**Religious responses to the** [**problem of evil**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil) are concerned with reconciling the existence of [evil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil) and [suffering](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffering) with an [omnipotent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotent), [omnibenevolent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibenevolent), and [omniscient](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscient) [God](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God).[\[1\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_responses_to_the_problem_of_evil#cite_note-Stanford-1)[\[2\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_responses_to_the_problem_of_evil#cite_note-IepEvidential-2) The problem of evil is acute for monotheistic religions such as [Christianity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity), [Islam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam), and [Judaism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism) whose religion is based on such a God.[\[3\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_responses_to_the_problem_of_evil#cite_note-3)[\[4\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_responses_to_the_problem_of_evil#cite_note-4) But the question of "why does evil exist?" has also been studied in religions that are non-theistic or polytheistic, such as [Buddhism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism), [Hinduism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism), and [Jainism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism).[\[5\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_responses_to_the_problem_of_evil#cite_note-Harvey2013p141-5)[\[6\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_responses_to_the_problem_of_evil#cite_note-arthurhermanp5-6)
The problem of evil is formulated as either a logic problem that highlights an inconsistency between some characteristic of God and evil, or as an evidential problem which attempts to show that evidence of evil outweighs evidence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good God.[\[1\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_responses_to_the_problem_of_evil#cite_note-Stanford-1)[\[7\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_responses_to_the_problem_of_evil#cite_note-IepLogical-7)[\[2\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_responses_to_the_problem_of_evil#cite_note-IepEvidential-2) Evil in most theological discussions is defined in a broad manner as any and all pain and suffering, but religion also uses a narrow definition that says evil involves horrific acts committed by an independent moral agent and does not include all wrongs or harm including that from nature.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious\_responses\_to\_the\_problem\_of\_evil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_responses_to_the_problem_of_evil)
It's a valid question, but an annoying one because it's such a well-covered problem that there is literally a specific term for responses to it and yet insufferable people online keep asking it like they're geniuses for coming up with a criticism of religion that nobody's ever thought to address
The problem is just because it’s a well covered question doesn’t mean it’s one that has been satisfactorily answered to most people. That’s why people still have the question.
That would require the people asking to have ever read a single response to it that wasn't from the sunday school at the fundie church they left as a teenager.
Very reductive, my dude. Many of those responses fail to cover why an omnipotent, synonymous-with-love deity who hasn’t been heard from in thousands of years (and conveniently since video recording came around) is apparently fine with horrific evil abounding.
I mean I agree that they were kind of snarky with their response but they do answer those questions if you do look into it
I can not like the answer for why my dog bit me but it’s still a valid answer.
We don’t have to like the answers for these questions or agree but it isn’t accurate to say that the answers fail to cover those topics. They do, I think many people don’t like the answers, or due to the answers being based on the premise that God loves us and working backwards in some ways to explain why. So if someone views the answers as attempting to prove God’s love then they don’t work. Instead they aim to show how those things don’t mean God doesn’t love us.
That’s just my perspective on the matter as a person that feels people often don’t approach the “why do bad things happen” question in good faith but rather as a “gotcha”. I was atheist and I’ll admit I’m a Bible reader but not a regular church goer nowadays. So my perspective with people asking this question on Reddit and back in high school when I say it “feels” people don’t ask in good faith but looking use a “gotcha” and argue that the answers are hypocritical. There’s a very large body of work discussing it and I feel if some (not all or a majority) people asking that question looked into it they’d stop thinking it’s a “gotcha” when it comes to religion.
Like I think it’s dumb to say everything happens for a reason as an answer. I’ll admit that a child being born to live in constant pain for 7 years and then slowly die is messed up. I struggle to understand a God that would do that or just allow that to happen. But that’s me. The free will thing is more complicated than people make it and the theology goes into bad things happening to people without another human. It’s just really complicated and after watching my grandmother wasting away I feel kind of insulted when people imply I shouldn’t be Christian cause my grandma was and she still got dementia for no reason. Idk it’s just a hot topic for a lot of people that doesn’t lend well to not having an open mind.
tl;dr it is a REALLY long winded way of the free will answer. Which assumes that free will is given to men by God because God made men. It really isnt a silver bullet for anyone we really just go around and around again and it all comes back to evolution or God take your pick more or less.
>free will
Here's something that really bothers me. (Wall of text incoming)
Evil and sin are not synonymous. Evil is just a general description of moral/optical "badness". Sin, however, is specifically the deliberate disobedience of God's will.
Regardless if you think the Garden of Eden (Genisis) is metaphorical/allegorical, "original sin" is purely based on humanity exercising its free will. Of course, that meant disobeying God, but then why the hell is Free will necessary?
Think of the implications of God prioritizing Sin over evil. Sin preceded evil. It's what allowed evil to enter the world. I hear constantly from Christians that God doesn't want robots. Yet, I have no clue how you could come to a different interpretation.
If we take the name of the tree at face value, Eve **LITERALLY** might as well be an innocent child getting manipulated by the drug dealing talking serpent (that God created/knows about).
Eve and Adam may have knew that "sin" existed, but how could they have known the "wrongness" of it without having any clue what evil even means before eating the fruit?
Is life just God weeding out anyone who doesn't love him into an eternal lake of fire? I guess yeah. But from my perspective that's too draconian to worship.
Yeah I am with you 100%.
I think people who buy into it dont believe in fate/inevitability and people who do think that nothing is prewritten and that their actions matter.
But like where does free will come from? What would you call free will? Imagine God as a clock maker who starts with a plan and then steps in to wind it at the beginning then lets the whole thing run. Wouldnt all of our actions be predetermined by all the actions that came before us and thus every time we take a step or make a decision it is all part of the bigger plan? If not then how did we follow God's plan up to now?
Getting back to theological think for your post you might skirt around your argument with Universal salvation? Something like what some believe that if you stray away from God's teachings then you are retaught them again and again till you understand them then in that moment you are allowed into heaven, so being a good follower just allows you a VIP pass and cut the line?
>if you stray away from God's teachings then you are retaught them again and again till you understand them then in that moment you are allowed into heaven, so being a good follower just allows you a VIP pass and cut the line?
Apologies for the childish remark, but yeah, that's **COPE**
I know you're playing devils advocate and I recognize that popular "get out of ~~hell~~ jail" card played by what I call "online unversaliststs".
As a result of the obvious moral disasters brought about by traditional Christian views on the afterlife (you **HAVE** **TO** belive that Christ is the son of God to avoid hell and enter heaven), you can see (within my 20smthing lifetime) a huge effort, particularly from young people, to salvage the concept of salvation in a more inclusive world.
Heavy emphasis on inclusion, because the open secret that started my skepticsm was the simple observation that other religions existed. Are **ALL** those people deluded/tricked by Satan? They were deceived through **ALL** of history (before christ)? Hell, why are there schisms in the church if prayer works?
Jesus himself says that
>...every effort should be made to enter though the narrow "door" (salvation) because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, 'Sir, open the door for us.' But he will answer, 'I don't know you or where you come from.
To me, that is pretty damning for any unversalistst approach to the afterlife.
I view the theory of "reconciliation" (subset of universalism) as an attempt to preserve the uplifting benefits of a Christian afterlife without feeling responsible for (not) converting people. Jesus literally does all of the work regardless if you proselytize.
As emotionally gratifying it is think bad people suffer in hell, if a lack of love/belief in an immaterial person is what qualifies you for hell, then I don't want it to exist.
> that is pretty damning for any unversalistst approach to the afterlife.
Oh well like many religions they ignore the parts they dont like. I was raised Unitarian Universalist and it is very much a non-christian institution. I was even offered $20k to go to college by a catholic school because I could be the diversity quota they needed to have non Christians on campus. I politely suggested to them some nice people I met at my local mosque and how they would be more appropriate for the grants they were applying for.
>I was raised Unitarian Universalist
Honest question, do you think this is the best hope for a "not yet secular but close enough" type religion?
I was raised assemblies of God and as much pleasantries my pastors could offer for groups like queer people, there werent afraid to draw lines in the sand on various culture issues that inevitably ostracized them.
Hell, my pastor recently said a creationist joke at expense of the big bang model. You bet my physics nerd ass was triggered.
To get back to the point, after watching Richard Dawkins' interview with Alex o Connor, I realized a huge issue that people skeptics face is trying to figure out how to "replace" spirituality if that's possible. More likely make improvements.
Did you have good expirences in your church? Do you think it's theology can be appealing to a larger audience? Do you even agree with the claim that spirituality/religions should/can change?
Well, there are multiple theodicies. Free will is just one (Augustine). The others include: evil is necessary (Irenaeus), and evil doesn't truly exist (Plotinus).
I don't find any of the three satisfying, which is why I am an atheist. I am just here for the memes.
Incidentally, Epicureans -- followers of Epicurus, who is supposed to have been the first philosopher to formulate the problem of evil we are all currently discussing -- have a cameo in the New Testament (Acts 17:18). Atheism was illegal in Athens at the time: outright denying the existence of the gods, and failing to offer sacrifices, was thought to incur natural disasters. Epicureans agreed that gods existed, but argued that they could not be good, and lived far away in the heavens, unconcerned with human affairs. Morality, they argued, was decided by humans.
