The Problem of Evil

[Green Arrow]

@domer76 brought up Epicurus and the Problem of Evil in my "God" thread and I thought it was a deep enough topic to warrant its own thread.

For those who are unaware, the Problem of Evil is the philosophy elucidated by Epicurus that essentially argues that the existence of evil is a sufficient proof that God either does not exist, is not truly God, or is malevolent rather than benevolent. It was birthed thusly:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

My own position on the problem of evil and my answer to Epicurus was originated by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, a philosophy called "skeptical theism." Kant's argument against Epicurus' Problem of Evil was simple: evil is not some great and powerful force plaguing humanity, but rather, evil is a personal trial faced by all human beings that can be overcome only through faith.

Of course, Kant's is far from the only position on the Problem of Evil, from either side and the middle. What is yours?

As usual, trolling and general idiocy will not be allowed. Either participate civilly and intelligently or just don't participate.

[Crepitus]

@domer76 brought up Epicurus and the Problem of Evil in my "God" thread and I thought it was a deep enough topic to warrant its own thread.

For those who are unaware, the Problem of Evil is the philosophy elucidated by Epicurus that essentially argues that the existence of evil is a sufficient proof that God either does not exist, is not truly God, or is malevolent rather than benevolent. It was birthed thusly:



My own position on the problem of evil and my answer to Epicurus was originated by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, a philosophy called "skeptical theism." Kant's argument against Epicurus' Problem of Evil was simple: evil is not some great and powerful force plaguing humanity, but rather, evil is a personal trial faced by all human beings that can be overcome only through faith.

Of course, Kant's is far from the only position on the Problem of Evil, from either side and the middle. What is yours?

As usual, trolling and general idiocy will not be allowed. Either participate civilly and intelligently or just don't participate.

If we were made in god's image why would evil be part of our make-up if it isn't part of his as well?

[Green Arrow]

If we were made in god's image why would evil be part of our make-up if it isn't part of his as well?

Evil isn't part of our make-up. At least, not in the sense I think you are referring.

[Crepitus]

Evil isn't part of our make-up. At least, not in the sense I think you are referring.

So what does this mean? "evil is a personal trial faced by all human beings"

[iustitia]

It's kind of like asking why people are into fetish porn if they're made in God's image.

"And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."

That's from Genesis 1:27 which technically is before the fall of man.

[Crepitus]

It's kind of like asking why people are into fetish porn if they're made in God's image.

"And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."

That's from Genesis 1:27 which technically is before the fall of man.

Another excellent question. Is god into porn?

[Green Arrow]

I will answer that tomorrow. I'm under the influence of heavy sleeping medication and not sure I can properly articulate it right now.

[domer76]

I will answer that tomorrow. I'm under the influence of heavy sleeping medication and not sure I can properly articulate it right now.

Hmmm. Starting a thread at 6 and being drugged out by 10. Can't say I'm surprised

[Peter1469]

The problem of evil can also be explained by the dualists. They believe in two (or more) powerful beings that are not omnipotent and who work in polar opposites of one another. God and Satan as an example.

Some fundamentalist sects in the US believe that Satan has dominion over the earth for a period of time.

Others claim that God is not entirely good or that man can't understand God's level of morality.

[Cletus]

The quote cited by Domer actually makes a great deal of sense if used in the context of a) determining whether a deity as depicted in the Christian mythology exists and b) if he does exist, whether he is worthy of worship.

Would a benevolent permit the existence of a Pol Pot or a Hitler? Would he permit children to starve or be born with horrific birth defects that will cause it to suffer greatly throughout its life? Apologists like to use the "free will" argument, but that obviously doesn't stand up.

So, we end up with really only three possible conclusions. The first is that no such deity as the one who is the foundation of the Christian mythology exists. The second is that he does exist and he is one sick son of a $#@! and deserves only contempt and defiance. The third is that he exists, but he isn't really all that powerful and doesn't have the juice people claim he does. There really aren't any other options.

The first conclusion would obviously make it silly to worship something that doesn't exist. The second makes him worthy only of contempt and defiance, and the third makes him somewhat impotent and not worth wasting your time over.