The Theists' answer to "achieves no greater good."

[Sensei Kiisu]

Hello again (:

I raised another point in my P+R class today, as we are doing 'The Problem of Evil' and how Atheists use it to try and disprove that God does not exist.

I raised a point about unnecessary evil, which would achieve no greater good other than suffering - such as a child getting cancer, or old people who develop dementure... -

Now, to me these are clearly examples of uncessary suffering, especially with the child - since they are so innocent and have likely never commited a crime, so why should they suffer like this? If 'God' is benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient - then surely he would not need to let these things happen?

The response was examples like, that - the greater good comes from the fact that the families are brought closer together, and that a person can only know good, when they have experienced suffering (something like that). Now - this doesn't seem like a greater good.. it just doesn't make sense that a family becoming closer together is a right price for a child developing terminal cancer.. so is this just a weak argument by Theists because they can't actually explain why unnecessary suffering occurs, or is it in fact a greater good?

Thoughts?

[ShADoW]

The world isn't suppose to be a perfect place, sadly.

[★Bandiera Rossa☭]

The world isn't suppose to be a perfect place, sadly.

Meaning a perfect god doesn't exist.

[Phier]

Meaning a perfect god doesn't exist.

Those two do not logically follow.

[SigniferOne]

These natural destructions are not neccesary.

That's a purely baseless and subjective statement, I hope you realize that. According to whom are they not necessary.

God supposedly created the entire physical universe including all it's laws. There is no reason for him to create a universe where in order to create a life-sustaining planet he needed to include these naturally destructive phenomena. He's supposed to be omnipotent.

Why is inclusion of naturally destructive and creative phenomena a stab at omnipotence?

Ok, if you leave me in charge of your child and I put them in a room with bees and teddy bears am I not responsible for what happens?

But then you assume that humans are just children, i.e. only just above retarded in regards to making decisions; which they're not.

I'm not denying autonomy I'm denying that god didn't create the machine knowing full well what would happen were we to inhabit it.

What happened 'full well' is that some people chose evil, and some chose good. What is the problem with that? And more importantly, how is it in any way a blame on him?

[Elfdude]

But then you assume that humans are just children, i.e. only just above retarded in regards to making decisions; which they're not.

It doesn't matter if they're children or not. If you put a man in a room with a wolf you're responsible for what happens.

What happened 'full well' is that some people chose evil, and some chose good. What is the problem with that? And more importantly, how is it in any way a blame on him?

So the original sin justifies tossing us in with the proverbial wolf? How evil.

[Fiyenyaa]

That's a purely baseless and subjective statement, I hope you realize that. According to whom are they not necessary.

If a being is omnipotent, nothing in the natural world is neccesary. God supposedly set up every rule, every physical law of this universe. There is no reason whatsoever for any natural phenomenon to exist in any way that we know them - if an omnipotent creator exists, every single natural phenomenon is a result of his decisions.
The only way that these naturally destructive phenomenon are neccesary is if god is not omnipotent (and is thus doing the best he can), if he wants a flawed universe, or if they are purely the result of natural process with no intentional design present.

Why is inclusion of naturally destructive and creative phenomena a stab at omnipotence?

It isn't. It's a stab at an omnipotent being who also claims (or is reported) to be good. Anyone can tell this is not the case.

[TheXand]

A truly benevolent, omnipotent god would not even allow evil to enter the world, there would be no need for evil. The theists often answer that evil is necessary to properly appreciate good, but that's nonsense of course, if there were a benevolent omnipotent god then he would surely have made us able to understand and appreciate god without our having to suffer needlessly first. Epicurus puts it so much better than I though so I'm going to put up his classic quote for the benefit of this thread.

The world isn't suppose to be a perfect place, sadly.

Only a cruel god would create an imperfect world for his creations if he could create a perfect one.

[Augment]

How can you debate with someone who can't even spell "Atheists".

[Sensei Kiisu]

How can you debate with someone who can't even spell "Atheists".

Heh, I was going off the 'i before e' rule , will change it though, - sadly I didn't take English in college ^^

[maerd2003]

How can you debate with someone who can't even spell "Atheists".

i couldnt get why it is so important, do spelling stg. badly determine ones capability of debating?

@Epicurus' quote: the pain, suffer or more generally ''things considered as evil'' are all humanly matters - and god is not a human(why god should be humanist?) - i mean god is not depend time or place, he is not a super tall man living in our universe. the questions like ''can god create a stone that he cannot lift?'' type questions are totally meaningless, since the place and the time he would do such things cannot be specialised. so, the attitudes ''hey look, i have disprove the gods existence, blah blah'' are just so crappy since time and place and other logical perceptions are for humans and other living/nonliving things; not for god..