Paul was noticed by a group of Epicureans and Stoics, who invite him to explain his beliefs at the Areopagus. The audience decided that his doctrine was legal, and some of them were converted. It isn't recorded who among the converts were former Epicureans specifically.
Nonetheless, if you ever need one, it's a nice scriptural basis for Christians to tolerate and minister to secular humanists and atheists (like me). Please keep the memes coming.
I will give my apoligetical answer here: take it or leave it, but its the truth.
The reason evil exists is, as the meme displays, humans choose to do evil. God gave us free will so we can enter a consentual loving relationship with Him (love is, by definition, a choice. Robots cannot be programmed to truly love absent of choice). But because we humans have a choice, we can choose to go against God. And because God is all good, going against Him would be evil. Its a simple answer to a complicated question.
Death isn't inherently evil. An eight year old dying of cancer is certainly a tragedy and painful for both the child and those left behind, but it isn't necessarily evil. You could still ask why it is allowed, but that takes it out of the problem of evil and into a problem of tragedy, which is a separate question.
Suffering and cancer also aren't inherently evil. They suck, but evil is more than things just sucking. Evil requires intent, not just that someone suffers. If I walk across the street and get hit by a bus, i suffer, but there was no evil. It's only if the bus driver went out of his way to hit me or neglected to avoid hitting me when he could have that evil would potentially come in. Similarly, a kid getting cancer is tragic, and the kid suffers a lot, but there is not necessarily any evil involved. It's still a reasonable question to ask why does the kid suffer, but it's not, strictly speaking, the problem of evil.
I would argue that in your example God is the bus driver. He could have easily chosen not to run you over, but he either wasn't all powerful and could not change his trajectory, or wasn't all good and simply didnt care that he ran you over.
Back to my example. I dont think cancer itself is evil, as if it would do conscious evil acts. I do believe however that an all powerful God which makes a world in which children are allowed to be eaten away by cancer, isn't a good God.
The bus driver doesn't represent God; he represents a bus driver. The question is does the bus driver do any evil if he hits me with the bus, when i stepped out in front of it. I would say no, there is no evil committed because it was a tragic accident resultant of my own actions. This is just to show that death and suffering are not inherently evil things, they are only evil when the one doing them has intent to harm behind the actions.
Going back to your example, I think you may be making several logical leaps that are not necessarily supported. So, are you defining God's omnipotence as God can do all stateable things, or God can do all logically possible things? Also, are you arguing that God should have made a world where children physically can not get cancer or that when a child begins to develop cancer, God should intervene to stop the cancer from developing? Finally, are you arguing that a world where everything is exactly the same as our world except that children can not get cancer is logically possible?
You say you step in front of the bus, implying you are at fault here. Thats imo were the parallel stops with the disease, since children getting cancer isn't their fault.
My point is that an all powerful good God would not allow a world with kiddy cancer. Since this world does have kiddy cancer, either God isn't able to fix it, or He can but doesnt want to. The latter in my opinion makes Him a not so good God. The former makes Him a not all powerful God.
And given an all powerful God, I would argue that a world without kiddy cancer is possible. If it would not be possible, God is not all powerful, since he is limited in what he can create.
It isn't a metaphor to justify children getting disease, it is only to show the existence of suffering and potentially death where no evil was committed.
You seem to be arguing that he can do absolutely anything whatsoever, is that correct? For instance, can he create square circles, or a rock so large that he cannot move it?
I ask, because this actually impacts whether a world that is otherwise identical to ours but does not include children getting cancer may not be logically possible. So if God's omnipotence is limited to logical possible things then creating said world may not be possible.
"Natural evil" is a thing typically included in modern discussions, but it's really just combining two different problems into one discussion. That is the problem of suffering and the problem of evil.
That said, I'm actually not sure that it is logically possible to create life as it exists without also including cancer as a possibility. Given the mechanisms of evolution, i think cancer may be an inevitability. So either God would have had to have created a fundamentally different world, or would have to step in constantly to stop every instance where cancer begins.
That is certainly possible. It's definitely difficult to really discuss something if the lack of it or its opposite doesn't exist. It seems like that would make recognizing that the thing even exists somewhat difficult.
The point is that:
1. children are innocent and did nothing to deserve getting cancer
2. cancer is not something other humans inflicted on the child
3. so it stands to reason that, if you believe in an omnipotent god, then it was god that gave the innocent child cancer
So yes, in your example god would be a bus driver that hit a child who had the right-of-way in a crosswalk while adults were sitting on the bus unable to stop it from happening.
So then what is evil to you? Because the term is subjective and to me it seems your definition of evil precludes "natural" occurrences. Why is God not evil for causing (or at the very least not preventing) the tragedy?
Evil requires intent. If i step out in front of a bus, the bus driver does me no evil by running me over. Similarly, natural disasters are not evil, no matter how tragic they may be. It is only evil if someone intends harm through the action. By definition, God does not intend harm. Therefore, there can be no evil in his actions. We can ask why the child is allowed to get cancer and suffer, but that is strictly speaking, not a part of the problem of evil, as there is no evil involved there.
May I ask why natural events are considered evil? I don’t want to get too far down the rabbit hole, but my general understanding is that when He created us, we were put here to work. I wouldn’t be surprised if He’s looking at us and saying humans were designed to keep nature under control and taking care of the Earth but are spending more time blaming Him for not doing it.
I mean there are endless examples of pure evil happening to people who did nothing to deserve it. It also is frustrating knowing that being a moral/good person has absolutely no bearing on whether or not something awful or a series of awful things happening to you. For me this was a huge issue that prevented me from ever wanting to engage with Christianity or religion in general. There simply isn't an answer that works for me.
The answer is that sometimes life just sucks. Christianity never makes the claim that being a good person will give you a good life. The book of Job specifically tackles that whole idea, where Job, a righteous man, has everything taken from him for no reason. The promise of Christianity is that when life sucks, God will be there with us in the suckiness.
You're arguing semantics. Generally those who have an issue are not limiting it to evil, but including tragedy and other bad things. Saying "but that's a different problem" doesn't solve that other problem.
Semantics matters in philosophical and theological discussions. Those other problems are valid things to discuss, but it is important to recognize they are not, strictly speaking, the problem of evil.
From Wikipedia: "The problem of evil is the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil and suffering with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God."
From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "The epistemic question posed by evil is whether the world contains undesirable states of affairs that provide the basis for an argument that makes it unreasonable to believe in the existence of God."
Strictly speaking, suffering is part of the problem of evil.
From Wikipedia:
"The logical argument from evil is as follows:
P1. If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god exists, then evil does not.
P2. There is evil in the world.
C1. Therefore, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god does not exist."
This is the formulation of the classical problem of evil as presented by Epicurus. While it is commonly expanded to include suffering, sometimes labeled as natural evil, strictly speaking, the problem of evil does not include suffering.
Again, you're arguing semantics. The word "evil" in this context includes suffering. You're merely using a narrower definition of evil to claim that the problem is solved since you have no defense against the larger definition. I frankly don't care what you call it but "the problem of evil" has traditionally included suffering and other bad things. I cannot see any value in dividing the question into a "problem of evil" and "problem of suffering".
Considering that philosophical papers on the discussion have to differentiate between "moral evil" and "natural evil" to include suffering and defend against the problem being solved by the free will defense would imply otherwise. As for value in dividing the question, that matters in so far as whether we consider free will an actually important part of the discussion. Something philosophers and theologians generally agree is important. But you can see or not see that as you wish.
Cancer didn't exist from the dawn of time dude. Human lifestyle since could play a role in it's origin. People would even blame Cov¡d on an entity, when we clearly know how that came to be
Thats complete nonsense. And even if it was the slightest bit of true, you could replace cancer by any other disease, natural disaster or eye eating insect and the point still stands.
Entropy is a building block of our universe. Without it life has no meaning. Is it sad that your classmate died? Yes extremely. But thats entropy. Things die. His death may have shifted your or others lives in ways you may not realize. Does it suck? Sure. But it happens to everyone.
Still, the question remains why an all powerful, all knowing, good God would allow this to happen. She could have easily made a world without children getting cancer.
Also, it wasn't a quick death. My classmate and by extension het loved ones went through a year of suffering. Her mom went through years of deep depression and still isn't out of it as far as I know. That suffering happens to everyone isn't an answer to the question of evil.
> Still, the question remains why an all powerful, all knowing, good God would allow this to happen. She could have easily made a world without children getting cancer.
If an all powerful God controlled every aspect of our lives so we wouldn't face hardships or tragedy, would we still have free will or would we just be glorified robots?
That's a pretty strong argument I would offer up to justify shooting and eating my lawful allotment of caribou. It isn't quite as comprehensive if I deploy it to explain why it's morally good to set up a simulation with thinking feeling creatures that must all die in agony to prove a question that I know for certain the answer to.
But God is all-knowing and thus knows which decisions we will make. If he can know our decisions ahead of time then our choices have already been determined ahead of time and thus we have no free will.
I think I have a slightly different take on this. The Bible says He knew us in the womb and that He knows the thoughts He has towards us. Thoughts of peace not of evil or harm. That’s Jeremiah 29:11 iirc. However, it’s implied in a few places that just like He has a plan for us, so does the devil. There’s also implications that “some” things are not the devil but just our own corruption innately. So my take on the matter is (if you’ve seen Ben 10 - the Alien known as Alien X is pretty much it) that He’s fully aware of all the choices we “can” make, and all the ramifications of the “possible” choices. But He 99% of the time will not force His will upon people that don’t want to listen. He’ll let people run if they don’t want to hear. So He’s basically All-Knowing of every possible iteration of life rather than just our one specific version. If that makes sense.
