The point is pivotal to your argument to me. Your argument fails badly without this justification. You seem to want to insist on a logical imposibility. Which I concede is the only way that your argument works.

"God's creation is this reality"
I didn't disagree with the statement, but with what it implied. This reality didn't have to be the creation of God. It could very well have not existed, with another reality in its place. I can know this because an all loving God wouldn't create a reality in which I, as a human with limited knowledge, could think of a morally superior alternative world. It wouldn't be possible, because the world ought not be improvable at all.
What this comes down to is that you contradicted yourself with your creation/destruction thing, being as it is that your God created everything by your own admission. He contradicts himself by nature.
If he is only the potential to create then it stands to reason that God shouldn't have created a world of suffering at all.

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh ffs, what kind of shitty god can't square a circle? Why are we hemming in our fantasies with reason? I don't understand.....

[Mystic]

Going back to the issue of special pleading towards God. I think this special pleading is fair because he has to be the designer of the world. While he must bring about a greater good by designing the system to include suffering, the humans don't bring about a greater good when they don't try to reduce suffering or not inflict it. The reason is because the character building lies in trying to reduce suffering, while the designer has set up the system for us to do that of our free-will. To be an author of good stories, there needs to be adversity.

Now going back to the issue of whether God can create the value of making our own choices in a world where we face adversity, I think it's not simply virtues like "strong will" or "patience", but it's the value of choosing to adopt these virtues when it's not necessary you have it. It's the value of striving yourself, without being forced upon you. In other words, free-will is worth it, and the value of our choices of these virtues are worth it.

We can say instead of value, honour. And it doesn't seem honour can simply be given, but not earned, from what we understand of it.

Now another factor is an issue of justice here. While I do believe God is Merciful and won't torture bad people with flames, I don't think it's fair at all, if all people were born with perfect virtues, when they would not have chosen that themselves and chosen the opposite. I don't find it fair towards the people that would have chosen a higher choice. This is making people whom would have a chose the higher road the same as the people whom would have chosen the lower road. Clearly here there seems to be issue of unfairness. Everyone is been made as if they are the same, with no distinction. While I feel some people deserve to be honoured over others and not made equal to others.

This is not to say, that people in the future won't eventually become all good. It's just that, the honour of the people whom took the higher road, deserve to be higher then those whom took the lower road.

This maybe true, maybe not true. But it's another possible factor to consider.

[The Grand Nudger]

Again, if this special pleading is fair then you should probably abandon reason (you already have, in any case). Our lives here in the real world are not stories. There is a clear difference in that in a story -when the character dies a terrible death- it is just a story. You can pick up a story, put a story down. You can pick and choose which stories you might enjoy reading/hearing. I can think of no way to cheapen the business of life more completely than to compare it to Little Red Riding Hood, good job. All this nonsense about higher choices and justice and honor has eveything to do with your own personal value judgements and nothing whatsoever to do with the world beyond your head or any god. Your sense of fairness and "just rewards" do not compel the universe (or anything at all, even yourself) to act in accordance to your wishes. Do yourself a favor, ditch the whole rewards narrative, do "good" because you are good - or, conversely, do "evil" because you are evil. Own it, make it yours, and stop hoping for a handout from the almighty, a little "atta-boy" from the creator of all, because you decided -in your infinite virtue- not to steal cookies from the cookie jar.

[fr0d0]

I don't even know what you mean when you say things have inherently positive or negative attributes. I honestly don't even understand the proposition. I wouldn't be the one to prove things don't have these attributes, however. Burden of proof and all that.

Ok I understand your problem I think. What I'm trying to get at is the something and nothing distinction. There was nothing, and then there was something. Well, God pre-dates it obviously, but we denote God as non physical and timeless (handy sure, but you get to play along ).

This is Thomas Aquinas stuff from antiquity. God, the potentiality to make something, has to embody in that nothingness, something.

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

Now the creator didn't create nothing. Nothing pre-exists everything. You see where that leads... God didn't create nothing, he created something. God is something. Gods opposite > evil > gravitates towards nothing.

I hope you can see where I'm coming from now with that.

Thanks for going along with the crappy +/- analogy if you did. I thought later that that sucked lol.

omnibenevolent creator God

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

1. It is unnecessary because there didn't need to be a world at all. Also, this objection might carry much more weight if there was no suffering that could be eliminated in another version of the world. Imagine a parallel world with "greater good" sufferings (granted just because) but no needless sufferings that serve no purpose.
2. It could be literally ANY other way. This God had the power to create or not create, and thus could make a world where no suffering was needless and served no purpose.
God added the universe and everything in it, including this "destructive agent". What takes away is directly descended from that God, making God responsible for it.

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

Why did he have to create any world at all? Well that's a completely metaphysical question. A question about purpose. Can I say: I don't know?

