"God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil"

[GodsRevolt]

There's no need for you or I to even talk about what we do to help the world, you don't have to justify yourself to me nor me to you.

This is it, right here.

Without a God, this will always be the out.

Thank you.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

There's no need for you or I to even talk about what we do to help the world, you don't have to justify yourself to me nor me to you.

This is it, right here.

Without a God, this will always be the out.

Thank you.

If you can make a case for me to disclose what I do with my money and what charities I'm involved in, I will. But you haven't. You just avoided the entire discussion and asked me if I've fed a starving boy. When whether I have or not does not contribute anything to your side of the argument, which I've tried again and again to spell out for you so at this point I don't know if you're being dense or dishonest.

But your last remark is really stupid because you think god exists and yet I'm still not required to justify myself to a stranger on the internet. And everyone would only need to justify their actions to themselves, the difference being atheist do not have an imaginary voice talking to them about their own moral values. I have yet to see a christian abide to a biblical teaching when it isn't already part of their moral values. I've yet to see a homophobic xtian become tolerant because the bible says love everyone and I've yet to see a tolerant xtian become homophobic because the bible say being gay is a sin. Same goes with divorce, money issues, and shit like that.

If you do not have an argument to make, walk off instead of making personal attacks at things you literally know nothing about.

[Ryantology]

Side-step

Your response to that was, I agree.

Maximally-knowing means he understands things you don't.

So is this one. And, if we don't understand his motives, how can you call those motives good?

He should understand ways to do what he needs to do without the introduction of suffering. If he does, then the only necessary reason for suffering to exist is that God enjoys suffering.

The price you pay for giving your god omnimax attributes is that he is to blame for every flaw of his own creation. There is no excusing or justifying even the tiniest bit of misery in a universe created by a being who has total control over everything, except for that being's love of misery. There is literally no other logical explanation.

I've had this conversation enough times to know that it can only eventually end with you telling me that God can do what he wants because might makes right.

[Neo-Scholastic]

There is no excusing or justifying even the tiniest bit of misery in a universe created by a being who has total control over everything...

That is your error. God does not control your choices. You do.

[Ryantology]

There is no excusing or justifying even the tiniest bit of misery in a universe created by a being who has total control over everything...

That is your error. God does not control your choices. You do.

"Sorry, kid. You made your bed, now you've got to lie in it. Don't blame God for the choices you made."

[Godscreated]

[bennyboy]

The problem here is that the definitions of "evil" implied here beg the question. It is assumed that all man's sufferings are intrinsically evil simply because they are unpleasant, and that a good God could not allow them. This viewpoint only make sense from the perspective that there is no God, and that we're talking only about human ideas which do/don't make sense to humans.

Let's look at parenthood. I sometimes inflict suffering on my children. I some times give them free reign to make mistakes, or force them to follow my will. It is in my nature both to have them follow me to some degree, and for them to blossom and discover their own natures to some degree. I COULD mold my children almost completely-- brain washing, draconic punishments, a program of LSD to reform their little brains.

But I don't do that. Letting them experience some suffering is necessary for them to develop in the manner in which I want them to-- as individual entities separate from my own whims. If they ignore my advice, or take a wrong turn, things could turn out very badly for them. But it's hard to argue that even mortal risk on their parts makes the liberty I give them evil rather than good.

[feeling]

The problem here is that the definitions of "evil" implied here beg the question. It is assumed that all man's sufferings are intrinsically evil simply because they are unpleasant, and that a good God could not allow them. This viewpoint only make sense from the perspective that there is no God, and that we're talking only about human ideas which do/don't make sense to humans.

Let's look at parenthood. I sometimes inflict suffering on my children. I some times give them free reign to make mistakes, or force them to follow my will. It is in my nature both to have them follow me to some degree, and for them to blossom and discover their own natures to some degree. I COULD mold my children almost completely-- brain washing, draconic punishments, a program of LSD to reform their little brains.

But I don't do that. Letting them experience some suffering is necessary for them to develop in the manner in which I want them to-- as individual entities separate from my own whims. If they ignore my advice, or take a wrong turn, things could turn out very badly for them. But it's hard to argue that even mortal risk on their parts makes the liberty I give them evil rather than good.

Can I amputate your limbs and set you on fire?

[bennyboy]

The problem here is that the definitions of "evil" implied here beg the question. It is assumed that all man's sufferings are intrinsically evil simply because they are unpleasant, and that a good God could not allow them. This viewpoint only make sense from the perspective that there is no God, and that we're talking only about human ideas which do/don't make sense to humans.

Let's look at parenthood. I sometimes inflict suffering on my children. I some times give them free reign to make mistakes, or force them to follow my will. It is in my nature both to have them follow me to some degree, and for them to blossom and discover their own natures to some degree. I COULD mold my children almost completely-- brain washing, draconic punishments, a program of LSD to reform their little brains.

But I don't do that. Letting them experience some suffering is necessary for them to develop in the manner in which I want them to-- as individual entities separate from my own whims. If they ignore my advice, or take a wrong turn, things could turn out very badly for them. But it's hard to argue that even mortal risk on their parts makes the liberty I give them evil rather than good.

Can I amputate your limbs and set you on fire?

I'd prefer you didn't. That sounds like a very unpleasant experience.

[MindForgedManacle]

@Benny The main problem is that your example of a human parent ignores all of the limits humans have, bith as children and as adults. A being with omnipotence and omniscience has no such limits, so treating it as if it did is a sort of equivoation.

Also, if by evil you mean suffering, then it isn't question-begging to say God, if he exists, allows for suffering. After all, you're just defining what you mean by the term.