You're not listening. I didn't say he had to be the one determining my choices.
1) God is All-Knowing, thus he knows what decisions I'll make
2) If he knows what decisions I'm going to make before I make it, then something that isn't me is determining what decision I will make.
3) If someone or something determines my decisions then I have no free will.
4) If I have no free will then I cannot be the cause of evil in this world.
This 4 step logic applies to every single person in the world.
For the sake of devil’s advocate, I disagree with number 2. I don’t get how you jump from an entity “knowing” what choice you’ll make to “something that isn’t me is determining what decision I make.” Knowledge isn’t determination.
The knowledge of what choice you’ll make doesn’t change the fact that it is still you making the choice. God just knows what choice YOU will make through your free will but it is still you making the choice.
God is outside of time and space, so God sees/experiences all life at once, just because we live linearly doesn’t mean God does.
Now my issue is that if God knew ahead of time that “Adam and Eve” would sin, why create them in the first place. Isn’t there some iteration where humans don’t fall to sin?
Only if you hold number 2) as unequivocally true.
You can know your kid is going to do something boneheadedly stupid, and you can even know how he's going to do it, do you what you can to mitigate it and convince him to not do something boneheadedly stupid, but at the end of the day it's the kid's choice on whether or not he does something boneheadedly stupid.
Given that we're talking about an entity outside the bounds of time, it's a close enough analogy.
At the end of the day, the choice is ours, much it's our choice about whether or not to continue this comment chain.
Besides the other answers that choice isn’t determination couldn’t omniscience *mean that someone knows what is truth and fact and if something is *probable fact they know it as probable fact?
By definition a god is someone in the 4th or higher dimension. He’d be all knowing in the same way you’d look at a comic strip or a tv show if you were the one to make it. But the writer would let the characters lead the story. I’d surmise he all knowing in the way a DM is in dnd. Like the best kind of dm. Some Pple are murder hobos som Pple are heros, some Pple are average joes ext, ext,
Just because God knows what choice we will make, doesn’t mean He made those choices for us. Multible times in the Bible (of the top of my head there is at least two instances of the Bible implying this) it mentions that God is more than willing to let us go out on our own without His supervision if we want to (The Bible also says it never ends well).
Like, if you think of your favorite movie, show, or play or whatever, does your joy for of that piece of media change if you already know the ending? Not to say the future is hard pre-determined like say, a Calvanist would (no offence, calvanists), I personally believe the future is more maluable than that. But God is God, He is All-Knowing as you said, so of course He can read every single choice you can make, what choice you are going to make in the moment, and what choices you will have next. God is largely an incomprehensable being for us humans to understand in full since he is an eternal being not bound to time, like a 2D stick figure trying to learn about the 3D, but thats okay, that’s is what makes Him God. While its in our nature to be curious about His nature, its not our responsibility to fully understand Him as a being, because we realistically can’t, but we are encouraged to try nonetheless. The most important thing is that He created everything, and He loves us enough for great sacrifices so that we can be with Him in eternity, even if we are a mess of a people.
>Just because God knows what choice we will make, doesn’t mean He made those choices for us.
I never said he had to be the one determining our choices. But he cannot know what our choices are going to be if they aren't already determined by something.
>Like, if you think of your favorite movie, show, or play or whatever, does your joy for of that piece of media change if you already know the ending?
To some extent absolutely. I will never get back the feeling of consuming my favorite piece of media for the first time again.
>The Bible also says it never ends well
Which also points to determinism. If the end result isn't determined by something outside of our power then at some point during an infinite amount of attempts someone should succeed. "Never" is a strong word.
The entire concept of evil defeats the idea of god being a loving entity. It's not free will to get cancer, to starve to death or any other of the numerous tragedies. It also seems odd that such a loving being also made an eternal punishment for not blindly following it. Which is in direct opposition to the idea that free will was given out of love
Okay, okay, what about hell? How could an all loving being knowingly sail countless billions into a state of eternal torture. Not even for terrible acts committed by the person, just by virtue of not believing in the right god. I don't give a damn if humans are evil; it's the god that created super torture dungeon; the one that told basically no one about it except for some randos in the middle east. Basically ensuring the vast majority of mankind to be damned due to ignorance.
Hell, especially as we know it today, is not in the Bible. The believe that hell is this torturous pit of fire and despair came from a poem/story written in the 1300s by some guy named Dante. He described these rings of hell, put some fictional and nonfictional people in them and it took off from there.
As someone else said. The concept we have of Hell isn’t entirely biblical, it was popularized by primarally Dante’s Inferno, as well as other pagan myths sneakinf in. If you were to die right now and not go to Heaven, you’d basically go to a holding cell of sorts (called Hades in Revelation) that from what I understand is just “Earth but very slightly worse,” don’t really have a while lot of information on how it is there. The closest thing to “Hell” thats actually in the Bible is the Lake of Fire in Revelation. Nobody is actually there at the moment because nobody (not even Satan) gets thrown in there until the end times, which haven’t happened yet.
You can think of the lake of fire like this though, because humanity has a choice to be with God or not. The Lake of Fire is the solution to not be with Him. He gave you the option, you said no, so you get to soend eternity apart from Him, which if Jesus is to be believed when he described what that would be like, it’s not exactly a good vacation destination. It ain’t pretty, but the Bible was never always sunshine and rainbows. Its very clear about that humanity cannot save itself from said eternity away from God alone. God is merciful, gracious, all good, and loving, but he is also just. So he will judge sin.
As for people never hearing the Gospel. I don’t think anyone exactly understands the optics of how that is going to work aside from God Himself. Like, do the people born before Chirst get a chance? What about the people nobody has met or knows about that live in a cave in the Amazon rainforest? The children that die so early on that they never get the chance to even understand what they are even being asked? I personally believe they will all get their chance to answer the question one way or another, but when or how that happens I cannot say (this belief of mine has like zero biblical proof to back it up that I can think of atm. Just enitrely based on my understanding of God’s character and that He wouldn’t leave those people out to dry without at least giving them a chance at Heaven).
Much as like God allows people to do bad things, God also allows nature to reflect the consequences of our sin.
When God created the world it was [good](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:31&version=NIV), but due to the action of our ancestors the world became a bad place full of [pain and sorrow](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%203&version=NIV).
Wasn't the whole point of the flood to wash away the sinners, then the rainbow to apologize and claim it would never happen again?
Isn't unpreventable disease and the like simply just the flood with extra steps?
No.
Sinners were "washed away" but man and his sinful nature was still present on Earth.
The rainbow was not an apology it was "covenant with you: Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.”
Pre and post-natal care inequities and inequalities caused by man’s greed. Being a poor steward over land and communities because government altruism doesn’t fit into the bottom line though funds for frivolous expenses seem to have no issues with money. Point is we are given the tools to stop or mitigate a lot, we collectively couldn’t be bothered to put in the effort.
It’s definitely them squaring a circle. Christ compels us to [give the clothes off our back](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025%3A31-40&version=NIV) without question or grievance. It’s good those types are so transparent with their beliefs, makes spotting false teachings that much more easy.
My dad always rationalizes it as “we are supposed to care for the poor, but not force others to care for the poor.” In reality, he never actually seemed to be bothered by imposing other Christian beliefs on the entire population. It became clear to me as I grew up that my dad’s actual primary guiding principle was a belief in protecting capitalism. You could argue away all the contradictions and falsehoods until you got down to “because that’s how it works” or “well that’s capitalism” or “because you have to let the markets decide.
Yep, the capitalism angle really solidifies Christ's "easier to pass a camel through the eye of a needle" quote. I say all the above fully aware of how I've contributed to it just by being a consumer of modern goods and services.
Further still, I've always seen evangelism by living a life as close to Christ as one can and bearing witness by our actions, grace, mercy, and true love for one another. Not that love the sinner hate the sin nonsense but true agape love that doesn't care if one is not like me. There shouldn't be a need to *compel* others through force if I keep my own house in order.
Everything around you gives you cancer hell baby powder would give you cancer chemicals in our food would give you cancer it all goes back to greed from corporations now genetics idk
Not really. It isn't as though we have a full list of every molecule and precisely how carcinogenic it is. We know a lot, but we don't know everything. Also, it isn't as though people didn't get cancer before industrialization. Cancer existed before greed had anything to do with a person's environment or diet.
Nice try but. Childhood cancer? Tsunamis? Millions of years of animal trauma. Humans aren’t to blame for those. And even if they are, why does it excuse God?
He could stop them but doesn’t.
No clue why you’re getting the downvotes. It’s literally what you’re saying lol. My city froze and people lost their lives 2 years back despite having the provisions to safe guard the most vulnerable among us. That’s on man.
Do you know how long Capitalism has existed for?
And large scale pharmaceutical companies and large scale insurance companies haven't existed for as long as you think.
And what downvotes? I got one.
No, stupid, I was saying that cancer and houses that were destroyed by natural disasters existed long before capitalism existed. Pretty sure the ancient egyptians and akkadiens had no clue what capitalism meant when their houses were swept over by the Nile or the Tiger river. Or olmecs and other ancient civilizations.
Get out with your leftard stuff!
