If there is a God, why is there evil?

[Lacewing]

Hey, this topic is only 4 pages behind the "I am God" topic, on its way to 100 pages.

Things are as they are, in the moment, and only by comparison of how things MIGHT be or how things WHERE, are we able to make a judgement as to whether or not it is good or evil.

Makes sense! This brought another thought to my mind... regarding how it can be so easy for one's experience or perspective to flip. I used to spend a lot of time in the desert, exploring, camping, climbing... and I loved the whole feel of it... the dry heat... the wide open space... the solitude... a place where a person could lose themselves. It was my own little heaven. Then one time, a friend and I got all turned-around after hours of exploring, and as the sun began setting, we realized we weren't sure which direction our camp was. As it got darker, and terror started to grip us, I could see how my little heaven could actually be a little hell as well. (Then, thanks to the sound of a voice far in the distance, we found our way back to the small camping area in the dark... desperately scrambling over obstacles we would have never attempted in the light.)

A person's experience or perspective can flip from one extreme to another... and, of course, it can shift even without anything else changing at all. Because all experiences/reflections are there to choose from. It makes sense to me that if a god truly encompassed ALL... that would include the potential for evil. Just as I can be with a person (or even myself), and see the evils as well as the sacred. To define anything or anyone as being ONLY one element is unrealistic. I think that's why I can feel love for someone I don't like or want to be around. It seems to me that all things have a potential for presenting opposites, as well as a vast variety -- so there is no single way to assess anything.

[Clive Staples Lewis]

Clive, I am not going to explain to you why kidnapping and raping young girls is immoral behaviour that is uncalled for (gratuitous). It would help if you read the EO Wilson book of the month and learned about group selection and morality.

Nor will I explain to you why the destruction of "corrupted and decaying nature" is morally and strategically wrong and that it will not usher in of God's rule.

Last time we spoke all your responses were parrot-like - "No, you're wrong" ... "why?" ... over and over. You always presented me with a small target while extending the range of your own. The upshot? I was wasting hours and hours replying in detail with considered responses, which were always immediately rebuffed by "No, you're wrong" and "Why?", as though you were a five year-old.

So there I was, working my tush off while you kept stringing me along with pointless, simple questions. If the questions had depth, responding to them could have been enlightening but there were no lessons or new ideas in those conversations with you - old ground that I knew better than you (unlike conversations I have with many others here). It was just tiresome, competitive, game-playing questions.

I can happily agree with you. Kidnapping and raping girls is immoral.

But saying the above is a far cry from saying that God does not have a morally sufficient reason for allowing such things to happen, which was my point.

You seem to be under the impression that because girls are raped in this world that therefore God does not exist.

If you want me to believe that then you have to do more than just say: "Raping girls is immoral."

I heartily agree.

The thing that you have to remember about me is that I believe something far worse than the above has happened and yet I still believe in God. I believe that Jesus of Nazareth was beaten and scourged beyond recognition and then nailed to a cross and died, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant,b being born in the likeness of men. 8And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

You see, I believe that sinful, evil, selfish, prideful men murdered the Son of God, the darkest, most cruel instance of human savagery and brutality ever known and yet I also believe in God.

So you see, if you want to argue that the existence of certain types of evil or suffering are somehow evidence that God does not exist, you will need to do more than to appeal to what Boko Haram has done.

-- Updated February 28th, 2015, 5:28 pm to add the following --

In this context, I simply do not think any person with the cognitive limitations inherent in our nature, has the capacity to judge whether or not God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing certain things to happen.

This is a claim that I don't think you can justify.

You can argue that we don't know everything about god - but I think to carry your point you would need to show we know Nothing about god.

Why would I have to show that we know nothing about God in order to show that we do not have the capacity to claim that God does not have a morally sufficient reason for allowing (x)?

Imagine the case of being a prophet. One day god comes down to greet you. You will, I presume, make some basic assumptions.

