# The problem of evil **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 10, 2004, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-problem-of-evil/279155 "2004-12-10T17:04:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2004, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-problem-of-evil/279155/21 "2004-12-10T20:09:39Z")
> [@Lord Ashtar](#): > > That’s a cool site. I’m bookmarking that one. Yeah, it’s helpful. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2004, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-problem-of-evil/279155/22 "2004-12-10T20:16:12Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > If God is indeed the Creator of Everything™, then He not only created Evil, but freely indulges in it from time to time. Let’s pretend I’m the parent of a three year old. Said three year old has some candy. It’s getting near dinner time, so I call the kid over and take away the candy. Now, the three year old is probably thinking something like, “But that’s so _ **mean** _! I thought my daddy loved me! He took away my candy! How can he love me if he would do something so _ **mean** _ to me?” Meanwhile, I took the candy away because I love the kid and don’t want him to spoil his dinner. But my kid can’t understand this. He just knows that he lost his candy. He can’t see the whole picture like I can. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2004, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-problem-of-evil/279155/23 "2004-12-10T20:24:39Z")
Not to speak for rjung or anything, but I don’t think that’s what he meant. The way I see it is that if God can do anything then why couldn’t God have made a universe completely free from evil? ---
**Author:** ![barry\_sanders](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f08c70/32.png) [@barry\_sanders](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barry_sanders)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2004, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-problem-of-evil/279155/24 "2004-12-10T20:25:35Z")
> [@Lord Ashtar](#): > > Let’s pretend I’m the parent of a three year old. Said three year old has some candy. It’s getting near dinner time, so I call the kid over and take away the candy. > > Now, the three year old is probably thinking something like, “But that’s so _ **mean** _! I thought my daddy loved me! He took away my candy! How can he love me if he would do something so _ **mean** _ to me?” > > Meanwhile, I took the candy away because I love the kid and don’t want him to spoil his dinner. But my kid can’t understand this. He just knows that he lost his candy. He can’t see the whole picture like I can. Lord Ashtar that is a neccessary evil. Suppose in some distant forest lighting strikes a dead tree, resulting in a forest fire. In the fire a fawn is trapped, horribly burned, and lies in terrible agony for several days before death relieves its suffering. So far as we can see, the fawn’s intense suffering is pointless. For there does not appear to be any greater good such that the prevention of the fawns suffering would require eitehr the loss of that good or the occcurrence of an evil equally bad or worse. Nor does there seem to be any equally bad or worse evil so connected to the fawns suffering that it would have had to occur had the fawns suffering been prevented. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2004, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-problem-of-evil/279155/25 "2004-12-10T20:30:21Z")
> [@barry sanders](#): > > Here how about this…which of these defenses to you find most accetapble? > > 1-The Ontological defense- claims that goodness, by its very nature, can’t exist without evil. Needs to be elaborated on. Why can’t you substitute ‘neutral’ or ‘less good’ for evil? > [@barry sanders](#): > > 2-The Knowledge defense- This argument assumes that a knowledge of evil is a good thing and that such a knowledge cannot be required unless evil exists. Circular. It’s only a good thing if evil already exists. > [@barry sanders](#): > > 3-The Free will defense- Many believe that eveil is necessary for free will. They assume that having free will is a good thing because without it, there would be no right or wrong actions, no good or bad people. Doesn’t explain natural evil. Additionally there could be a variety of good options to choose from instead of good and evil. > [@barry sanders](#): > > 4-The Ideal-Humanity defense- Natural evil has been defended on the grounds that it is necessary to improve the human race. By pushing some of us to our limits, its claimed the struggle against nature helps us to achieve our potential as a species Conflicts with God’s omnipotence and the idea that we were made in God’s image. Additionally it still doesn’t explain the examples where it isn’t possible that improvement occured. It also massively begs the question. > [@barry sanders](#): > > 5-The Soul Building defense- Evil is necessary, not to improve the human race, but to improve each individual human being. Why? Why not only create the humans who would have been good by choice, without evil’s interference? > [@barry sanders](#): > > 6-The Finite God defense- One way to explain all the unnecessary evil in the world is to admit that God does not have all the properties traditionally attributed to him. Then why call that being God? ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2004, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-problem-of-evil/279155/26 "2004-12-10T20:31:47Z")
You know, I always thought that the argument from unnecessary pain was a close relative to the argument from evil. Does anyone want to take a stab at answering that as well (or is it too much of a tangent?)? ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2004, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-problem-of-evil/279155/27 "2004-12-10T20:34:48Z")
> [@barry sanders](#): > > Suppose in some distant forest lighting strikes a dead tree, resulting in a forest fire. In the fire a fawn is trapped, horribly burned, and lies in terrible agony for several days before death relieves its suffering. So far as we can see, the fawn’s intense suffering is pointless. For there does not appear to be any greater good such that the prevention of the fawns suffering would require either the loss of that good or the occcurrence of an evil equally bad or worse. Nor does there seem to be any equally bad or worse evil so connected to the fawns suffering that it would have had to occur had the fawns suffering been prevented. Emphasis mine. Just because you can’t see it doesn’t mean it doesn’t or can’t exist. ---
**Author:** ![barry\_sanders](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f08c70/32.png) [@barry\_sanders](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barry_sanders)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2004, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-problem-of-evil/279155/28 "2004-12-10T20:36:47Z")
Meatros I am not saying I agree with any of them either, I am asking which of them you find most adequate and acceptable. ---