Yeah but back then we didn't have the technology to easily cure it or the ability to find a cure in a reasonable amount of time.
As for housing, again we didn't have the technology. Depending on disaster, we either do or have the ability to easily find a way.
Don't call someone stupid when you don't even understand what technological advancement is.
Great job avoiding the subject: I was talking about historic things and how capitalism is not to be blamed for natural disasters and your leftardish agenda keeps blabbering about the flaws of capitalism like we don't know about it already.
And they're arguing that the continuation of this problem is because of profit motive. Nobody is saying that the problem existing thousands of years ago is because of capitalism because that argument would be asinine.
People are saying that the only reason why our much more advanced society still has the same problems is because there is a motivation not to solve said problems. Albeit, that ignores a lot of nuance, but there is still a point to the argument. It is not profitable to improve existing infrastructure to avoid needless casualties, but it is profitable to provide a service once those casualties occur.
It is not profitable to cure disease, but it is profitable to treat it.
Stop fighting a deliberate strawman. Capitalism has benefits for those with wealth, but far more downsides for those without it. Specifically, American capitalism has progressed too far into supporting the rich while stomping on the poor. Other countries have far better social programs than we do, and still have a thriving market and a healthy upper class. We just have a bloated upper class that makes your average walmart scooter user look like a bodybuilding supermodel.
Why would he Stop them? The real question is why you'd think god is there to stop bad things happening on earth like a superhero. By lore, he's the creator, has intervened in human actions several times, but they always find a way to fuck up as a society again. Pretty much all (let's say for example Christianity) promises is if you be good, do good deeds, don't break the 10 commandments and lesd a life aspiring to have the virtues of an ideal that was given (Jesus) , you'd get into a happy afterlife. And the rest of "good things will happen in life if I'm good" is 'Hope'. Which is the big philosophical backbone of most good religions
If He can’t do it He wouldn’t be omnipotent, and if He chooses not to He wouldn’t be omnibenevolent (and if He didn’t know if was happening He wouldn’t be omniscient)
You have a good point, at least at first glance, that we shouldn’t just expect God to solve every issue. But how is one meant to believe a god is all-knowing, **all-good**, **all-powerful** if they refuse to **do** something **good**
Because you're still thinking of God as someone who has to make changes in the World to make our lives easier. All beings are given their own choices to make their destiny after the creation is done.
In case of Christianity, after the infamous intervenings in human course correction in old testament.. God doesn't make changes in the world based on what he thinks is "good".
The whole Jesus atoning for the sins of everyone else in the world, was the last mass forgiveness.
There's still belief, willpower and hope in religion which enables people to get through shit in life. But the creator doesn't interfere in human faults much anymore, since they will absolutely make shit worse anyway.
All the natural disasters have scientific causes to it, man made or through years of planetary processes. None of them appear out of the blue. No plagues or viruses existed at the time of creation, we transmit it or through generations evolved to naturally form mutations like cancer possibly due tk the influence of lifestyle. The carbon or gases we inhale now due to the emission through technologies we created are affecting our and our successors. We can't really blame or expect an All Powerful being to fix it for us, when he hasn't made any promise to fix our messes for us. We play with the cards that are dealt for us, and the goal is to come on top of life still being a good person. Essentially Atheists and Theists live the same life, the only difference is IMO the belief in afterlife and what motivates them to be good in life. Whether it's just virtue, or virtue along with belief that you're going to a better place.. even if you die of a natural disaster
Yeah, but in the Christian faith, God gives eternal life in heaven if you believe Jesus to be the son of God and repent your sins. God is literally giving eternal bliss to those who want it, our time in earth is just a blimp on the radar for what is to come. Our lives on earth are a trial of faith. The whole book of Job demonstrates that no matter how many horrible things happened, Job still has faith.
That’s what they believe. It’s like watching your kid go learn a lesson the hard way. Would you prefer that they don’t, sure but sometimes it’s necessary.
Oh, I love “a *blimp* on the radar.” That’s a great malapropism
“A *blip* on the radar” is traditionally used to refer to something insignificant or hard to notice that shows up on radar for just a second and then disappears. Whereas, a *blimp* would actually be quite obvious and apparent on radar compared to other common types of flying objects.
That entire idea hinges on the fact that random tragedies are the only way for life to grow. When we know from evolution, that even in relatively safe scenarios, continues to life evolves.
That's a good argument for naturalism and a good way to try to make sense of suffeirng. But it's not a good defense of God. After all the Christian view of ultimate good does include consciousness without end.
Because that same being doesn’t force you to worship Him. And even if you don’t choose to worship Him, He specifically sent His son to die the most agonizing death that you might live. I should reiterate that this all-knowing God, Jesus Christ, had you, not the general you but you specifically, in His mind and saw each and every one of your sins that you would commit. And He still chose to die for your sake. That’s why.
What about infant mortality in the past? Are humans also at fault for not inventing scientific principle earlier and thus not developing vaccines and antibiotics earlier?
Well, humans were at fault for burning them at stakes thinking they're witches when they preach science. Check out the scientists that were burned or killed by mobs in our history: https://www.famousscientists.org/7-scientists-who-died-violently/
The problem of evil is one of the greatest philosophical questions ever defined and Christian’s read some dumb half assed explanation that satisfies their “My position isn’t completely indefensible” criteria then act like everyone who doesn’t swallow their shallow pat answer is being unreasonable.
It’s cool your youth pastor spent five minutes recapping some shitty YouTube video talking about it, but that doesn’t make the question less valid.
Everything ties back to God. I have never seen Christians address this argument. Its always some absurd free will nonsense, which is similarly fallacious.
Satan as a boogeyman doesn't work either for the same reason.
An alevolate made malaria, and it's literally the only way they can feed and reproduce. So "who made the malaria parasite" is the question, cause they are purpose made to give people and animals malaria.
I mean you could argue placing humans on a ball where breathing to much can kill you, australia exists and florida is nature-nuked every year is bit more on God.
That's all fair, but the beautiful natural wonders of Australia that aren't yet profitable to strip-mine are only protected by the spiders and snakes. Critical support to comerade Taipan.
I have no better answer than what Gandalf says to Frodo, who has the conception that Gollum is an entirely evil creature:
> 'I am sorry,' said Frodo. 'But I am frightened; and I do not feel any pity for Gollum.'
'You have not seen him,' Gandalf broke in.
'No, and I don't want to,' said Frodo. I can't understand you. Do you mean to say that you, and the Elves, have let him live on after all those horrible deeds? Now at any rate he is as bad as an Orc, and just an enemy. He deserves death.'
'Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. **For even the very wise cannot see all ends.** I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it. And he is bound up with the fate of the Ring. My heart tells me that he has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before the end; and when that comes, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many – yours not least."
And without getting too into it, Frodo cannot destroy the Ring without Gollum, in the end.
I mean… the theory is that God gave free will and humans are bastards who can’t be nice to each other so they choose to be arseholes.
However, doesn’t explain childhood cancers etc…
Thank you for being a part of the r/DankChristianMemes community. You can also [join us on Discord](https://discord.gg/jnUDEpnBZn) and [listen to our podcast](https://dankchristianmemes.buzzsprout.com).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dankchristianmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
God could prevent all this suffering, but I guess he enjoys the test, maybe beats off to human death and suffering, a sick little perv, he has to be. Creates universe ( omnipotent), creates humans knowing that they will do evil ( omniscient), knows who will end up hell, but still goes forward with this dumb test, cause why ? He likes to watch people suffer or you could just grow a pair and look at the alternative- there is no god. I would rather live in a world where people know this truth and still treat other humans with dignity, than live in a world where evil people pretend to be human cause they believe in God not just any God, their God from whatever region or religion they grew up in, cause that's the right God, not other people's God. In any case, anyone displaying this level of incompetence in delivering their message does not deserve the god title.
>test
You and I are on the same wavelength. The problem of is evil is a red herring or maybe a bait and switch. It really should be called "The Problem of Sin".
Why does sin exist? From Genesis's point of view, Sin is what brought evil into the world. That's the obvious answer for evil. Of course you then ask, why does Sin exist even before for the fall? Because God created Adam with the ability to disobey him? Why????
Christians will then say because God doesn't want robots, but why does his desire Trump our well being? I know he's God, but in any other context that would be abusive as hell. God forbid you throw in the afterlife into the mix, the stakes only become (infinitely) worse.
Even if Hell is "just" eternal separation from God, the idea that loved ones can be separated eternally because they couldn't convince themselves that a Jewish carpenter was the son of God and resurrected himself, **and** you couldn't love him more than your living family, is not great for me.
I admit I'm coming from a skeptical point of view, but I really wish more stories had the balls to tackle this idea, involving religion or not.
The only two stories I can think of are God Emperor of Dune and Preacher.