One of them might be that attacking him would be a bad idea not a good one. This is based on the assumption that god would not be a god that loves only those that attack him. In doing this you are clearly making a long list of apparently reasonable assumptions about him. Which betrays the fact that you are able to reasonably make those assumptions.

It is true. We can make assumptions about what God might or might not allow to happen.

But just because we can make assumptions about what God would not allow to happen, it does not follow that He does not have good reasons for allowing what we assumed He would not allow to happen to happen.

See the distinction?

It is not enough to say that we can assume that God would not do certain things to prove that He would not allow said things to happen. Our assumptions often times are wrong, which was my point in telling you that we as finite beings are severely limited in our cognitive abilities and therefore we simply are not in a good position to assess whether or not God would have morally sufficient reasons for allowing a free moral agent to do something.

How many children have made the assumption that their parents were up to no good when they took them to the doctor for a shot in the butt or arm, or a prick in their finger?

I literally thought my dad was the most abominable fellow when one day he took me to the doctor. I remember it vividly even now, years later. He had to literally restrain me while the doctor pricked my index finger.

I had no idea how anything good could have come from that horrific ordeal. All I knew was that I was gonna get stuck and it was all my dad's fault and the mean old doctor too.

I had no idea that they were checking my blood for some potentially lethal pathogen that could have killed me if gone undetected.

I had no idea that a greater good would come from the momentary affliction I experienced.

We adults are like I was that day. All we see is what hurts us, what afflicts us, and we are so nearsighted that only God can show us what lies ahead. The apostle Paul made it very clear. He had suffered much but called his sufferings "light and momentary afflictions" when compared with what lay ahead for him.

This is not to lessen or make light of the affliction and pain people suffer, but it is to put it into proper perspective. That's all.

Nor are we to forget that when suffering, God is not some distant and aloof spectator, but is intimately acquainted with our grief. He even went so far as to enter into humanity and bear our sins and pains and sufferings on the cross. Our God is not a God that is uncaring and apathetic, but rather, caring and empathetic so much so that when we were without strength, Christ died for the ungodly.

The classic response to this is that god could make the ripple without the stone especially where the stone and the ripple are so disconnected as to be impossible for a human to understand. There is no useful lesson for us to learn in the book no one will ever open, so why not just make it such that it produces the result one prefers?

God could have made a world without suffering and pain. If that had been His goal.

But that was not His goal. In fact He made such a world as a sort of precursor to this one. The world before Adam and Eve were made was void of suffering.

God's goal was to make something far more grand. A world inhabited by men and women created in His Image and Likeness, spiritual, free moral agents who could love one another and experience this love in ways only such creatures can.

Men and women fit for the world to come are produced when they, through patience and endurance, through faith and love, persevere and pursue the Kingdom of God and its righteousness in the here and now in this veil of decision making.

And so until this veil passes and we are ushered into his presence, the saints, along with Job of old proclaim:

"But he knows the way that I take; when he has tried me, I shall come forth as gold." Job 23:10

[Sy Borg]

Clive, I am not going to explain to you why kidnapping and raping young girls is immoral behaviour that is uncalled for (gratuitous). It would help if you read the EO Wilson book of the month and learned about group selection and morality.

Nor will I explain to you why the destruction of "corrupted and decaying nature" is morally and strategically wrong and that it will not usher in of God's rule.

Last time we spoke all your responses were parrot-like - "No, you're wrong" ... "why?" ... over and over. You always presented me with a small target while extending the range of your own. The upshot? I was wasting hours and hours replying in detail with considered responses, which were always immediately rebuffed by "No, you're wrong" and "Why?", as though you were a five year-old.

So there I was, working my tush off while you kept stringing me along with pointless, simple questions. If the questions had depth, responding to them could have been enlightening but there were no lessons or new ideas in those conversations with you - old ground that I knew better than you (unlike conversations I have with many others here). It was just tiresome, competitive, game-playing questions.

I can happily agree with you. Kidnapping and raping girls is immoral.

But saying the above is a far cry from saying that God does not have a morally sufficient reason for allowing such things to happen, which was my point.

