An omnipotent being could just create a world were all beings can exist in harmony. — Echarmion

And if this unlikely scenario actually took place, would these beings exist in harmony, or might they behave in a less than harmonious manner, at least once in a while? Let's remember: God is responsible, not these beings.... :chin: This being the case, is your comment (above) still valid? The OP asks this:

If God exists and He is all good and all powerful why does He allow evil? — MysticMonist

And the answer, in the context of the comments I am posting, is that She doesn't allow it; it is necessary if good is also to exist.

And the answer, in the context of the comments I am posting, is that She doesn't allow it; it is necessary if good is also to exist. — Pattern-chaser

But that raises another issue: If evil is necessary for good to exist, and God created evil, then she cannot have been good. So, the God that created the universe was not, after all, good.

I can't be bothered delving through so much detail, but I offer this: if God is all/everything in so many ways (omni-this, omni-that), maybe God is both good and evil, and much more besides? Equally, and for much the same reasons, maybe God is neither good nor evil?

For if God is good, is She good to herself, good to you, good to humans, good to philosophers, good to the world, good to the universe, good to fascists, and so on ad infinitum? For many of these goodnesses are mutually exclusive, rendering the whole question rather pointless. :chin:

However I look at this, I seem to end up with the conclusion that there is no Problem of Evil. It's just a big misunderstanding (of good, God, and so on).

Good and Evil are not dependant on free will; nothing is, by definition.
Good is that which pleases man; evil is that which pleases him not. Good and evil are simply dependent of the discrimination of humans identifying them. — Sculptor

All you have done there is move the goalposts.

But, it's the same goal

Moral discrimination of the kind you are referring to requires choice to be made independent of causes. That is to say, they are required to not be the consequence of predetermined responses. Which, in turn, requires free will. Free will requires non causality.

Causality, in a universe that runs on either classical or quantum lines, is inescapable. Free will is therefore impossible in such a universe since, for that will to be free, it would need to occur independently of causes. In other words, it is impossible in all circumstances of reality as we know it.

If a billiard ball rolls down a hill, do we ascribe "free will" to that billiard ball to decide to roll down the hill?

We are made of billiard balls. The fact that they are incredibly tiny and we are made of a very large amount of them and they interact with each other in unfathomably complex ways does not change the fact of what they are or change the implications for us in terms of the possibility of ascribing free will to us any more than we can ascribe it to that billiard ball rolling down that hill.

So, in short, I am not suggesting one cannot believe in free will. But, in order to do so, one must reject the laws of physics as currently understood.

And the answer, in the context of the comments I am posting, is that She doesn't allow it; it is necessary if good is also to exist. — Pattern-chaser

You give Satan her role, just as god did.
You cheer Satan on just as Christians do when they sing of Adam's sin being a happy fault and necessary to god's plan.

Go Satan go. Pull up your skirts and go baby. Women truly are the root of all evil, in a good kind of way.

Regards
DL

So, the God that created the universe was not, after all, good. — Echarmion

Christians see Yahweh as good while Gnostic Christians see all gods who can cure as easily as kill, --- like Yahweh can, --- yet chooses to kill, --- as Yahweh does, --- as a genocidal son murdering prick of a god and evil as hell.

Who do you think has it right?

Regards
DL

However I look at this, I seem to end up with the conclusion that there is no Problem of Evil. It's just a big misunderstanding (of good, God, and so on). — Pattern-chaser

There is a problem with evil, but I see Yin and Yang as compliments and not in opposition to each other.
Evil is just a small part of a greater good as it melds with it complimentary opposite.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3LJ5HNfNEY

Regards
DL

So, in short, I am not suggesting one cannot believe in free will. But, in order to do so, one must reject the laws of physics as currently understood. — Stephen Cook

??

Our freedom to do our will is governed and cannot surpass the laws of physics and nature, but anything within that limit shows how we do have a degree of free will.

If we did not have it, we could not give it up. We can give it up by choice.

That is the conclusion of a little test that has a poster give up his free will to reply within a simple set of limit. It demonstrates how we all can give up our free will.

Regards
DL

You give Satan her role, just as god did. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

No, please don't overlay your religious beliefs onto mine. I worship God by the name Gaia. She is not a creator-God, and I do not acknowledge the Christian concept of the Devil.