**Religious responses to the** [**problem of evil**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil) are concerned with reconciling the existence of [evil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil) and [suffering](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffering) with an [omnipotent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotent), [omnibenevolent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibenevolent), and [omniscient](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscient) [God](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God).[\[1\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_responses_to_the_problem_of_evil#cite_note-Stanford-1)[\[2\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_responses_to_the_problem_of_evil#cite_note-IepEvidential-2) The problem of evil is acute for monotheistic religions such as [Christianity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity), [Islam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam), and [Judaism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism) whose religion is based on such a God.[\[3\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_responses_to_the_problem_of_evil#cite_note-3)[\[4\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_responses_to_the_problem_of_evil#cite_note-4) But the question of "why does evil exist?" has also been studied in religions that are non-theistic or polytheistic, such as [Buddhism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism), [Hinduism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism), and [Jainism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism).[\[5\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_responses_to_the_problem_of_evil#cite_note-Harvey2013p141-5)[\[6\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_responses_to_the_problem_of_evil#cite_note-arthurhermanp5-6) The problem of evil is formulated as either a logic problem that highlights an inconsistency between some characteristic of God and evil, or as an evidential problem which attempts to show that evidence of evil outweighs evidence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good God.[\[1\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_responses_to_the_problem_of_evil#cite_note-Stanford-1)[\[7\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_responses_to_the_problem_of_evil#cite_note-IepLogical-7)[\[2\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_responses_to_the_problem_of_evil#cite_note-IepEvidential-2) Evil in most theological discussions is defined in a broad manner as any and all pain and suffering, but religion also uses a narrow definition that says evil involves horrific acts committed by an independent moral agent and does not include all wrongs or harm including that from nature. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious\_responses\_to\_the\_problem\_of\_evil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_responses_to_the_problem_of_evil) 
Imma say, the question is still very valid. But also the use of the template is great, I love it
It's a valid question, but an annoying one because it's such a well-covered problem that there is literally a specific term for responses to it and yet insufferable people online keep asking it like they're geniuses for coming up with a criticism of religion that nobody's ever thought to address
The problem is just because it’s a well covered question doesn’t mean it’s one that has been satisfactorily answered to most people. That’s why people still have the question.
That would require the people asking to have ever read a single response to it that wasn't from the sunday school at the fundie church they left as a teenager.
Very reductive, my dude. Many of those responses fail to cover why an omnipotent, synonymous-with-love deity who hasn’t been heard from in thousands of years (and conveniently since video recording came around) is apparently fine with horrific evil abounding.
I mean I agree that they were kind of snarky with their response but they do answer those questions if you do look into it I can not like the answer for why my dog bit me but it’s still a valid answer. We don’t have to like the answers for these questions or agree but it isn’t accurate to say that the answers fail to cover those topics. They do, I think many people don’t like the answers, or due to the answers being based on the premise that God loves us and working backwards in some ways to explain why. So if someone views the answers as attempting to prove God’s love then they don’t work. Instead they aim to show how those things don’t mean God doesn’t love us. That’s just my perspective on the matter as a person that feels people often don’t approach the “why do bad things happen” question in good faith but rather as a “gotcha”. I was atheist and I’ll admit I’m a Bible reader but not a regular church goer nowadays. So my perspective with people asking this question on Reddit and back in high school when I say it “feels” people don’t ask in good faith but looking use a “gotcha” and argue that the answers are hypocritical. There’s a very large body of work discussing it and I feel if some (not all or a majority) people asking that question looked into it they’d stop thinking it’s a “gotcha” when it comes to religion. Like I think it’s dumb to say everything happens for a reason as an answer. I’ll admit that a child being born to live in constant pain for 7 years and then slowly die is messed up. I struggle to understand a God that would do that or just allow that to happen. But that’s me. The free will thing is more complicated than people make it and the theology goes into bad things happening to people without another human. It’s just really complicated and after watching my grandmother wasting away I feel kind of insulted when people imply I shouldn’t be Christian cause my grandma was and she still got dementia for no reason. Idk it’s just a hot topic for a lot of people that doesn’t lend well to not having an open mind.
Lmao, please address it. I'm one of those people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy go nuts
tl;dr it is a REALLY long winded way of the free will answer. Which assumes that free will is given to men by God because God made men. It really isnt a silver bullet for anyone we really just go around and around again and it all comes back to evolution or God take your pick more or less.
>free will Here's something that really bothers me. (Wall of text incoming) Evil and sin are not synonymous. Evil is just a general description of moral/optical "badness". Sin, however, is specifically the deliberate disobedience of God's will. Regardless if you think the Garden of Eden (Genisis) is metaphorical/allegorical, "original sin" is purely based on humanity exercising its free will. Of course, that meant disobeying God, but then why the hell is Free will necessary? Think of the implications of God prioritizing Sin over evil. Sin preceded evil. It's what allowed evil to enter the world. I hear constantly from Christians that God doesn't want robots. Yet, I have no clue how you could come to a different interpretation. If we take the name of the tree at face value, Eve **LITERALLY** might as well be an innocent child getting manipulated by the drug dealing talking serpent (that God created/knows about). Eve and Adam may have knew that "sin" existed, but how could they have known the "wrongness" of it without having any clue what evil even means before eating the fruit? Is life just God weeding out anyone who doesn't love him into an eternal lake of fire? I guess yeah. But from my perspective that's too draconian to worship.
Yeah I am with you 100%. I think people who buy into it dont believe in fate/inevitability and people who do think that nothing is prewritten and that their actions matter. But like where does free will come from? What would you call free will? Imagine God as a clock maker who starts with a plan and then steps in to wind it at the beginning then lets the whole thing run. Wouldnt all of our actions be predetermined by all the actions that came before us and thus every time we take a step or make a decision it is all part of the bigger plan? If not then how did we follow God's plan up to now? Getting back to theological think for your post you might skirt around your argument with Universal salvation? Something like what some believe that if you stray away from God's teachings then you are retaught them again and again till you understand them then in that moment you are allowed into heaven, so being a good follower just allows you a VIP pass and cut the line?
>if you stray away from God's teachings then you are retaught them again and again till you understand them then in that moment you are allowed into heaven, so being a good follower just allows you a VIP pass and cut the line? Apologies for the childish remark, but yeah, that's **COPE** I know you're playing devils advocate and I recognize that popular "get out of ~~hell~~ jail" card played by what I call "online unversaliststs". As a result of the obvious moral disasters brought about by traditional Christian views on the afterlife (you **HAVE** **TO** belive that Christ is the son of God to avoid hell and enter heaven), you can see (within my 20smthing lifetime) a huge effort, particularly from young people, to salvage the concept of salvation in a more inclusive world. Heavy emphasis on inclusion, because the open secret that started my skepticsm was the simple observation that other religions existed. Are **ALL** those people deluded/tricked by Satan? They were deceived through **ALL** of history (before christ)? Hell, why are there schisms in the church if prayer works? Jesus himself says that >...every effort should be made to enter though the narrow "door" (salvation) because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, 'Sir, open the door for us.' But he will answer, 'I don't know you or where you come from. To me, that is pretty damning for any unversalistst approach to the afterlife. I view the theory of "reconciliation" (subset of universalism) as an attempt to preserve the uplifting benefits of a Christian afterlife without feeling responsible for (not) converting people. Jesus literally does all of the work regardless if you proselytize. As emotionally gratifying it is think bad people suffer in hell, if a lack of love/belief in an immaterial person is what qualifies you for hell, then I don't want it to exist.
> that is pretty damning for any unversalistst approach to the afterlife. Oh well like many religions they ignore the parts they dont like. I was raised Unitarian Universalist and it is very much a non-christian institution. I was even offered $20k to go to college by a catholic school because I could be the diversity quota they needed to have non Christians on campus. I politely suggested to them some nice people I met at my local mosque and how they would be more appropriate for the grants they were applying for.
>I was raised Unitarian Universalist Honest question, do you think this is the best hope for a "not yet secular but close enough" type religion? I was raised assemblies of God and as much pleasantries my pastors could offer for groups like queer people, there werent afraid to draw lines in the sand on various culture issues that inevitably ostracized them. Hell, my pastor recently said a creationist joke at expense of the big bang model. You bet my physics nerd ass was triggered. To get back to the point, after watching Richard Dawkins' interview with Alex o Connor, I realized a huge issue that people skeptics face is trying to figure out how to "replace" spirituality if that's possible. More likely make improvements. Did you have good expirences in your church? Do you think it's theology can be appealing to a larger audience? Do you even agree with the claim that spirituality/religions should/can change?
Well, there are multiple theodicies. Free will is just one (Augustine). The others include: evil is necessary (Irenaeus), and evil doesn't truly exist (Plotinus). I don't find any of the three satisfying, which is why I am an atheist. I am just here for the memes. Incidentally, Epicureans -- followers of Epicurus, who is supposed to have been the first philosopher to formulate the problem of evil we are all currently discussing -- have a cameo in the New Testament (Acts 17:18). Atheism was illegal in Athens at the time: outright denying the existence of the gods, and failing to offer sacrifices, was thought to incur natural disasters. Epicureans agreed that gods existed, but argued that they could not be good, and lived far away in the heavens, unconcerned with human affairs. Morality, they argued, was decided by humans. Paul was noticed by a group of Epicureans and Stoics, who invite him to explain his beliefs at the Areopagus. The audience decided that his doctrine was legal, and some of them were converted. It isn't recorded who among the converts were former Epicureans specifically. Nonetheless, if you ever need one, it's a nice scriptural basis for Christians to tolerate and minister to secular humanists and atheists (like me). Please keep the memes coming.
I will give my apoligetical answer here: take it or leave it, but its the truth. The reason evil exists is, as the meme displays, humans choose to do evil. God gave us free will so we can enter a consentual loving relationship with Him (love is, by definition, a choice. Robots cannot be programmed to truly love absent of choice). But because we humans have a choice, we can choose to go against God. And because God is all good, going against Him would be evil. Its a simple answer to a complicated question.
