Is Good Stronger Than Evil?

[Pattern-chaser]

Evil is vastly stronger. Almost all of the universe that is not the Earth would kill us. In fact, most of the Earth would kill us.

I don't think evil is "vastly stronger" ... Evil is only what we consider undesirable, just as good is what we consider desirable.

Well, almost all of the universe and considerable part of Earth - including some parts inhabited by humans - would quickly kill us, and is thus "undesirable". QED

OK, so there are parts of the universe that are, for humans, unsurvivable, and therefore undesirable. And isn't this the same for just about all entities that exist, somewhere in the universe? There are parts of the universe that would kill/harm them? Surely this is commonplace and expected? But this is a far cry from bogeymen and the 'evil' of Satan, where 'evil' is portrayed as a sentient and active force in our lives.

[Sy Borg]

Evil is vastly stronger. Almost all of the universe that is not the Earth would kill us. In fact, most of the Earth would kill us.

I don't think evil is "vastly stronger" ... Evil is only what we consider undesirable, just as good is what we consider desirable.

Well, almost all of the universe and considerable part of Earth - including some parts inhabited by humans - would quickly kill us, and is thus "undesirable". QED

OK, so there are parts of the universe that are, for humans, unsurvivable, and therefore undesirable. And isn't this the same for just about all entities that exist, somewhere in the universe? There are parts of the universe that would kill/harm them? Surely this is commonplace and expected? But this is a far cry from bogeymen and the 'evil' of Satan, where 'evil' is portrayed as a sentient and active force in our lives.

Theists anthropomorphised it, sure. I don't take that stuff seriously enough to bother debunking it. So I look at the problem of evil in terms of humans in reality, and what I see are organisms huddling in the few safe places on a rocky planet within a broader environment that is even more dangerous, ie. space.

We are tiny beings in a humongous, lethally dangerous universe. It's not hard to understand why so many throughout history clung to comforting myths that personalise - and thus render potentially controllable - the vast impersonal and potentially dangerous edifices of our Earth and of space.

[Pattern-chaser]

I look at the problem of evil in terms of humans in reality, and what I see are organisms huddling in the few safe places on a rocky planet within a broader environment that is even more dangerous, ie. space.

We are tiny beings in a humongous, lethally dangerous universe. It's not hard to understand why so many throughout history clung to comforting myths that personalise - and thus render potentially controllable - the vast impersonal and potentially dangerous edifices of our Earth and of space.

OK, so 'evil' is something we invented to deal with the scariness of reality. A sort of bogeyman personification of hazard? I think I can go with that. But the ramifications, the structures that humans erect upon this scaffold? Atheists, who really should know better, ask "if there is a God, why is there 𝔼𝕍𝕀𝕃?"

For me, that's when it has gone too far. There is no evil, only hazardous parts of the universe or life, that are only to be expected. If we need bogeymen, so be it, but I can't stand by and watch these creations anthropo-morph into something genuinely harmful. Although Santa Claus is self-evidently real, the twin bogeymen of 𝕘𝕠𝕠𝕕 and 𝕖𝕧𝕚𝕝 are not. And when we tell ourselves that they are, and invent stories about and around them, of scary entities whose actual existence we assert, then it all has to stop.

Oh, and to those atheists who should know better: there is a God, but there is no good or evil, only life, and the places where it dwells (i.e. the universe).

[Sy Borg]

For me, it's just words. Those asking "If there is a God, why is there 𝔼𝕍𝕀𝕃?" (fun typeface choice BTW :) are just speaking on theists' terms, in a language to which they can respond. Of course, numerous theists have asked the same question. It's logical to wonder why life has always sucked so very much on so many levels, if there is an omniscient and omnipotent deity running things. Of course, theists will fall back on "mysterious ways".

Atheists, however, are just punching holes in theistic logic, and I am with them. I don't care for people presenting obvious subjective phenomena as objective "noumena". Such lies have been used to control populations for a long time - the omnipresent eye, ever behind your shoulder, watching and judging, and ultimately deciding whether a person should be cast into torment for eternity or be sent to the clouds to suck up to God's ego forever.

[Pattern-chaser]

For me, it's just words. Those asking "If there is a God, why is there 𝔼𝕍𝕀𝕃?" (fun typeface choice BTW are just speaking on theists' terms, in a language to which they can respond.

No, I think they are speaking the theists' language, and taunting them with this ridicule. It's not really very admirable, is it?

Typeface: I really wanted to use a 𝖌𝖔𝖙𝖍𝖎𝖈 font, for its sinister look, but the only one to which I have convenient access is unintelligible sometimes: some of the letters are shaped so that ... they just resemble gothic squiggles. Here is "EVIL": 𝕰𝖁𝕴𝕷, and this is "evil": 𝖊𝖛𝖎𝖑 (admittedly, rather better, but I wanted to capitalise it, to emphasise the B-movie horror of it all).

Of course, numerous theists have asked the same question.

Indeed they have, and they've spent a great deal of time in hand-wringing, while they made excuses for their God(s). If their Gods need their behaviour to be excused, I think that would be a far greater indictment than the silly "evil" question.

It's logical to wonder why life has always sucked so very much on so many levels, if there is an omniscient and omnipotent deity running things.

No, I don't think it's "logical" because life does not "suck", and it never has. Life can be challenging because survival is challenging; we are not given our survival as a gift, we have to earn it, sometimes to fight for it. Evolution imposes that need upon us, but it doesn't 'suck'. In its own brutal way, evolution ensures that the creatures that survive are the most fit and able. This might be hard for those creatures that don't make the grade, but I hardly think it 'sucks'.

I think these complaints that life should be more comfortable for us are no different from Cinderella pining for a handsome prince. Fairy tale fantasy.

And all this applies regardless of whether there is a God running things.

[Pattern-chaser]

Is Good Stronger Than Evil?

Good has no strength; neither does evil. Good is not a force, natural or otherwise, it is an expression of desirability. To say "it's good" is simply and only to say "I like it". Big deal.

The question this OP asks is a non-question; it is unintelligible, like "Is a black hole wiser than a mushroom?"

[Charlemagne]

Almost every religious philosopher states that good is stronger than evil. I disagree.

Evil is stronger than good because evil can emulate good whereas good cannot emulate evil. Evil emulating good for reasons like "the ends justify the means" completely preserves the evil nature of such act whereas committing lesser evil to prevent greater evil is still behaving evilly.

Good does eventually triumph over evil but not because good is stronger than evil. The reason is evil turns on itself whereas good does not.

So in conclusion, good only triumphs by waiting out evil for it to eventually turn on itself rather than by good's own strength versus evil.

I don't buy this conclusion. I agree that evil defeats itself (Hitler defeated himself). But good triumphs because it is stronger than evil. Good people organize themselves against evil to destroy it. There is an old adage. The only reason evil triumphs is that good men do nothing to oppose it. So just sitting there and patiently waiting for evil to destroy itself is not enough.