**Author:** ![barry\_sanders](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f08c70/32.png) [@barry\_sanders](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barry_sanders)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2004, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-problem-of-evil/279155/29 "2004-12-10T20:40:10Z")
> [@Lord Ashtar](#): > > Emphasis mine. > > Just because you can’t see it doesn’t mean it doesn’t or can’t exist. Thats not an adequate enough response for me. I am not totally ruling out the possiblity that what you’re saying might exist but I have no reason to think it does. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2004, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-problem-of-evil/279155/30 "2004-12-10T20:43:07Z")
> [@barry sanders](#): > > Thats not an adequate enough response for me. I am not totally ruling out the possiblity that what you’re saying might exist but I have no reason to think it does. The three year old can’t see any reason why his candy should be taken away, even though there are several good ones. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2004, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-problem-of-evil/279155/31 "2004-12-10T20:43:59Z")
> [@barry sanders](#): > > Meatros I am not saying I agree with any of them either, I am asking which of them you find most adequate and acceptable. I understand…Well that’s a tough one then. Appealing to an unknowable cause is attractive (such as 1 and 5) but it begs the question in assuming the answer to the very question that is asked, which is a logical no-no. Honestly I’d have to go with 6 though, although I don’t know how such a conception of God could survive. Then again, I don’t believe in the first place, so perhaps my answers won’t be very helpful. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2004, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-problem-of-evil/279155/32 "2004-12-10T20:46:18Z")
> [@Lord Ashtar](#): > > The three year old can’t see any reason why his candy should be taken away, even though there are several good ones. Actually I think the question of evil would be more comparable to why did the father have the candy in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![SparrowHawk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ac8455/32.png) [@SparrowHawk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SparrowHawk)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2004, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-problem-of-evil/279155/33 "2004-12-10T20:59:24Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > > [@barry sanders](#): > > > > Here how about this…which of these defenses to you find most accetapble? > > > > 1-The Ontological defense- claims that goodness, by its very nature, can’t exist without evil. > > Needs to be elaborated on. Why can’t you substitute ‘neutral’ or ‘less good’ for evil? I think the argument is that once a thing is brought (or defined) into existence, the lack or absence of it becomes possible. Like, when Shakespeare wrote “Hamlet”, immediately everything else that was ever written or will be written becomes “not Hamlet.” Something that contains quotations could be “less Hamlet,” and everything is obviously its own self. But in relation to Hamlet, it exists as “not Hamlet.” I’m not sure how “neutral” relates to good; maybe it depends how you define good. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2004, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-problem-of-evil/279155/34 "2004-12-10T21:05:54Z")
> [@SparrowHawk](#): > > I think the argument is that once a thing is brought (or defined) into existence, the lack or absence of it becomes possible. Like, when Shakespeare wrote “Hamlet”, immediately everything else that was ever written or will be written becomes “not Hamlet.” Something that contains quotations could be “less Hamlet,” and everything is obviously its own self. But in relation to Hamlet, it exists as “not Hamlet.” I’m not sure how “neutral” relates to good; maybe it depends how you define good. I don’t agree with this, actually. Take existence for example, what’s the opposite of existence? Nothing, but nothing can’t exist (because to do so would be an oxymoron). Additionally, there still need not be evil, by your argument (at least IMO) because there could be levels of good. Also, what is good and evil to God? How does God become aware of them? ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2004, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-problem-of-evil/279155/35 "2004-12-10T21:15:36Z")
Just because the three-year-old thinks an act is evil doesn’t necessarily make it so. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2004, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-problem-of-evil/279155/36 "2004-12-10T21:27:48Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > Just because the three-year-old thinks an act is evil doesn’t necessarily make it so. Exactly. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2004, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-problem-of-evil/279155/37 "2004-12-10T21:44:24Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > Just because the three-year-old thinks an act is evil doesn’t necessarily make it so. Then why are we even having the debate then, if we are incapable of comprehending it? Furthermore, if we are so incapable of comprehending God’s will such that an apparently evil act has a good reason behind it, how can we be wise enough about the ways of God to know, _for certain_, that His apparently _good_ acts are not the very essence of evil? We must instead fall back upon human definitions of Evil. Indeed, given even a near-omnipotent omniscient entity, even the natural happenings that He allows to happen, with no human will involved, forces us to conclude that he is utterly evil. Speaking strictly on human terms, of course: what other definitions can we use? ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2004, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-problem-of-evil/279155/38 "2004-12-10T22:53:04Z")
> [@Lord Ashtar](#): > > Exactly. So actual evil doesn’t exist? ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2004, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-problem-of-evil/279155/39 "2004-12-11T00:47:25Z")
I’m of the opinion that evil exists, but that which we call “evil” is not necessarily so. And on a metaphysical level, we can certainly agree that the _idea_ of evil exists, though we can then debate whether God’s omnipotence allows Him to create a reality where the idea doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Not\_A\_Tame\_Lion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e36b37/32.png) [@Not\_A\_Tame\_Lion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Not_A_Tame_Lion)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2004, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-problem-of-evil/279155/40 "2004-12-11T00:59:23Z")
I go along with the idea that “good” and “evil” are terms applied to actions, based upon the perception of those actions. Not necessarily the products of those actions. I’m reminded of a passage I read in one of Christmas Humphreys’ books on Buddhism; he addressed the question of how a Buddhist views the problem of evil, and his answer was that “evil” is not a hard and fast definition, that the same action can be either good or evil, depending upon the motivation of the person taking the action. Beyond that, there doesn’t seem to be much of a definitive answer. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-problem-of-evil/279155.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-problem-of-evil/279155.md?page=3)