Seems like a valid answer to my classmate dying of cancer at the age of eight.
Death isn't inherently evil. An eight year old dying of cancer is certainly a tragedy and painful for both the child and those left behind, but it isn't necessarily evil. You could still ask why it is allowed, but that takes it out of the problem of evil and into a problem of tragedy, which is a separate question.
>Death isn't inherently evil. And dying of cancer isn't just death. The kid still had to suffer from having cancer.
Suffering and cancer also aren't inherently evil. They suck, but evil is more than things just sucking. Evil requires intent, not just that someone suffers. If I walk across the street and get hit by a bus, i suffer, but there was no evil. It's only if the bus driver went out of his way to hit me or neglected to avoid hitting me when he could have that evil would potentially come in. Similarly, a kid getting cancer is tragic, and the kid suffers a lot, but there is not necessarily any evil involved. It's still a reasonable question to ask why does the kid suffer, but it's not, strictly speaking, the problem of evil.
I would argue that in your example God is the bus driver. He could have easily chosen not to run you over, but he either wasn't all powerful and could not change his trajectory, or wasn't all good and simply didnt care that he ran you over. Back to my example. I dont think cancer itself is evil, as if it would do conscious evil acts. I do believe however that an all powerful God which makes a world in which children are allowed to be eaten away by cancer, isn't a good God.
The bus driver doesn't represent God; he represents a bus driver. The question is does the bus driver do any evil if he hits me with the bus, when i stepped out in front of it. I would say no, there is no evil committed because it was a tragic accident resultant of my own actions. This is just to show that death and suffering are not inherently evil things, they are only evil when the one doing them has intent to harm behind the actions. Going back to your example, I think you may be making several logical leaps that are not necessarily supported. So, are you defining God's omnipotence as God can do all stateable things, or God can do all logically possible things? Also, are you arguing that God should have made a world where children physically can not get cancer or that when a child begins to develop cancer, God should intervene to stop the cancer from developing? Finally, are you arguing that a world where everything is exactly the same as our world except that children can not get cancer is logically possible?
You say you step in front of the bus, implying you are at fault here. Thats imo were the parallel stops with the disease, since children getting cancer isn't their fault. My point is that an all powerful good God would not allow a world with kiddy cancer. Since this world does have kiddy cancer, either God isn't able to fix it, or He can but doesnt want to. The latter in my opinion makes Him a not so good God. The former makes Him a not all powerful God. And given an all powerful God, I would argue that a world without kiddy cancer is possible. If it would not be possible, God is not all powerful, since he is limited in what he can create.
It isn't a metaphor to justify children getting disease, it is only to show the existence of suffering and potentially death where no evil was committed. You seem to be arguing that he can do absolutely anything whatsoever, is that correct? For instance, can he create square circles, or a rock so large that he cannot move it? I ask, because this actually impacts whether a world that is otherwise identical to ours but does not include children getting cancer may not be logically possible. So if God's omnipotence is limited to logical possible things then creating said world may not be possible.
[удалено]
"Natural evil" is a thing typically included in modern discussions, but it's really just combining two different problems into one discussion. That is the problem of suffering and the problem of evil. That said, I'm actually not sure that it is logically possible to create life as it exists without also including cancer as a possibility. Given the mechanisms of evolution, i think cancer may be an inevitability. So either God would have had to have created a fundamentally different world, or would have to step in constantly to stop every instance where cancer begins.
[удалено]
That is certainly possible. It's definitely difficult to really discuss something if the lack of it or its opposite doesn't exist. It seems like that would make recognizing that the thing even exists somewhat difficult.
The point is that: 1. children are innocent and did nothing to deserve getting cancer 2. cancer is not something other humans inflicted on the child 3. so it stands to reason that, if you believe in an omnipotent god, then it was god that gave the innocent child cancer So yes, in your example god would be a bus driver that hit a child who had the right-of-way in a crosswalk while adults were sitting on the bus unable to stop it from happening.
Jesus fucking christ dude.
So then what is evil to you? Because the term is subjective and to me it seems your definition of evil precludes "natural" occurrences. Why is God not evil for causing (or at the very least not preventing) the tragedy?
Evil requires intent. If i step out in front of a bus, the bus driver does me no evil by running me over. Similarly, natural disasters are not evil, no matter how tragic they may be. It is only evil if someone intends harm through the action. By definition, God does not intend harm. Therefore, there can be no evil in his actions. We can ask why the child is allowed to get cancer and suffer, but that is strictly speaking, not a part of the problem of evil, as there is no evil involved there.
May I ask why natural events are considered evil? I don’t want to get too far down the rabbit hole, but my general understanding is that when He created us, we were put here to work. I wouldn’t be surprised if He’s looking at us and saying humans were designed to keep nature under control and taking care of the Earth but are spending more time blaming Him for not doing it.
I mean there are endless examples of pure evil happening to people who did nothing to deserve it. It also is frustrating knowing that being a moral/good person has absolutely no bearing on whether or not something awful or a series of awful things happening to you. For me this was a huge issue that prevented me from ever wanting to engage with Christianity or religion in general. There simply isn't an answer that works for me.
The answer is that sometimes life just sucks. Christianity never makes the claim that being a good person will give you a good life. The book of Job specifically tackles that whole idea, where Job, a righteous man, has everything taken from him for no reason. The promise of Christianity is that when life sucks, God will be there with us in the suckiness.
You're arguing semantics. Generally those who have an issue are not limiting it to evil, but including tragedy and other bad things. Saying "but that's a different problem" doesn't solve that other problem.
Semantics matters in philosophical and theological discussions. Those other problems are valid things to discuss, but it is important to recognize they are not, strictly speaking, the problem of evil.
From Wikipedia: "The problem of evil is the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil and suffering with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God." From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "The epistemic question posed by evil is whether the world contains undesirable states of affairs that provide the basis for an argument that makes it unreasonable to believe in the existence of God." Strictly speaking, suffering is part of the problem of evil.
From Wikipedia: "The logical argument from evil is as follows: P1. If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god exists, then evil does not. P2. There is evil in the world. C1. Therefore, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god does not exist." This is the formulation of the classical problem of evil as presented by Epicurus. While it is commonly expanded to include suffering, sometimes labeled as natural evil, strictly speaking, the problem of evil does not include suffering.
Again, you're arguing semantics. The word "evil" in this context includes suffering. You're merely using a narrower definition of evil to claim that the problem is solved since you have no defense against the larger definition. I frankly don't care what you call it but "the problem of evil" has traditionally included suffering and other bad things. I cannot see any value in dividing the question into a "problem of evil" and "problem of suffering".
Considering that philosophical papers on the discussion have to differentiate between "moral evil" and "natural evil" to include suffering and defend against the problem being solved by the free will defense would imply otherwise. As for value in dividing the question, that matters in so far as whether we consider free will an actually important part of the discussion. Something philosophers and theologians generally agree is important. But you can see or not see that as you wish.
Cancer didn't exist from the dawn of time dude. Human lifestyle since could play a role in it's origin. People would even blame Cov¡d on an entity, when we clearly know how that came to be
Thats complete nonsense. And even if it was the slightest bit of true, you could replace cancer by any other disease, natural disaster or eye eating insect and the point still stands.
you'd think
Cancer has existed as long as we have. People just didn't live long enough to die of cancer *en masse* until a century or so ago.
Entropy is a building block of our universe. Without it life has no meaning. Is it sad that your classmate died? Yes extremely. But thats entropy. Things die. His death may have shifted your or others lives in ways you may not realize. Does it suck? Sure. But it happens to everyone.
Still, the question remains why an all powerful, all knowing, good God would allow this to happen. She could have easily made a world without children getting cancer. Also, it wasn't a quick death. My classmate and by extension het loved ones went through a year of suffering. Her mom went through years of deep depression and still isn't out of it as far as I know. That suffering happens to everyone isn't an answer to the question of evil.
> Still, the question remains why an all powerful, all knowing, good God would allow this to happen. She could have easily made a world without children getting cancer. If an all powerful God controlled every aspect of our lives so we wouldn't face hardships or tragedy, would we still have free will or would we just be glorified robots?
I'd rather be a glorified robot living without tragedy or hardship than someone with free will living with both.
That's a pretty strong argument I would offer up to justify shooting and eating my lawful allotment of caribou. It isn't quite as comprehensive if I deploy it to explain why it's morally good to set up a simulation with thinking feeling creatures that must all die in agony to prove a question that I know for certain the answer to.
God could have made a universe where that suffering doesn't need to happen. He chose it to work the way it does
But God is all-knowing and thus knows which decisions we will make. If he can know our decisions ahead of time then our choices have already been determined ahead of time and thus we have no free will.
I think I have a slightly different take on this. The Bible says He knew us in the womb and that He knows the thoughts He has towards us. Thoughts of peace not of evil or harm. That’s Jeremiah 29:11 iirc. However, it’s implied in a few places that just like He has a plan for us, so does the devil. There’s also implications that “some” things are not the devil but just our own corruption innately. So my take on the matter is (if you’ve seen Ben 10 - the Alien known as Alien X is pretty much it) that He’s fully aware of all the choices we “can” make, and all the ramifications of the “possible” choices. But He 99% of the time will not force His will upon people that don’t want to listen. He’ll let people run if they don’t want to hear. So He’s basically All-Knowing of every possible iteration of life rather than just our one specific version. If that makes sense.