No, because I am not asking a blanket question. In the context of his moral obligation being a perfectly good being, the question "Why did God make the world?" is perfectly reasonable.
How about this: If I could create a colony of sentient... ants, knowing they would suffer needlessly, would I do so (in the context of mere humanly morality)?
No, because to do so would be immoral.
Same with God. He could have potentially created a world with no needless suffering by changing the world itself to support the change.
you are too stuck with the idea that this world sets the standard and you need to get past that to realize a God such as the one being proposed could have created whatever world he wanted.

1. I don't see how you claim unnecessary suffering. More later on your examples below.
So Yes, God created a world with no unnecessary suffering: this one.
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.
3. I'm merely focussing on the subject: the God of major religions. I have to bring it back to that, because ultimately, it's what we're both discussing, no?

I'm not interested in entertaining a physically impossible world. He couldn't make a logically impossible world, as I've reasoned above. He cannot make a square circle. Such ideas are a waste of time.

Please show how any suffering is unnecessary.

Sure thing.
Example: African woman dies giving birth in a faraway jungle running from malicious militia. Her child then dies from starvation/disease.
The reason your "the world must logically have both good and evil" defense doesn't work is because God is capable of creating a world where this type of completely unnecessary evil doesn't occur.

Kushti. Thanks.

I'm sure we could think of better examples, taking some seed there and expanding. But let's deal with this.

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.

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

I see no unnecessary sufferring. The events led to the outcome. Events took on their natural course and what was always going to happen, happened. It's very sad from the mothers POV and from a human POV. But what has that got to do with the balance of nature that governs all of this? Is nature not playing it's part fully? No, nature is acting out the play just as it should. It can do no other. Action is producing reaction, the necessary course of events always happens.

Did your God create EVERYTHING?

Yes, my God created everything. He didn't create nothing, however.

If your God created every single thing in existence, then he created whatever it is you suggest destroys. If that is the case, then your God is responsible for all destruction.

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

If you claim your God created all, you basically said your God is illogical.

That's convenient to change what I said to "all". Poor point, poorly executed

If there is another entity alongside God that destroys, you have two new problems, the first being that he is un-evidenced and the second being that a moral God would destroy this evil.

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.

You might think that something could destroy nothing. 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??

Hopefully that serves some purpose lol!

I have explained it, and you just keep coming back with your lame ass excuse for an argument.

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

You can logically postulate a world with less unneeded suffering than this one. If you can do that, then a benevolent God can't exist. Think back to my African example: a benevolent God could make a world where the timeline is altered in such a way as to spare the life of the woman and child, due to genetics or weather conditions that day or some such anomaly.

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.

I can know this because an all loving God wouldn't create a reality in which I, as a human with limited knowledge, could think of a morally superior alternative world. It wouldn't be possible, because the world ought not be improvable at all.

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

[The Grand Nudger]

Easy Frods, you use that godly magic to create species of life which are not entirely parasitic upon each other. That would eliminate just about all suffering one is likely to invoke. Maybe create a cosmos habitable to life in it's entirety so you don't have to invoke death as population control....oh, and personally, as the creator, you avoid douche moves. No competition for resources would go a long way to reducing conflict, a hell of a long way. You could, of course, being god, put the icing on the cake by creating species of life that were not prone to violence in the absence of competition. Clearly however, you feel that all of this is asking too much from a god.

[fr0d0]

If you don't wish to address the above, and why should you, I'm totally owning you (joke)...



How about this spanner:

Heaven is that place you dream of. In heaven there is no sufferring. (Skepsis cheers). What is the point of this alternate reality, that our ethereal selves gravitate towards?

Now I've looked into heaven and hell a bit, and I conclude that in the majority of cases, the meaning to be taken is that heaven and hell are states for corporeal existance. You attain heaven by living fully. Elijah (bear with me) did this so well that he didn't die but somehow morphed into his ethereal self. Likewise, hell is a self imposed nothingness that is self destruction.

[The Grand Nudger]

Then what's all this christ and sin business about Frods? All I have to do is live fully, and I'll get the heaven thing going for me...which is right here on earth. No wonder I've never needed religion.

[Mystic]

We can re-write the premises as follows:

1. All life will end in peace and prosperity and the end result is for each life to be without suffering.
2. Honour and Value is a worthy goal of suffering for a period, given that life will end in peace and without suffering.
3. In order to create some suffering that would bring about honour and value, some suffering would not.
4. There is wisdom in enriching the sentient honour and value experience with different type of suffering in the system.
5. Honour and Value gained through the system of struggle and suffering, cannot be given without such a system.
6. Therefore over all system of suffering could have been created to enrich sentient life experience.
7. A benevolent Creator therefore seems compatible with the world we live in.