I simply observe that yin has no meaning if yang doesn't exist. The same with good and evil.

You give evil a role, even if you dislike the religious tone so saying that you do not is not you on your brightest day.

Regards
DL

Dear rash friend,
How could you infer such a sense from what I wrote?
According to you, then, If evil is a no-thing(ontologically), if it is only a plain term, we should not punish a killer because of his/her abominable act? Do you really think that I thought in this way? Don't you think that maybe you may have confused about what ground (ontological or judicial) we discussed?

In regards to your question which is essentially, ‘how could God allow evil?’. I believe one of the more convincing arguments for the allowance of evil is Alvin Platinga’s defense for free will while still maintaining an omnipotent, omniscient and all good God. In this view, Platinga argues that perhaps while flawed, free will is the ultimate good. Free will however, must involve the opportunity for people to commit evil by definition as it could not exist without the chance that some who possesses it could use it for wrong. Free will thus would be so good, that it’s allowance outweighs the evil that it comes with it, making it the greater good. While there are some who oppose this replying that surely a world would exist where everyone possesses freewill and yet all still choose to use it for good. To this, Platinga states that such a world could exist however God could not create it to exist. Therefore, a world could exist where Adam and Eve never ate the apple of truth however, God could not make Adam and Eve not eat the apple of truth because that would counter-act their free will. So, while Adam and Eve could freely not eat the apple of truth, that is not this world, as obvious by the prevalence of evil. However, as long as the world is majority good (be that 51% good) then it is surely better than the existence of no world at all. I believe that is a good explanation for the beginning of your argument, in regards to your reference to soul making theodicy within your statement, “suffering is inconsequential when compared to spiritual gain”, I have written another post regarding this argument. In short term, I think that you could be correct that soul-making (enhancing spirituality) could be the greatest good thus justifying suffering, again so long as it serves a greater good.

Under the Christian belief system there is the spectre of Hell which seems to undermine the free will argument against the problem of evil. Excepting idiots, there is no difference between removing someone's ability to do evil and allowing them to do evil but telling them they will face eternal damnation if they do.

Under the Christian belief system there is the spectre of Hell which seems to undermine the free will argument against the problem of evil. Excepting idiots, there is no difference between removing someone's ability to do evil and allowing them to do evil but telling them they will face eternal damnation if they do. — Devans99

This would stand, if the Bible of the Christians specifically said that sinners go to Hell for eternal damnation of eternal suffering. But the Bible does not say that anywhere. There are two concepts of Hell in the bible: 1. Death; eternal nothingness; and 2. In the Gyehennah, the souls perishing like a moth in a candle flame, in an instant, over the eternal fire of the Gyehennah.

So the misconception started by some stupid Christian misreading the verse, and interpreting that the eternal fire means eternal suffering. But it does not. The fire is eternal; however, the soul is snuffed out in a flash, and it is no more.

There are many more references to death in the Bible. One says that people when they go into their graves, they lose their consciousness; they feel nothing, they remember nothing. Another one says that on the day of resurrection, the bodies will rise from the grave, but their souls will not be the same as the first time around that occupied them. Or something to this effect.

I get all my information on the Christian dogma from street preachers. Some are Baptists, some are Yehova's Witnesses, some are just independents. They all say different things, and generally the Yehova's witnesses are the most precise, they refer to actual verses in the bible when they make a claim. The Independents are the worst, they just say whatever comes to them, and call it the word of god.

There is also a gender devide. The independents are all male; two of them in my town are gay, and they shout things against homosexuality. The Yehova's witnesses always come in twos, or in even numbers. (2, 6, 8, etc.) If one or more of them are women, then they are in their early sixties, and delectably sexy.

I have never looked this up, but where in the Christian bible is it said that god is infinitely good and infinitely powerful? Are these two claims not inferences by people?

I know that the Jewish god says of himself, in the preamble of the ten commandments, "I be a bad-ass mean and jealous god." The actual verse says, "I'm a mean and jealous God." That does not sound like a declaration of being all good and loving and stuff. This has come from His mouth, directly. I would not argue with a big guy like that, telling Him that he is a liar, telling him I don't beleive he is not mean and jealous, but goody-goody-good. He might smite me on the spot for crossing him.