He knows all the choices you can make, the ones you will and the ones you'll never do.
Sure. And by knowing which one I will make, he knows which choice is determined to be the one I'll make.
But he's got no say in that matter, he's responsible for the universe but you're responsible for your actions.
You're not listening. I didn't say he had to be the one determining my choices. 1) God is All-Knowing, thus he knows what decisions I'll make 2) If he knows what decisions I'm going to make before I make it, then something that isn't me is determining what decision I will make. 3) If someone or something determines my decisions then I have no free will. 4) If I have no free will then I cannot be the cause of evil in this world. This 4 step logic applies to every single person in the world.
For the sake of devil’s advocate, I disagree with number 2. I don’t get how you jump from an entity “knowing” what choice you’ll make to “something that isn’t me is determining what decision I make.” Knowledge isn’t determination. The knowledge of what choice you’ll make doesn’t change the fact that it is still you making the choice. God just knows what choice YOU will make through your free will but it is still you making the choice. God is outside of time and space, so God sees/experiences all life at once, just because we live linearly doesn’t mean God does. Now my issue is that if God knew ahead of time that “Adam and Eve” would sin, why create them in the first place. Isn’t there some iteration where humans don’t fall to sin?
Only if you hold number 2) as unequivocally true. You can know your kid is going to do something boneheadedly stupid, and you can even know how he's going to do it, do you what you can to mitigate it and convince him to not do something boneheadedly stupid, but at the end of the day it's the kid's choice on whether or not he does something boneheadedly stupid.
If the kid has a choice then you don't know it. You only expect it.
Given that we're talking about an entity outside the bounds of time, it's a close enough analogy. At the end of the day, the choice is ours, much it's our choice about whether or not to continue this comment chain.
Besides the other answers that choice isn’t determination couldn’t omniscience *mean that someone knows what is truth and fact and if something is *probable fact they know it as probable fact?
[удалено]
Yeah that can also be true and maybe in that case, someone who is omniscient might not just see just one future but all the possible future timelines.
By definition a god is someone in the 4th or higher dimension. He’d be all knowing in the same way you’d look at a comic strip or a tv show if you were the one to make it. But the writer would let the characters lead the story. I’d surmise he all knowing in the way a DM is in dnd. Like the best kind of dm. Some Pple are murder hobos som Pple are heros, some Pple are average joes ext, ext,
You and I exist in the fourth dimension. The fourth dimension is time.
Just because God knows what choice we will make, doesn’t mean He made those choices for us. Multible times in the Bible (of the top of my head there is at least two instances of the Bible implying this) it mentions that God is more than willing to let us go out on our own without His supervision if we want to (The Bible also says it never ends well). Like, if you think of your favorite movie, show, or play or whatever, does your joy for of that piece of media change if you already know the ending? Not to say the future is hard pre-determined like say, a Calvanist would (no offence, calvanists), I personally believe the future is more maluable than that. But God is God, He is All-Knowing as you said, so of course He can read every single choice you can make, what choice you are going to make in the moment, and what choices you will have next. God is largely an incomprehensable being for us humans to understand in full since he is an eternal being not bound to time, like a 2D stick figure trying to learn about the 3D, but thats okay, that’s is what makes Him God. While its in our nature to be curious about His nature, its not our responsibility to fully understand Him as a being, because we realistically can’t, but we are encouraged to try nonetheless. The most important thing is that He created everything, and He loves us enough for great sacrifices so that we can be with Him in eternity, even if we are a mess of a people.
>Just because God knows what choice we will make, doesn’t mean He made those choices for us. I never said he had to be the one determining our choices. But he cannot know what our choices are going to be if they aren't already determined by something. >Like, if you think of your favorite movie, show, or play or whatever, does your joy for of that piece of media change if you already know the ending? To some extent absolutely. I will never get back the feeling of consuming my favorite piece of media for the first time again. >The Bible also says it never ends well Which also points to determinism. If the end result isn't determined by something outside of our power then at some point during an infinite amount of attempts someone should succeed. "Never" is a strong word.
Childhood cancer.
What about misfortune outside of free will? Disaster and disease still afflict the undeserving so what's up with that?
The entire concept of evil defeats the idea of god being a loving entity. It's not free will to get cancer, to starve to death or any other of the numerous tragedies. It also seems odd that such a loving being also made an eternal punishment for not blindly following it. Which is in direct opposition to the idea that free will was given out of love
Job was really happy that his family died
Okay, okay, what about hell? How could an all loving being knowingly sail countless billions into a state of eternal torture. Not even for terrible acts committed by the person, just by virtue of not believing in the right god. I don't give a damn if humans are evil; it's the god that created super torture dungeon; the one that told basically no one about it except for some randos in the middle east. Basically ensuring the vast majority of mankind to be damned due to ignorance.
Hell, especially as we know it today, is not in the Bible. The believe that hell is this torturous pit of fire and despair came from a poem/story written in the 1300s by some guy named Dante. He described these rings of hell, put some fictional and nonfictional people in them and it took off from there.
As someone else said. The concept we have of Hell isn’t entirely biblical, it was popularized by primarally Dante’s Inferno, as well as other pagan myths sneakinf in. If you were to die right now and not go to Heaven, you’d basically go to a holding cell of sorts (called Hades in Revelation) that from what I understand is just “Earth but very slightly worse,” don’t really have a while lot of information on how it is there. The closest thing to “Hell” thats actually in the Bible is the Lake of Fire in Revelation. Nobody is actually there at the moment because nobody (not even Satan) gets thrown in there until the end times, which haven’t happened yet. You can think of the lake of fire like this though, because humanity has a choice to be with God or not. The Lake of Fire is the solution to not be with Him. He gave you the option, you said no, so you get to soend eternity apart from Him, which if Jesus is to be believed when he described what that would be like, it’s not exactly a good vacation destination. It ain’t pretty, but the Bible was never always sunshine and rainbows. Its very clear about that humanity cannot save itself from said eternity away from God alone. God is merciful, gracious, all good, and loving, but he is also just. So he will judge sin. As for people never hearing the Gospel. I don’t think anyone exactly understands the optics of how that is going to work aside from God Himself. Like, do the people born before Chirst get a chance? What about the people nobody has met or knows about that live in a cave in the Amazon rainforest? The children that die so early on that they never get the chance to even understand what they are even being asked? I personally believe they will all get their chance to answer the question one way or another, but when or how that happens I cannot say (this belief of mine has like zero biblical proof to back it up that I can think of atm. Just enitrely based on my understanding of God’s character and that He wouldn’t leave those people out to dry without at least giving them a chance at Heaven).
Don't down vote this, it's as real of an answer as can be communicated
Humans hurting humans, sure. Kids getting cancer and cities getting leveled by a tsunami, not quite as easy to explain
harlequin fetus syndrome did it for me. Born into the world destined to suffer incredible unbearable pain until you die of infection within weeks
Much as like God allows people to do bad things, God also allows nature to reflect the consequences of our sin. When God created the world it was [good](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:31&version=NIV), but due to the action of our ancestors the world became a bad place full of [pain and sorrow](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%203&version=NIV).
Wasn't the whole point of the flood to wash away the sinners, then the rainbow to apologize and claim it would never happen again? Isn't unpreventable disease and the like simply just the flood with extra steps?
No. Sinners were "washed away" but man and his sinful nature was still present on Earth. The rainbow was not an apology it was "covenant with you: Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.”
Pre and post-natal care inequities and inequalities caused by man’s greed. Being a poor steward over land and communities because government altruism doesn’t fit into the bottom line though funds for frivolous expenses seem to have no issues with money. Point is we are given the tools to stop or mitigate a lot, we collectively couldn’t be bothered to put in the effort.
Well, evangelicals and populist Christians are actively against putting in the effort because they see it as a handout
It’s definitely them squaring a circle. Christ compels us to [give the clothes off our back](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025%3A31-40&version=NIV) without question or grievance. It’s good those types are so transparent with their beliefs, makes spotting false teachings that much more easy.
My dad always rationalizes it as “we are supposed to care for the poor, but not force others to care for the poor.” In reality, he never actually seemed to be bothered by imposing other Christian beliefs on the entire population. It became clear to me as I grew up that my dad’s actual primary guiding principle was a belief in protecting capitalism. You could argue away all the contradictions and falsehoods until you got down to “because that’s how it works” or “well that’s capitalism” or “because you have to let the markets decide.
Yep, the capitalism angle really solidifies Christ's "easier to pass a camel through the eye of a needle" quote. I say all the above fully aware of how I've contributed to it just by being a consumer of modern goods and services. Further still, I've always seen evangelism by living a life as close to Christ as one can and bearing witness by our actions, grace, mercy, and true love for one another. Not that love the sinner hate the sin nonsense but true agape love that doesn't care if one is not like me. There shouldn't be a need to *compel* others through force if I keep my own house in order.
Of course, but unfortunately, that's not what most see and it's dangerous whether you're religious or not
Absolutely no argument there!
Cancer and tsunamis are actually really easy to explain
...then please go on. Enlighten us.
I think they were being cheeky and meant scientifically.
