Why does God allow evil?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Because every choice you ever make is the only choice you could ever make.

So what? If I'm really angry, and I really want to hit something, and I know that I'm going to hit something, and then I do hit something, does that mean I didn't have any free will? Looking back at many of my actions, I know that I would not have acted otherwise because I was acting on my own free will.

Originally posted by Conrau K
What? Say for instance I know my mother is going to be killed by a bu, does that mean I should not try to prevent it?

You cannot prevent it even if you try because you know it is going to happen. Are you implying that God is busy trying to fix his mistakes?

Originally posted by whiterose
Just because I can see the future and see where a choice will lead me does not mean that it is not a choice.

But its not about YOU. It's nothing to do with you - directly at least. At the moment of creation God knew everything that would transpire in the universe. Nothing could ever deviate from that plan - that would be tantamount to denying God's omniscience and omnipotence. Even if you think you have free will, you don't. It's like saying that glove puppets have free will. Every action of yours is pre-determined, and you can never make any decision that wasn't preordained by God.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Omnipotence and omnibenevolence do not presuppose any involvement in the proceedings.

You think an omnipotent God that can sit there, omnipresently, and observe evil things happening could be called omnibenevolent legitimately? You think a God that creates a person, for example me, in full fore-knowledge that I'll never believe in Him, and he'll have to send me to hell, can be called omnibenevolent? If the answer is "yes" then you have bigger problems than trying to solve the omnipotence / omnibenevolence / evil paradigm.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
You think an omnipotent God that can sit there, omnipresently, and observe evil things happening could be called omnibenevolent legitimately? You think a God that creates a person, for example me, in full fore-knowledge that I'll never believe in Him, and he'll have to send me to hell, can be called omnibenevolent? If the answer is "yes" then you have bigger problems than trying to solve the omnipotence / omnibenevolence / evil paradigm.

You think an omnipotent God that can sit there, omnipresently, and observe evil things happening could be called omnibenevolent legitimately?

Yes, personally I think that suffering challenges us to become better people. The best examples of humanity have been demonstrated through suffering and adversity.

You think a God that creates a person, for example me, in full fore-knowledge that I'll never believe in Him, and he'll have to send me to hell, can be called omnibenevolent?

It depends on what you mean by "never believe in Him". Some theologians argue that an acceptance of the morality stipulated by said god is enough. Most Christian denominations do not believe that those who reject God's existence go to hell.

If the answer is "yes" then you have bigger problems than trying to solve the omnipotence / omnibenevolence / evil paradigm.

I'm glad then.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Yes, personally I think that suffering challenges us to become better people. The best examples of humanity have been demonstrated through suffering and adversity.

So if God decides to send you to hell to make you a better person you will be pleased?

The paradox in your claim is that 'better people' spend all their time and effort trying to relieve that suffering. Surely a truly Godly person should just leave people to suffer or actively create suffering so that they also can become better people.

Interestingly the old testament frequently talks about suffering as a test of faith while also offering rich rewards once the faith has been tested. What I have never really understood is why God would want anyone to have faith in him at all or why it must be proved via suffering. Surely a quick mind reading session would answer the question.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]You think an omnipotent God that can sit there, omnipresently, and observe evil things happening could be called omnibenevolent legitimately?

Yes, personally I think that suffering challenges us to become better people. The best examples of humanity have been demonstrated through suffering and adversity.

You think a God that creates a pers ...[text shortened]... trying to solve the omnipotence / omnibenevolence / evil paradigm.

I'm glad then.[/b]

Go see a psychiatrist.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Or, (c) imaginary.

I think one should distinguish what people experience as God from what people say about God.

What people experience seems to cut across a wide swath of humanity. One could say it is 'imaginary', but that doesn't mean it is not real. A dream is imaginary but occurs. Love is also imaginary, but people certainly experience it.

What people say about God varies widely, depending on who is talking. And so a lot of it ends up contradictory.

Originally posted by Squelchbelch
Is it because He is:
a) Only omnipitent on weekdays & cannot stop evil
or maybe
b) Is all powerful but allows suffering & is therefore not benevolent?

Also, presumably God created evil. If so, why should we suffer for His sins?

There is a long reply that essentially boils down to God granting us freedom and not violating it because it is good.

