Difference between revisions of "Talk:Problem of Evil"

Latest revision as of 06:20, December 30, 2007

I suggest that the problem of evil be expanded upon, there are other answers than those proposed, and the question format of the article needs to be reworked.---

Please feel free to add your thoughts. Multiple editors pooling their knowledge and refinement can lead to strong results. Learn together 13:29, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Sounds as if you are trolling to stir the pot here, and arrive at your pre-conceived notions. I hope I am wrong in thinking that. MattM 22:34, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

I myself do not know so much about this, but can I make a small request that someone apply some of Iranaeus' theodicies to this article, as they are clever and reasonable arguments for the problem of evil, of course from a Christian perspective. Metatron 20:19, 28 December 2007

One thing I would like to suggest is that there is no problem of evil. So evil exists in the creation of a good, omnipotent, omniscient God: the actual problem is that of evil, non-omniscient beings understanding why creation would or would-not have any particular feature. Qwestor 16:45, 28 December 2007 (EST)

That may be a hard one to explain. Another way to look at it is that evil does not exist any more than cold exists. Cold is the absence of heat. Evil is the absense of (good/God). Learn together 20:57, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Unfortunately, I can't agree with you there Learn together. Just because someone isn't doing good, it doesn't mean they're doing evil. Eating a meal can't really be considered good, but by the logic you give, it apparently is then evil. Not having a go at you, but can you see the mistake? Metatron 14.53, 29 December 2007

Yes this is an oft cited consideration. and while I think there is something to it, the Judeao-Christian God is still omniscient/omnipotent which raises the question of why He opted for a creation in which His creatures would be permitted to disobey Him when it was evidently His option that they be unable to. Qwestor 10:30, 29 December 2007 (EST)

I think Learn together is essentially correct, that evil is the absence of good/God (not just "good"), although this is perhaps by definition rather than anything else, meaning that evil is defined as the absence of God, rather than "nasty, horrible things".

The meal analogy as presented is not a good one, I don't think. We need to eat to live, so a meal is therefore "good", and the absence of the meal is "bad", because without it we will starve. So although there are still plenty of problems with the analogy (such as how fasting and gluttony fit into the analogy), it still does illustrate the basic principle. We don't need "bad" things (such as poisons) to kill us. A lack of "good" things (meals) is sufficient.

As for Qwestor's point, my understanding is that if He didn't allow his creation (specifically man) to disobey Him, he would have been creating robots, not beings capable of showing love by being able to choose whether to love Him or not. Also, if one doesn't experience evil, one won't appreciate good. We wouldn't appreciate how good God is without understanding how bad things are without God.

Philip J. Rayment 17:05, 29 December 2007 (EST)

But consider that the Scriptures give a vignette into a future world (new heaven/earth) in which the redeemed will be incapable of sinning and yet will not be robots. So God can have it either way, opt for no creation (including the angels) and no disobedience, or a time in which His creatures would fall, be redeemed, then live in sinless perfection. Qwestor 17:28, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Then doesn't this bring us round to intuitionism? The idea that humans inherently know what is good and evil, and although we can be influenced by decisions, it is still down to the human to make that choice, and as a result even two people who have agreed on almost everything can disagree on some things as well. --Metatron 19:31, 29 December 2007 (EST)

(Replying to Qwestor) That's a good question, but I don't believe that the Bible anywhere says that in heaven we will be incapable of sinning. Perhaps it's more a matter that we will simply not sin, and being in God's direct presence might be the thing that "prevents" us from sinning. It's a bit like a parent leaving a child alone, and the child gets up to mischief in the parent's absence, but while the parent is there, he behaves. You might respond that God could have made it that way from the beginning, and yes, I guess He could have, but that's where I'd point to my second reason, of not appreciating good (and not appreciating free will) without experiencing bad (and bad choices). By the time we get to heaven, we've had that experience, and "proved" that we can make our own choices, and have made the right one (to accept God's Lordship), and even though in heaven we will still have free will, we don't need to keep proving that by doing the wrong thing. That might not be quite on the right track, but hopefully it demonstrates a possibility. Philip J. Rayment 01:20, 30 December 2007 (EST)