Didn't ask what you believed, asked you what you thought. — tim wood

Care to elaborate?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

As an atheist myself since the age of about 7, I simply do not understand how theists can trust in a God given this argument. It would be much appreciated if someone would clarify a general religious stand point for me, however I just do not see that whatever I am told could disprove this argument without contradicting religious beliefs in itself. — scientia de summis

Leibniz provided a famous answer to the problem of evil (there are two PoE's, this is the later one): this is the best if all possible worlds.

Contemporary answers would typically echo Leibniz, though maybe unconsciously: that God knows what he's doing and we should trust that.

But contemporary Christianity isn't as focused on doctrine. I would advise asking a preacher that question.

I can rap on this

Imagine you are a penguin, walking on those cute feet toward the water. Suddenly a lion seal bites your fin off after leaping at you from under the water. You didn't choose to exist, you didn't ask to exist. Yet your consciousness, will, and horror is suddenly real. Did or does creator go through this? No but maybe it's necessary for a creature to experience these affects on its will for a greater good. But this reflects God and shouldn't God's reflection be perfect. But God is bound by laws and logic. So a human gradually gains consciousness. Let's say he doesn't face a true test till after he has become guilty. God is neither guilty nor faces a test. So the goodness of God is in subtlety of will, which the person should have used instead of becoming guilty. And maybe God has to set things up so that people fall and others rise. We are a community of a species and so maybe the system is necessary, for God is bound by laws and logic. He chooses to create but can only do so in certain ways. He has to allow the evil for the good, the fallen for the chosen, the pain for the victory, and the shame for the love. Yet it's reflects his nature, perfect and peaceful. It's a picture akin to an actual picture: that is, to a pianting. It puts the frames around the edges. Yet it leaves you wondering at the end what the creator even is, does, or wants from us, especially since he chooses not to reveal his existence to anyone whatsoever

I totally agree.

Note: I am new to this site, so perhaps this is often discussed but I'm afraid I wouldn't know. — scientia de summis

Morality itself is a very consistent issue here.

I personally think religion is about control: having a belief system in the supernatural re-inforces either specific rulers or adherence to particular rules.

"Evil" itself seems to me a highly emotive reaction to very bad or disturbing things.

If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
Evil exists.

Although this topic is somewhat old, I'll leave my comment here (in case anyone finds it interesting).

Not from a theological perspective, but from a layman's perspective, there's a flaw in this premise. If He is morally perfect, then He desires to eliminate all evil. Why does moral perfection require eliminating all evil as such? What can we know about moral perfection? Does moral perfection require us to intervene in the actions of another subject to reshape their behavior within the framework of moral perfection?

I believe that attempts to answer these questions will prompt a rethinking of similar issues.

Good and evil are fundamental aspects of reality. Evil, as well as good, is necessary for evolution and adaptation. Therefore, good and evil are necessary where evolution and adaptation matters, such as life. I am afraid that such argument against God fails since the author does not understand the significance of evil in life.

I am not a theist, nor conventionally religious. When it comes to God, ultimately, I defer to my body and, at least, try to transcend thinking.

But in fairness to theism, the way I see it, the God, and the categories by which the Stanford quote challenges God, are entirely our constructions. I understand why we dont, but we may as well hold that God loves the American Ideal and then ask why God allowed that ideal to fail.

As with everything human, since the dawn of human history, we have superimposed our Narratives upon the truth. We are simply critiquing our own paper, not the subject matter it purports to treat.

What the Stanford puzzle is criticizing is not God, but our flawed definitions; or, how anything we construct is not absolute, but rather, subject to flaws. Challenges can be said about Mathematics , for example, without rendering Mathematics itself a harmful delusion.

You might reject the current popular Abrahamic based concept of God because that puzzle has compelled you to do so. But the puzzle does not necessarily compel you to atheism.

"How can a theist trust in God?" is more appropriately worded "How can a theist trust that God can be or do what breaks human laws of reason and logic?"
A theist might believe the answer is in the question. I.e., because above all else, God is not restricted by human laws of logic and reason; nor, for that matter, human morals, knowledge and potency.

I think unless there is a 'logical' problem of evil, there is no real problem of evil.

I think there isn't a logical problem of evil as all one has to do is conceive of a circumstance in which God exists and evils of the world exist. If one can conceive of just one such scenario, the logical problem is defeated.

Here is one. Imagine that just as some people among us enjoy danger and like doing things like climbing mountains, there are people in heaven like that as well who want the thrill of living in a genuinely dangerous world that has no safety nets (apart from death - which by hypothesis, takes one back to safety in heaven). Well, wouldn't God allow them to go to such a place? To deny them would seem, if anything, wrong. It's not as if they wouldn't be returning to safety eventually. God might not recommend it - just as I would not recommend climbing a mountain - but it's plausible at least that if someone really wanted that kind of experience, God would not deny them it.

This is that place - an adventure holiday park that has only one safety net: death. If we have all chosen to be here - signed-off on it, signed all the waivers and so on - then our situation is logically compatible with God's existence.

Why does moral perfection require eliminating all evil as such? What can we know about moral perfection? — Astorre

Excellent questions.

I am new to philosophy (apologies if this is obvious), and have always thought of the problem of evil in the lay sense - why do bad things happen to good people? I think this a more resonant formulation than 'why does evil exist at all', as expressed in the OP formulation.

It is the distribution of evil - the child born into a short lifetime of extreme pain, for example - that is 'unfair', and thus God is rejected by many atheists, myself included.

And, of course, an omnipotent God who creates a human who will never be exposed to God's word, therefore never saved, therefore condemned to eternal hellfire, is potentially evil himself.

It is the distribution of evil - the child born into a short lifetime of extreme pain, for example - that is 'unfair', and thus God is rejected by many atheists, myself included.

And, of course, an omnipotent God who creates a human who will never be exposed to God's word, therefore never saved, therefore condemned to eternal hellfire, is potentially evil himself. — Jeremy Murray

Yes, I think those are fairly reasonable and conventional views. I tend to think about the problem of suffering (evil is such a limiting word). I think the more cartoon like and fundamentalist your God, the more the problem resonates. Surely a personal god (the magic sky wizard) with whom one has a relationship can do better?

But the more mystical or apophatic your theology is, the less things need to be explained and God remains unknowable. My favourite explanation for the existence of suffering is that because an apophatic God is beyond all attributes, we have no basis to expect the world to lack suffering.

But the more mystical or apophatic your theology is, the less things need to be explained and God remains unknowable. My favourite explanation for the existence of suffering is that because an apophatic God is beyond all attributes, we have no basis to expect the world to lack suffering. — Tom Storm

I had to look up 'apophatic'. I love that about TPF.

I can be an atheist and still respect religious belief, and I agree completely with the way you have expressed the difference between a mystical and a literal God. It is the 'mystical' component of human life that forces me to concede that I might be wrong about God not existing, or even if I am correct, forces me to confront the 'mystical' and the 'spiritual' in a world lacking a meaningful 'purpose' for human life.

Nice. I’m not sure anyone can escape meaning or purpose. What we may not encounter is a transcendent purpose - a purpose above and beyond anything human. But I would suspect most theists don’t find this either.