[TheXand]

@Epicurus' quote: the pain, suffer or more generally ''things considered as evil'' are all humanly matters - and god is not a human(why god should be humanist?) - i mean god is not depend time or place, he is not a super tall man living in our universe. the questions like ''can god create a stone that he cannot lift?'' type questions are totally meaningless, since the place and the time he would do such things cannot be specialised. so, the attitudes ''hey look, i have disprove the gods existence, blah blah'' are just so crappy since time and place and other logical perceptions are for humans and other living/nonliving things; not for god..

God (supposedly) created humanity thus human matters become matters pertaining to god.

[maerd2003]

God (supposedly) created humanity thus human matters become matters pertaining to god.

it is gods attribute that he(actually not he) is not time/place dependent (this is quite abrahamic pov)..and according to abrahamic religions, (lets get through suffer, pain, cncer)even death itself is nothing but moving some place to another..

[Monarchist]

Epicurus' oft-quoted atheist propaganda is nonsense. We can see quite readily that it falls apart the moment you reach the second proposition and conclusion. A positive answer to "is he able, but not willing?" does not necessarily give itself over to "pure malevolence". Why should God be utterly malevolent merely because He does not prevent evil that we make of our own free will? God cannot be called evil simply because we choose to be evil. After all, most atheists who use the Epicurus quote tend to be very optimistic people who are horrified at evil as if it only happens because of that mean God fellow. Theists tend to be more world-weary and wary than that; they know evil is our own. You may call hurricanes and cyclones that kill people "evil", but they are not.

It's pointless optimism to be so surprised with evil that you pin it all on God.

[TheXand]

Epicurus' oft-quoted atheist propaganda is nonsense. We can see quite readily that it falls apart the moment you reach the second proposition and conclusion. A positive answer to "is he able, but not willing?" does not necessarily give itself over to "pure malevolence". Why should God be utterly malevolent merely because He does not prevent evil that we make of our own free will?

Because he's meant to be omnibenevolent? Clearly, if he were omnibenevolent then there would be no evil in the world, what kind of a god would create an imperfect world and then create sentient beings, only for them to suffer needlessly? Being omnipotent he would have the power to prevent evil, and more importantly being omnibeneolent he would have the desire to prevent it as well.

God cannot be called evil simply because we choose to be evil. After all, most atheists who use the Epicurus quote tend to be very optimistic people who are horrified at evil as if it only happens because of that mean God fellow. Theists tend to be more world-weary and wary than that; they know evil is our own. You may call hurricanes and cyclones that kill people "evil", but they are not.

It's pointless optimism to be so surprised with evil that you pin it all on God.

An omnibenevolent omnipotent god would not create evil creatures in the first place, or create a world whereby evil can occur because being "omnibenevolent" he should be incapable of evil, and creating creatures with the capacity for evil is evil, and if he is "omnipotent" then there would be no reason for him not to be able to create a perfect world free of evil.

[Monarchist]

Because he's meant to be omnibenevolent? Clearly, if he were omnibenevolent then there would be no evil in the world, what kind of a god would create an imperfect world and then create sentient beings, only for them to suffer needlessly?

The point is not to immediately jump to mockery of God, but to ask "what if this evil is justified"? It is wiser to question the purpose of the reality of a thing rather than to question why it is. Isn't what better than why, considering the fact that we have a God who tells us nothing of substance? I know this goes against your individualism and humanism, but you just have to deal with that, I suppose.

An omnibenevolent omnipotent god would not create evil creatures in the first place, or create a world whereby evil can occur because being "omnibenevolent" he should be incapable of evil, and creating creatures with the capacity for evil is evil, and if he is "omnipotent" then there would be no reason for him not to be able to create a perfect world free of evil.

Why not? God's creation of evils to act as agents on His behalf for experimentation or some plan may be extremely well-justified. Let Him be the judge of that, for goodness' sake. Neither of us have spoken with God, yet you say He is evil for creating evil, and I say He is good for creating evil. Your side assumes that God should keep us in blissful paradise and ignorance forever and ever with no growth. My own belief is that God wants us to suffer as much as possible on Earth (not by our own hand, mind you, but through the inner workings of our very human being, which is tortuous enough) and to learn from that.

Have you ever had grotesque and unpleasant experience, but later learned from the pain? It seems very childish and demanding of us to carry on about God being evil because He created evil the benefit us. You're looking too close to the short-run of things, not the long-run.

[TheXand]

The point is not to immediately jump to mockery of God, but to ask "what if this evil is justified"? It is wiser to question the purpose of the reality of a thing rather than to question why it is. Isn't what better than why, considering the fact that we have a God who tells us nothing of substance? I know this goes against your individualism and humanism, but you just have to deal with that, I suppose.

