True. It’s possible that God perceives a necessity to evil that is invisible to us mere mortals, much in the same way that an adult may see the value of a vaccination while a four-year-old only perceives the pain of the injection.
However, if the existence of evil is a necessity for God, then God is clearly not omnipotent. For if he were omnipotent he could accomplish the same goal without subjecting humans to so much suffering. If a doctor had the power to prevent whooping cough WITHOUT sticking kids with needles, but he still kept sticking kids with needles, what would that say about the doctor?
“God works in mysterious ways” does not save the omnimax God from the problem of evil.
It’s being repeated over and over because it IS correct.
No, it’s an example of me pointing out an inconvenient truth you have no good argument against, so you pretend that it being said more than once makes it wrong.
Which is why I never use that except in jest.
I’m not claiming the existence of evil is a necessity. IMO it’s a question of purpose.
What is the purpose of creation and/or this world of duality we live in where we perceive things as good and bad positive or negative with a concept of free will? That question is just as unanswerable as “Does God exist?” Until we can answer that then speculation about the POE is just that. Speculation and nothing more.
If the experience itself and at least the temporary illusion of choice, good and evil, positive and negative, is part of the purpose, then none of what happens here is really evil in any lasting sense.
For an overly simple analogy that’s been discussed here before, if someone wanted to play some simulation game where they got to simulate all the possible good and bad of a world of duality, and Dad said, “Go ahead and play, you might learn something and you can’t really be hurt” would Dad be benevolent by allowing the experience or would he not?
Here’s where cut and paste comes in very handy.
Yes but haven’t I pointed out over and over again that mere repetition doesn’t make an argument correct?
Um no. I’m not saying it’s wrong because it’s been said more than once. It was just as wrong the first time.
the catholic church mastered psychology long before we understood its implications. The father .the son and the holy ghost ,coupled with the Virgin Mary covers so many needs The all powerful god, the son who was a human for awhile, the mysterious ghosts and angels ,and then toss in a mother figure and you are well covered to meet almost every psychological yearning. I have to hand it to them. Then they tossed in a fiery hell, that evolved over generations to something nastier and nastier. But that does not make any of it true. It is effective at scaring the hell out of kids and then promising salvation. Nice trick if you can get away with it. If you accept the training they can, but it is such a flimsy creation that it can not withstand scrutiny. I feel sad and weak for buying that crap so badly when I was a kid.
The POE is a problem reconciling an omnibenevolent god with earthly suffering.
One doesn’t need to claim absolute understanding (or belief) in the supernatural to point out the contradiction.
Just as, I don’t claim to understand Invisible Pink Unicorns. But if most IPU believers claimed that the number of IPUs in existence is a prime number, and that this number is also a multiple of 4, I could say: “That makes no sense”.
Nor does it make it wrong. True arguments tend to get repeated a lot, and like it or not “an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God would end all suffering” is a true one.
But of course you refuse to say why. You aren’t really arguing your position; you are just coming up with reasons why you shouldn’t have to argue it. The old “God has mysterious ways” claim and your ( ironically ) repeated “repeating an argument doesn’t mean it’s true” are just you trying to wriggle away from trying to defend the indefensible.
Assuming I’ve parsed your cyptic, yoda response to my argument correctly, you’ve both failed to address the point that I was making and contradicted yourself.
If you’re allowing that supernatural beings can somehow be a number that is both prime and a multiple of four, why can’t they be invisible and pink?
Oh, I get it. No argument about god needs to make sense because he’s god. And anyway, god just exists, all right? :smack:
I realize that. I’m saying that IMO from a strictly logical perspective the argument doesn’t really follow. The argument as I see is is saying from a human mortal perspective God can’t be benevolent because suffering exists. The flaw in the argument is the mixing of two perspectives. It’s illogical to claim God can’t be benevolent because of the human perspective on suffering.
I understand that it makes no sense to a lot of people and why. I’m only pointing out that the argument isn’t actually all that logical IMO.
The up side is that whether you are a believer or non believer the recourse is to try and relieve or end suffering.
You just dodged the argument again. This is an ad hom fallacy. Der Trihs may be a zealot, but that doesn’t mean his argument is wrong. Give a good reason why an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient god would allow the suffering we see today.
Is an army drill instructor who forces his brigade to live in the woods for 7 days on meager rations and little sleep, carry heavy packs for 14 hours a day (when they aren’t crawling through mud), also not benevolent in your eyes?
Or does benevolence have nothing to do with it - the drill instructor is simply trying to determine who is good enough?
No, but running with Der Trih****s’ line of reasoning, such an army drill instructor should be able to be disqualified from the tag, knowing only about him/her what I have written in my post.
I’m not trying to dodge the argument. I’m dodging a particular poster and his style because I’m not interesting in sorting the valid argument from the nonsense in an endless and pointless cycle I’ve experienced before. You may if you like.
I’m not claiming I know the reason and I don’t think I need to know it or explain it to point out what I consider to be the illogic of the argument.
My point is perspective. It’s illogical to try and argue what makes senses about God from a human perspective. We can say it doesn’t make sense from our perspective but just as we can’t say with certainty “God doesn’t exist” , since we can’t possibly see the purpose of creation from God’s perspective we can’t adequately address the question. It’s the mixing of the two perspectives in this specific argument that I find illogical.
I’m not saying I believe in God. I’m only addressing the issue of logic concerning this argument. I asked a question you are welcome to address,
if someone wanted to play some simulation game where they got to simulate all the possible good and bad of a world of duality, and Dad said, “Go ahead and play, you might learn something and you can’t really be hurt” would Dad be benevolent by allowing the experience or would he not?
iow, if the perceived experience itself of duality and choice is the point then in what way is it not benevolent?
So now we’re back to “Well, evil really isn’t evil.” :rolleyes:
If this is all just a simulation that we’ve all entering willingly, then NOTHING I do to another human being, no matter how heinous, can be considered evil. For example, I’ve “killed” thousands of “people” in multiplayer computer games over the years and it means nothing, because I know it’s not real. They’re still alive and happy because our actions in the simulation were just pretend. So if we’re really all timeless eternal souls and this life we’re experiencing is just a passing teaching exercise, it doesn’t really matter if kill or hurt my fellow participants. It’s all just part of the game. We’re just playing pretend.
Look, either evil really exists, in which case the omnimax God is a logical impossibility. Or evil doesn’t really exist and there’s nothing wrong with murder and torture. Do you really want to construct a theology that justifies committing evil acts?