You seem to be under the impression that because girls are raped in this world that therefore God does not exist.

If I was nasty I would give you a classic Clive response - "What gave you that impression"?. However, I am pleased that this time you have replied with some detail rather than questions.

I would never use such a spurious and emotion-laded reasoning like "Atricities mean that God doesn't exist". To start, I am agnostic and open to the god of Spinoza, although not the mythological man-god of the Bible and Koran (nor Odin or Zeus for that matter), although I appreciate the perceptive allegories used by biblical authors in lieu of science.

In the greater scheme of things, rape and murder are simply concentrated local entropic forces at human scale. The rapes and murders were never "necessary", just collateral damage, roughly akin to bugs squashed by a steamroller. Wrong place, wrong time.

I asked about the girls because you have previously said that the sooner "decayed and corrupted" nature is destroyed, the better, because it would usher in the prophesy of God's dominion over the Earth. I find that notion so amoral, cavalier and generally problematic that I wanted to check your understanding of morality per se and was unsure whether you would in fact find the Boko Haram's barbarity to be immoral. Happily, we concur for once, although I am still disturbed and dismayed that people would think the way you do about the natural environment.

[Lambert]

Opposites produce each other.

There cannot be light, without dark. There cannot be good without evil.

Pardon me? Light is an illusion just as evil is but not in the same way. Light is a reflection of truth that makes it shine in us, and from there create the good with its own opposite in bad so we might know the difference, and evil has nothing to do with either one. Evil is a religious thing that put the snake to work in us.

[ScottieX]

Why would I have to show that we know nothing about God in order to show that we do not have the capacity to claim that God does not have a morally sufficient reason for allowing (x)?

If you know anything about god you can use that to make a 'judgement' about him just like you would about anything else. Not knowing certain facts does not change that. The only thing that leaves you with no grounding to make any judgement, is if you know nothing.

It is true. We can make assumptions about what God might or might not allow to happen. But just because we can make assumptions about what God would not allow to happen, it does not follow that He does not have good reasons for allowing what we assumed He would not allow to happen to happen. See the distinction?

It isn't an important distinction for our purposes. We make decisions with the information available to us not hypothetical information. If we start assuming hypothetical information outweighs the actual information that we have, then we cease make any logical decisions.

How many children have made the assumption that their parents were up to no good when they took them to the doctor for a shot in the butt or arm, or a prick in their finger?

Yes sometimes you will be wrong. But there is no reason to assume you will be mostly wrong. In terms of my judgement of god I don't see him as evil like some might here. Evil would be if he was toasting most of us in hell for eternity sort of thing. But it seems we mostly have OK lives with periods of joy and pain and whatever else.

But imagine in this case if your parent had the powers of an angel or a god.

Instead of pricking your finger they could have just have looked at you and found out if you were sick. Greater 'potence' gives you the ability to do more without actually hurting the person (if you care to), and omnipotence gives the ability to do almost anything without hurting them.

God's goal was to make something far more grand. A world inhabited by men and women created in His Image and Likeness, spiritual, free moral agents who could love one another and experience this love in ways only such creatures can.

There are vary many ways to design such a world (unless you want to say there is only one? if so why does it change over time and space?). And we live in this one.

-- Updated February 28th, 2015, 10:50 pm to add the following --

Messed up the quote thing again. All the quotes are yours.

[Clive Staples Lewis]

Why would I have to show that we know nothing about God in order to show that we do not have the capacity to claim that God does not have a morally sufficient reason for allowing (x)?

If you know anything about god you can use that to make a 'judgement' about him just like you would about anything else. Not knowing certain facts does not change that. The only thing that leaves you with no grounding to make any judgement, is if you know nothing.

It is true. We can make assumptions about what God might or might not allow to happen. But just because we can make assumptions about what God would not allow to happen, it does not follow that He does not have good reasons for allowing what we assumed He would not allow to happen to happen. See the distinction?