There's no reason to assume that there is any god, as no gods have ever spoken directly to man. Sure there have been people who claim to be able to speak to god, but a god that actually existed would be able to speak to the masses instead of speaking through someone. The purpose of a reality would be why it is though, and if an omnibenevolent god would create a world just so that his creations can suffer then that is evil, bearing in mind that "omnibenevolence" means that that god is incapable of evil or actions that lead to evil and creating a world in which evil can occur would be an evil action.

Why not? God's creation of evils to act as agents on His behalf for experimentation or some plan may be extremely well-justified. Let Him be the judge of that, for goodness' sake. Neither of us have spoken with God, yet you say He is evil for creating evil, and I say He is good for creating evil.

Again there is no reason to believe that any gods exist, and merely claiming that this god has some higher plan is silly given that there is no reason to assume that any type of higher power exists. The god that you worship really is just a human creation, I mean art, war and all that shebang are human creations, and religion is as well it would be feasible then that this concept of divine beings is too. A being that creates evil cannot be truly good btw.

Your side assumes that God should keep us in blissful paradise and ignorance forever and ever with no growth.

What then would be the point in heaven if it truly is so stagnant and worthless?

My own belief is that God wants us to suffer as much as possible on Earth (not by our own hand, mind you, but through the inner workings of our very human being, which is tortuous enough) and to learn from that.

Why should we need to learn from evil when there would be no need for it had your god created a perfect world free of evil?

Have you ever had grotesque and unpleasant experience, but later learned from the pain? It seems very childish and demanding of us to carry on about God being evil because He created evil the benefit us. You're looking too close to the short-run of things, not the long-run.

There is no reason at all whatsoever to assume that suffering automatically bestows any type of knowledge. That's like suggesting a man that flogs himself on a daily basis is learning something. I have had unpleasant experiences before, many of them, and what have I learned from them? Nothing, except for the fact that I don't like unpleasant experiences, but in a perfect world free of unpleasant experiences then that wouldn't be an issue.

[Fiyenyaa]

Epicurus' oft-quoted atheist propaganda is nonsense. We can see quite readily that it falls apart the moment you reach the second proposition and conclusion. A positive answer to "is he able, but not willing?" does not necessarily give itself over to "pure malevolence". Why should God be utterly malevolent merely because He does not prevent evil that we make of our own free will? God cannot be called evil simply because we choose to be evil. After all, most atheists who use the Epicurus quote tend to be very optimistic people who are horrified at evil as if it only happens because of that mean God fellow. Theists tend to be more world-weary and wary than that; they know evil is our own. You may call hurricanes and cyclones that kill people "evil", but they are not.

It's pointless optimism to be so surprised with evil that you pin it all on God.

Does this evil we choose of our own free will include flooding and earthquakes? Does it include plague and disease? Does it include every single death and moment of suffering not caused by the actions of people?
It cannot. There is no reason whatsoever for god to create a world where naturally-occuring evils are neccesary unless he wants to teach us some kind of horrific lesson. This is not a loving thing to do.

Anyway, I never really thought the problem of evil was an especially good argument against the existence of god - all it disproves is the existence of a good god, which anyone with eyes and a brain could work out.

[jsktrogdor]

After all, most atheists who use the Epicurus quote tend to be very optimistic people who are horrified at evil as if it only happens because of that mean God fellow. Theists tend to be more world-weary and wary than that; they know evil is our own. You may call hurricanes and cyclones that kill people "evil", but they are not.

I know im jumping a post from the first page without reading anything else but really?? Your saying that most ATHEISTS blame GOD for evil????? And its the theists who are the reasonable ones who look to man for our problems?

wow.... just wow.

If anything, an atheist doesnt even believe in this traditional view of good and evil your working in.

[Elfdude]

The response was examples like, that - the greater good comes from the fact that the families are brought closer together, and that a person can only know good, when they have experienced suffering (something like that). Now - this doesn't seem like a greater good.. it just doesn't make sense that a family becoming closer together is a right price for a child developing terminal cancer.. so is this just a weak argument by Theists because they can't actually explain why unnecessary suffering occurs, or is it in fact a greater good?

Thoughts?

I'm not a fan of the idea that greater good comes from suffering for solving the problem of evil. To say that a greater good is spawned out of something that frequently drives people to suicide is retarded. The reality of the matter is that some people can handle such suffering but most can't. To claim goodness comes from this suffering is an offensive disregard for the suffering they endure.

While some suffering does bring people together there's far too many cases of suffering simply resulting in anarchy and more suffering.