EDIT: Objections to that argument generally runs along the lines of

(1) "Free will" (as we normally use the term) is illusory.
(2) Some people are inherently more evil than others.
(3) What's the big deal about freedom anyway?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
But its not about YOU. It's nothing to do with you - directly at least. At the moment of creation God knew everything that would transpire in the universe. Nothing could ever deviate from that plan - that would be tantamount to denying God's omniscience and omnipotence. Even if you think you have free will, you don't. It's like saying that g ...[text shortened]... ours is pre-determined, and you can never make any decision that wasn't preordained by God.

This only rings true if the only way God can know what you are about to do is by predetermining it in some way. He has another way though, by being eternal and not being bound by timelines. Your argument is logical enough if you exclude God's ability to be present in your past present and future all at the same time. The problem is your exclusion.

Originally posted by knightmeister
This only rings true if the only way God can know what you are about to do is by predetermining it in some way. He has another way though, by being eternal and not being bound by timelines. Your argument is logical enough if you exclude God's ability to be present in your past present and future all at the same time. The problem is your exclusion.

No, I don't think so. My logic holds up even if God is allowed that liberty. The important thing though is, if we logically allow all possible universes to exist, and God be the the overseer of them all, it could not be readily said that God has omniscience at all, since He would not know in advance the decisions that you will make. That is to say, if free will is truly free, then God could not possibly be omniscient.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
No, I don't think so. My logic holds up even if God is allowed that liberty. The important thing though is, if we logically allow all possible universes to exist, and God be the the overseer of them all, it could not be readily said that God has omniscience at all, since He would not know in advance the decisions that you [b]will make. That is to say, if free will is truly free, then God could not possibly be omniscient.[/b]

"in advance" is a construct of time, which apparently God is not bound by. Just because you have the freedom to chose something does not mean that you will choose it. In fact, what people actually choose to do is relatively easy to predict, even for us mere mortals (many people make their living doing it in fact). So, perhaps it is possible, without taking away the choice, to know what the person is going to choose. It does not imply that you cannot choose otherwise, simply that you will not.

Originally posted by whiterose
"in advance" is a construct of time, which apparently God is not bound by. Just because you have the freedom to chose something does not mean that you will choose it. In fact, what people actually choose to do is relatively easy to predict, even for us mere mortals (many people make their living doing it in fact). So, perhaps it is possible, without taking ...[text shortened]... going to choose. It does not imply that you cannot choose otherwise, simply that you will not.

Hmmm. However, if a God which existed last week could say with absolute certainty that I'd buy an apple slice for breakfast today (I did - and very tasty it is too) then I could not have bought anything else. Of course, I have the impression that I could buy anything I wanted, for example a muffin, but the very fact that (for the sake of argument) God did exist last week and said that I would buy meant that I could not possibly have made any other choice.

My argument exists with only one assumption, that God existed in the (human) past. Whether or not that's the way God experiences it is immaterial.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Hmmm. However, if a God which existed last week could say with absolute certainty that I'd buy an apple slice for breakfast today (I did - and very tasty it is too) then I could not have bought anything else. Of course, I have the impression that I could buy anything I wanted, for example a muffin, but the very fact that (for the sake of argument) God ...[text shortened]... existed in the (human) past. Whether or not that's the way God experiences it is immaterial.

If there is no past and future for God, then you cannot use phrases such as "last week" to describe His knowledge. You could have had anything you wanted for breakfast. You could have gotten in your car with your fishing pole at 5am, gone to a river, and caught yourself a fish. However, you DID buy an apple slice(you lazy sod) 🙂 Why? Because everything that had happened in your life up to that point predisposed you to choose to purchase an apple slice for breakfast. So, a being that knows everything that has ever happened in your life should be able to predict all of the choices you will (not could, but will) make. You COULD make any choice you want about what to have for breakfast, but you WILL only make one.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Hmmm. However, if a God which existed last week could say with absolute certainty that I'd buy an apple slice for breakfast today (I did - and very tasty it is too) then I could not have bought anything else. Of course, I have the impression that I could buy anything I wanted, for example a muffin, but the very fact that (for the sake of argument) God ...[text shortened]... existed in the (human) past. Whether or not that's the way God experiences it is immaterial.

Lol what these guys dont see is that they , themselves, are slaves to that god. they "love" it because they HAVE to.