• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Answer to the Problem of Evil

But most if not all theists insist that their god is good, and many outline evils that are anathema to that god, with scriptures and such that emphasize the objective reality of good and evil.

We atheists can say there's no such thing as objective evil, but theists have to eat their own dogfood.
They do, but once atheists are allowing for theists to use their own definitions in the premises, then the validity of those arguments follows.

For example: can an omnipotent being create a rational universe in which 1=1 and 1=2 are both true simultaneously?

(1) If the answer is "no", then:

An omnipotent and omnibenevolent being must allow people to make free-will choices if this results in a greater good. Thus the answer to the dilemma is that "God is unable and unwilling to prevent evil, since by His nature He must allow the greater good."

(2) If the answer is "yes", then:

An omnipotent being could make a universe in which evil is not evil. Thus the answer is "God is willing and able, and in fact this universe has no evil, since evil is not evil."

Perfectly valid arguments, though not sound since the premises are not proven.
 
“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?”

― Epicurus
Matthew 13:24-30 and Matthew 13:36-43 would appear to address these points.
 
Last edited:
So the god described in those quotes is the willing, but not able version.
That is not what the parable says.

After all in those verses the 'good' god is unable to prevent the 'evil' god from interfering.
It seems to come down to God can either give "free will" or prevent evil but can't do both. This might be considered a technical argument against omnipotence (sounds hair splittery) but according to the parable, God will sort it out at the end.
 
But God doesn't give you free will - not if he doesn't want you to have any
This makes Christian Free Will a Frankfurter Case, i.e. the only reason why you got to make a Free Will decision is because you decided to act the way God wanted you to. God would have intervened into your Free Will decision if he didn't like the outcome.
 
But if, as some atheists maintain, there is no such thing as objective evil - i.e. if "evil" is just a human subjective construction - then why is God malevolent if He doesn't prevent it?

Doesn't it become "If God does something I don't like, God is malevolent"?

And doesn't that eventually resolve to "If YOU do something I don't like, you are malevolent"?

Up to those who believe in a god or gods to define their god or gods. Pointing out what their definition means is simply a service. If they don't like the consequences of their definitions that's on them.

Most of the Christian sects have been trying to square the circle of evil for as long as they've been codified. Can't lay that one at the feet of atheists.
 
Adding to what bruto said, malevolence is the conclusion of judging the god character in the bible/quran as if it were a fellow man.

But you put there a non sequitur with backflips and fireworks not oftenly seen: "if evil is subjective why godcharacter is considered to be evil under some subjective definitions of evil".

It's like you imagined the godcharacter to be real and then progenitor of objective moral thus unreachable by subjectivities coming from its subjects. What a funny thing to think.

Are unicorns and pixies real? You should provide evidence that some godthing is real before discussing how it should be morally judged.

Also there is the little titbit that is often overlooked - for many of those that believe in a god or gods their definition of good and evil is the "most" subjective - it is meant to be the opinion of one person/entity/thingy-me-bob, there is nothing at all objective in what the believers in god or gods consider to be good and evil.
 
That is not what the parable says.


It seems to come down to God can either give "free will" or prevent evil but can't do both. This might be considered a technical argument against omnipotence (sounds hair splittery) but according to the parable, God will sort it out at the end.

It's a theological argument that Christians have been having with themselves for over a thousand years. Perhaps you should let them know you've solved it?
 
But God doesn't give you free will - not if he doesn't want you to have any
This makes Christian Free Will a Frankfurter Case, i.e. the only reason why you got to make a Free Will decision is because you decided to act the way God wanted you to. God would have intervened into your Free Will decision if he didn't like the outcome.

There are sects of Christianity that explicitly believe there is no freewill - when you are born you are either lined up for eternity without god or eternity with god, and there isn't a single thing you can do about it.
 
But God doesn't give you free will - not if he doesn't want you to have any
This makes Christian Free Will a Frankfurter Case, i.e. the only reason why you got to make a Free Will decision is because you decided to act the way God wanted you to. God would have intervened into your Free Will decision if he didn't like the outcome.
There are a couple of examples in the bible where somebody's free will has apparently been overridden but I can't find anything in the bible that suggests that free will is the exception rather than the rule.
 
It's a theological argument that Christians have been having with themselves for over a thousand years. Perhaps you should let them know you've solved it?
Solved what? This is like the question, "can God make a rock so heavy that he can't lift it"?

There is no sensible way to deal with such a question.
 
There are a couple of examples in the bible where somebody's free will has apparently been overridden but I can't find anything in the bible that suggests that free will is the exception rather than the rule.

The Bible also says that God knows what you are going to do even before you are born; this negates the common definition of a Free Choice i.e. you could have done otherwise).

Face it: Free Will is Christianity's fig leaf excuse for the Problem of Evil, not an actual cornerstone of the Faith.
 
The Bible also says that God knows what you are going to do even before you are born; this negates the common definition of a Free Choice i.e. you could have done otherwise).

Face it: Free Will is Christianity's fig leaf excuse for the Problem of Evil, not an actual cornerstone of the Faith.

But remember - not for all organised sects of Christianity.
 
The Bible also says that God knows what you are going to do even before you are born;
I thought it said that God had a plan for you even before you were born or that God knows what is in your heart (neither of which negates free will).

But upon you producing the appropriate quotes from the bible, I will admit I was wrong.
 
The Bible also says that God knows what you are going to do even before you are born; this negates the common definition of a Free Choice i.e. you could have done otherwise).

Face it: Free Will is Christianity's fig leaf excuse for the Problem of Evil, not an actual cornerstone of the Faith.
You paint with too broad a brush. The implications of an omniscient God have been perfectly well known to educated Christian's going back to the early church. Augustin talks about it at some length. The basic question predates Christianity and goes back to the stoics, I think.
 
But God doesn't give you free will - not if he doesn't want you to have any
This makes Christian Free Will a Frankfurter Case, i.e. the only reason why you got to make a Free Will decision is because you decided to act the way God wanted you to. God would have intervened into your Free Will decision if he didn't like the outcome.
Artificial X'ian/Islamic Free Will only exists with the sole purpose of allowing their godcharacter to get away scot-free for every wrong in the world hard to fit in the category "he"-is-testing-you.
Solved what? This is like the question, "can God make a rock so heavy that he can't lift it"?
You forgot the "totally unrelated" between "like the" and "question"
There is no sensible way to deal with such a question.
That's the reason you used it to manufacture your rhetorical cul de sac.
 

Back
Top Bottom