It isn't an important distinction for our purposes. We make decisions with the information available to us not hypothetical information. If we start assuming hypothetical information outweighs the actual information that we have, then we cease make any logical decisions.

How many children have made the assumption that their parents were up to no good when they took them to the doctor for a shot in the butt or arm, or a prick in their finger?

Yes sometimes you will be wrong. But there is no reason to assume you will be mostly wrong. In terms of my judgement of god I don't see him as evil like some might here. Evil would be if he was toasting most of us in hell for eternity sort of thing. But it seems we mostly have OK lives with periods of joy and pain and whatever else.

But imagine in this case if your parent had the powers of an angel or a god.

Instead of pricking your finger they could have just have looked at you and found out if you were sick. Greater 'potence' gives you the ability to do more without actually hurting the person (if you care to), and omnipotence gives the ability to do almost anything without hurting them.

God's goal was to make something far more grand. A world inhabited by men and women created in His Image and Likeness, spiritual, free moral agents who could love one another and experience this love in ways only such creatures can.

There are vary many ways to design such a world (unless you want to say there is only one? if so why does it change over time and space?). And we live in this one.

-- Updated February 28th, 2015, 10:50 pm to add the following --

Messed up the quote thing again. All the quotes are yours.

For a moment, I want you to place yourself within the gospel narratives and imagine you are in Jerusalem during the first century and you have heard about this man named Jesus who has been going around and doing great things. You are curious so you go to see for yourself. You are there when Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead and were there when he caused a blind man to see. You were there when He gave the Sermon on the Mount and never before in your life had you heard someone speak with such wisdom, authority, and love.

You then hear of Him being handed over to the authorities because the religious leaders were jealous of Him and you, again being the curious fellow you are, go to investigate. You arrive only to see an angry mob crying out "Crucify Him!"

You then witness Him being beaten totally beyond recognition and then forced to carry a cross to the place where He was to be lifted up.

You see all this happening.

In those moments, while you are there, would you think you would conclude that there was nothing good that could come from what you were witnessing?

[Lacewing]

For a moment, I want you to place yourself within the gospel narratives and imagine you are in Jerusalem during the first century and you have heard about this man named Jesus who has been going around and doing great things. You are curious so you go to see for yourself. You are there when Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead and were there when he caused a blind man to see. You were there when He gave the Sermon on the Mount and never before in your life had you heard someone speak with such wisdom, authority, and love.

You then hear of Him being handed over to the authorities because the religious leaders were jealous of Him and you, again being the curious fellow you are, go to investigate. You arrive only to see an angry mob crying out "Crucify Him!"

You then witness Him being beaten totally beyond recognition and then forced to carry a cross to the place where He was to be lifted up.

You see all this happening.

That could definitely feel sickening and horrible -- and it sounds like a description of the world we live in. Where horrific things are done to beautiful, sacred souls every day in so many ways -- and where seemingly miraculous things are constantly occurring as well. If I were seeing it from within the culture and timeframe as the first century in Jerusalem, maybe with a lot of collective fear and expectation, then I might make up stories about it and/or believe in stories I was told. Just as a lot of people make up and believe stories in our timeframe too.

To me, Clive, it's very much the same... then and now. I do not see any particular stories as indicative of anything in particular. Our human understanding is very limited... and our ability to fabricate is vast. To me it seems, the truest insights do NOT come from the stories we create or are told or pass on, but from who we TRULY ARE (and discover that we can be) in the midst of ALL OF IT... WHATEVER IT IS... and regardless of what anyone else believes.

[ScottieX]

In those moments, while you are there, would you think you would conclude that there was nothing good that could come from what you were witnessing?

I think a lot of thoughts would go through my head that don't seem to have gone through those of the people in the middle east at that time.

In a sense it is like seeing a sadomasochist. You assume he must know what he is doing since he is doing it intentionally. And surely he doesn't want your pity since be could make you never have existed with the blink of an eye.

Then I'd worry for the Romans, I've seen too many 'the hulk' type movies and it seems like this could end very badly for them and they are really just cogs in a machine here...