You have a different version of the bible to the one I'm familiar with:

"But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death." - Revelation 21:8

This site also quotes many more biblical references to Hell:

https://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/hell-bible-verses/

"But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death." - Revelation 21:8 — Devans99

No, Devans99, the bible versions you and I read are not widely different. We just read them differently. Your quote does not claim any length of time to be spent in the fiery lake of burning sulphur. You assume they stay there burning to all eternity; but that is not asserted there. At best this is up for interpretation. Or fantasizing, or plain wishfully claiming what one wants to claim, regardless of the words of the Bible.

On the other hand, I thank you, and this is not a joke or a come-on, for the link that takes me to bible quotes on hell. Thank you.

I read all quotes supplied on the website that was linked to your link, @Devans99.

Not one of the quotes said anything at all of staying in hell forever.

Two of the quotes said "hell fire is forever" or that "the fire of hell burns forever" but they stayed clear of saying that souls stay there forever in pain.

I welcome you, nay, challenge you to take an exact quote from that list, not alter it, and present it here, and show with clear logic and unambiguous wording that that quote means eternal suffering for the sinners. I call you out; I claim that you can't even show ONE such quote here.

“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” - Matthew 25:46

I cannot personally believe that any entity would consign another to eternal hell fire, but it seems to be what the Bible indicates. Maybe your street preachers can't quite believe it either.

“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” - Matthew 25:46 — Devans99

Eternal punishment is death. The Bible says that many times. Even the quote by Matthew here juxtaposes "eternal punishment" not with "eternal joy" or "eternal happiness" but with "eternal life". So the juxtaposing means that the punishment is death, which is eternal.

If the punishement was was suffering, it does not say that. It says "eternal punishment." Death is forever. Death is a punishment. There is no inference implied or expressed that the eternal punishment is suffering forever in Hell.

"They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might" - 2 Thessalonians 1:9

I'd interpret this as the punishment will be everlasting - whereas death is a process that last for a short amount of time - once it is over there is no more punishment.

"They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might" - 2 Thessalonians 1:9 — Devans99

My interpretation is this: the destruction will be everlasting.

Carthago was destroyed. Its desctruction has been (for all intents and purposes) everlasting.

Destruction is a process, as well as an end state. The interpretation can't be made one way or another. Your belief against mine, there is no deciding factor either way.

However, if you ask a linguist, he or she may say that destruction is an end state. The destroying is the process.

Had better look up the meaning in a dictionary.

I'd interpret this as the punishment will be everlasting - whereas death is a process that last for a short amount of time - once it is over there is no more punishment. — Devans99

Wow. Death lasts forever. The process is called dying, not death. Look it up in any dictionary. Death comes after dying. Death lasts forever. Dying lasts for a short time (relatively speaking.)

I think that your interpretation is probably a minority view - I am no expert but I understand that different sects of Christianity interpret the bible differently. Everyone is entitled to their own view.

the action or process of causing so much damage to something that it no longer exists

the action or process of killing or being killed

These two definitions (taken at random) do not allow destruction to last forever.

In the case of the first one, the destruction must END in not existing. This is a requirement of an action to be desctructive. If the process of destruction lasts forever, then the thing will exist forever. - Hence, the desctruction is not forever, because if it were forever, it would be called something other than destruction.

In the second example, if the process is destruction, then it must end in death. If it does not end in death, it is not destruction. Therefore the destruction ends in death, which in turn lasts forever.

↪god must be atheist I think that your interpretation is probably a minority view - I am no expert but I understand that different sects of Christianity interpret the bible differently. Everyone is entitled to their own view. — Devans99

I absolutely agree with you here. I am claiming that my interpretation is right, and everyone else's who believes in eternal suffering in hellfire is wrong. This is a strong claim, I stand by it, and the bible verses prove me right.

The interpretation I hold true is not up for debate... the bible verses all of them either allow death to be the eternal punishment, or they specifically say it is death. Therefore it must be death, and not eternal punishment by way of eternal suffering. No bible verse mentions eternal suffering as such as the punishment for sinning.