[Clive Staples Lewis]

In those moments, while you are there, would you think you would conclude that there was nothing good that could come from what you were witnessing?

I think a lot of thoughts would go through my head that don't seem to have gone through those of the people in the middle east at that time.

In a sense it is like seeing a sadomasochist. You assume he must know what he is doing since he is doing it intentionally. And surely he doesn't want your pity since be could make you never have existed with the blink of an eye.

Then I'd worry for the Romans, I've seen too many 'the hulk' type movies and it seems like this could end very badly for them and they are really just cogs in a machine here...

You did not answer my question.

I asked you if you were there, would you have thought that anything good could have come from what you were witnessing.

Yes or no?

This is not a trick question by the way.

I know that you cannot say for sure what you would think because you were not actually there and I am not asking you for whether or not you would be certain. But imagining you were, do you think that you would think that anything good could have come from what you were witnessing?

Yes or no?

[Belinda]

CSL wrote regarding the torture and death of Jesus :

I know that you cannot say for sure what you would think because you were not actually there and I am not asking you for whether or not you would be certain. But imagining you were, do you think that you would think that anything good could have come from what you were witnessing?

I don't think that I myself, who I am, would have imagined that anything good would come of the brutalities of Pontius Pilate, and especially nothing good would come from the death of this well loved teacher, and the desolation of his relatives and personal friends. If I were a Roman soldier present then I suppose I would have been trained, as all soldiers have to be, to be hardened to such horrors. If I were Pontius Pilate himself I suppose that I would have believed that by brutal killings I was governing Palestine as well as I could in the circumstances.

[ScottieX]

You did not answer my question. I asked you if you were there, would you have thought that anything good could have come from what you were witnessing. Yes or no?

Well using the usual sorts of assumptions.

Could? Yes. Probably? No.

[Clive Staples Lewis]

Well using the usual sorts of assumptions.

Could? Yes. Probably? No.

Why do you say probably not?

[Vijaydevani]

God cannot be charged with partiality or cruelty (i.e. injustice) on account of his taking the factors of virtuous and vicious actions (karma) performed by an individual in previous lives. If an individual experiences pleasure or pain in this life, it is due to virtuous or vicious action (karma) done by that individual in a past life.


Though God is omnipotent, he still gives all souls free will so that they can choose to love him and therein relish existence’s supreme fulfillment. After all, only free individuals can choose to love. But the souls can abuse their independence by choosing to not love God but to enjoy matter instead. The Bhagavad-gita (13.22) indicates that due to such desires, the materially enamored souls get entrapped in matter. Impelled by material desires, the souls engage in evil deeds and are subjected to others’ evil actions, as per the inexorable law of karma. Suffering is not God made, but self made.

If everything was a song and dance, it gives no incentive for anyone to be Good. Why would anyone care to be good when they know there is absolutely no risk even if they commit bad deeds? I can go partying all night and could care less about God and my fellow living beings, for there is a guarantee of peace, happiness and prosperity.

Regards RTA

I think you are a little misinformed. The shloka you are referring to talks of the individual mind being swayed by material desires not the soul. The soul is indestructible, immortal and imperturbable.

If everything was a song and dance, there would be no incentive for anyone to be evil either. So we are back where we started, aren't we?

[ScottieX]

Why do you say probably not?

If you were in that situation and you had all the equipment and support required available to you, would go to help him down? If so, you imply it is a situation that bad is more likely to come from.

-- Updated March 16th, 2015, 1:22 am to add the following --

Fixing my clarity If you were in that situation and you had all the equipment and support required available to you, would you go to help him down? If so, you imply that you judge that it is a situation that should be changed - I.e. one from which bad is more likely to come.

[Pasodallas]

Why must we suppose that god has a moral code similar to ours? Our code of ethics help us survive as a form of self preservation but it doesn't not necessarily preserve things outher than human beings. As with gods ethics may be in tune with his agenda. Who knows.