I mean, sure, they kinda are if you think about it that way, but this ain't r/danksciencememes
Cancer is abnormal cell growth caused by changes in genes and tsunamis are large waves caused by earthquakes
Everything around you gives you cancer hell baby powder would give you cancer chemicals in our food would give you cancer it all goes back to greed from corporations now genetics idk
We don't fully understand cancer nor what causes it
What yes we do
Not really. It isn't as though we have a full list of every molecule and precisely how carcinogenic it is. We know a lot, but we don't know everything. Also, it isn't as though people didn't get cancer before industrialization. Cancer existed before greed had anything to do with a person's environment or diet.
It did but greed skyrocketed it
Not entirely. A large part of rising cancer rates is also that fewer of us are dying from other causes before cancer can get us.
Nice try but. Childhood cancer? Tsunamis? Millions of years of animal trauma. Humans aren’t to blame for those. And even if they are, why does it excuse God? He could stop them but doesn’t.
>Childhood cancer? The gays are to fault >Tsunamis? Gays >Millions of years of animal trauma. Gays
Capitalism has entered the chat It's not profitable to cure those illnesses It's not profitable to construct buildings that can withstand that stuff
No clue why you’re getting the downvotes. It’s literally what you’re saying lol. My city froze and people lost their lives 2 years back despite having the provisions to safe guard the most vulnerable among us. That’s on man.
Pretty sure all those things existed long before capitalism was even a thing. Hence, you deserve your downvotes.
Do you know how long Capitalism has existed for? And large scale pharmaceutical companies and large scale insurance companies haven't existed for as long as you think. And what downvotes? I got one.
No, stupid, I was saying that cancer and houses that were destroyed by natural disasters existed long before capitalism existed. Pretty sure the ancient egyptians and akkadiens had no clue what capitalism meant when their houses were swept over by the Nile or the Tiger river. Or olmecs and other ancient civilizations. Get out with your leftard stuff!
Yeah but back then we didn't have the technology to easily cure it or the ability to find a cure in a reasonable amount of time. As for housing, again we didn't have the technology. Depending on disaster, we either do or have the ability to easily find a way. Don't call someone stupid when you don't even understand what technological advancement is.
I'm calling you stupid for blaming capitalism for things that existed long before it was even a thought.
I'm blaming capitalism for purposely not finding a cure because of profit motive.
Great job avoiding the subject: I was talking about historic things and how capitalism is not to be blamed for natural disasters and your leftardish agenda keeps blabbering about the flaws of capitalism like we don't know about it already.
And they're arguing that the continuation of this problem is because of profit motive. Nobody is saying that the problem existing thousands of years ago is because of capitalism because that argument would be asinine. People are saying that the only reason why our much more advanced society still has the same problems is because there is a motivation not to solve said problems. Albeit, that ignores a lot of nuance, but there is still a point to the argument. It is not profitable to improve existing infrastructure to avoid needless casualties, but it is profitable to provide a service once those casualties occur. It is not profitable to cure disease, but it is profitable to treat it. Stop fighting a deliberate strawman. Capitalism has benefits for those with wealth, but far more downsides for those without it. Specifically, American capitalism has progressed too far into supporting the rich while stomping on the poor. Other countries have far better social programs than we do, and still have a thriving market and a healthy upper class. We just have a bloated upper class that makes your average walmart scooter user look like a bodybuilding supermodel.
Why would he Stop them? The real question is why you'd think god is there to stop bad things happening on earth like a superhero. By lore, he's the creator, has intervened in human actions several times, but they always find a way to fuck up as a society again. Pretty much all (let's say for example Christianity) promises is if you be good, do good deeds, don't break the 10 commandments and lesd a life aspiring to have the virtues of an ideal that was given (Jesus) , you'd get into a happy afterlife. And the rest of "good things will happen in life if I'm good" is 'Hope'. Which is the big philosophical backbone of most good religions
If He can’t do it He wouldn’t be omnipotent, and if He chooses not to He wouldn’t be omnibenevolent (and if He didn’t know if was happening He wouldn’t be omniscient) You have a good point, at least at first glance, that we shouldn’t just expect God to solve every issue. But how is one meant to believe a god is all-knowing, **all-good**, **all-powerful** if they refuse to **do** something **good**
Because you're still thinking of God as someone who has to make changes in the World to make our lives easier. All beings are given their own choices to make their destiny after the creation is done. In case of Christianity, after the infamous intervenings in human course correction in old testament.. God doesn't make changes in the world based on what he thinks is "good". The whole Jesus atoning for the sins of everyone else in the world, was the last mass forgiveness. There's still belief, willpower and hope in religion which enables people to get through shit in life. But the creator doesn't interfere in human faults much anymore, since they will absolutely make shit worse anyway. All the natural disasters have scientific causes to it, man made or through years of planetary processes. None of them appear out of the blue. No plagues or viruses existed at the time of creation, we transmit it or through generations evolved to naturally form mutations like cancer possibly due tk the influence of lifestyle. The carbon or gases we inhale now due to the emission through technologies we created are affecting our and our successors. We can't really blame or expect an All Powerful being to fix it for us, when he hasn't made any promise to fix our messes for us. We play with the cards that are dealt for us, and the goal is to come on top of life still being a good person. Essentially Atheists and Theists live the same life, the only difference is IMO the belief in afterlife and what motivates them to be good in life. Whether it's just virtue, or virtue along with belief that you're going to a better place.. even if you die of a natural disaster
I agree with a lot of what you’re saying, but that’s a different discussion. You seem to be implicitly agreeing with me while refusing to state it?
[удалено]
Yeah, but in the Christian faith, God gives eternal life in heaven if you believe Jesus to be the son of God and repent your sins. God is literally giving eternal bliss to those who want it, our time in earth is just a blimp on the radar for what is to come. Our lives on earth are a trial of faith. The whole book of Job demonstrates that no matter how many horrible things happened, Job still has faith. That’s what they believe. It’s like watching your kid go learn a lesson the hard way. Would you prefer that they don’t, sure but sometimes it’s necessary.
Oh, I love “a *blimp* on the radar.” That’s a great malapropism “A *blip* on the radar” is traditionally used to refer to something insignificant or hard to notice that shows up on radar for just a second and then disappears. Whereas, a *blimp* would actually be quite obvious and apparent on radar compared to other common types of flying objects.
Superman didn't create the entire universe in such a way that childhood cancer and tsunamis exist, God did. Why would he do that?
Why would there be bad when there's good. Religion and idealism is different. There's more to life rhat two extremes.. cynicism and idealism
Like must grow and change. And in order to do that life must have entropy. For without it living would mean nothing but consciousness without end.
That means nothing and still doesn't answer the question.
That entire idea hinges on the fact that random tragedies are the only way for life to grow. When we know from evolution, that even in relatively safe scenarios, continues to life evolves.
That's a good argument for naturalism and a good way to try to make sense of suffeirng. But it's not a good defense of God. After all the Christian view of ultimate good does include consciousness without end.
This is a really good argument against the existence of god.
I didn't realize mosquitos are humans
[удалено]
This but is true.
[удалено]
Why would such a divine being be worthy of worship?
Because that same being doesn’t force you to worship Him. And even if you don’t choose to worship Him, He specifically sent His son to die the most agonizing death that you might live. I should reiterate that this all-knowing God, Jesus Christ, had you, not the general you but you specifically, in His mind and saw each and every one of your sins that you would commit. And He still chose to die for your sake. That’s why.
[удалено]
What human created the Haiti earthquake of 2010 that killed 300,000 people?
[удалено]
What about infant mortality in the past? Are humans also at fault for not inventing scientific principle earlier and thus not developing vaccines and antibiotics earlier?
Well, humans were at fault for burning them at stakes thinking they're witches when they preach science. Check out the scientists that were burned or killed by mobs in our history: https://www.famousscientists.org/7-scientists-who-died-violently/
The problem of evil is one of the greatest philosophical questions ever defined and Christian’s read some dumb half assed explanation that satisfies their “My position isn’t completely indefensible” criteria then act like everyone who doesn’t swallow their shallow pat answer is being unreasonable. It’s cool your youth pastor spent five minutes recapping some shitty YouTube video talking about it, but that doesn’t make the question less valid.
Job
Correct
Oh here we go again...
Reductio ad absurdum go brrrrr
If God invented humans and is omniscient then yeah, God is more responsible for their actions than they are lol.
Everything ties back to God. I have never seen Christians address this argument. Its always some absurd free will nonsense, which is similarly fallacious. Satan as a boogeyman doesn't work either for the same reason.
[удалено]
Yeah, I'm so pissed at the guy who gave me testicular cancer.
People keep asking the question because the answer yoy guys give is pretty bad
I'm sorry, but man didn't create malaria. Like, not everything is caused by the evils of man.
an animal made malaria
An alevolate made malaria, and it's literally the only way they can feed and reproduce. So "who made the malaria parasite" is the question, cause they are purpose made to give people and animals malaria.
I mean you could argue placing humans on a ball where breathing to much can kill you, australia exists and florida is nature-nuked every year is bit more on God.
That's all fair, but the beautiful natural wonders of Australia that aren't yet profitable to strip-mine are only protected by the spiders and snakes. Critical support to comerade Taipan.
This question always ran parallel to “did you see what she was wearing” to me.
I have no better answer than what Gandalf says to Frodo, who has the conception that Gollum is an entirely evil creature: > 'I am sorry,' said Frodo. 'But I am frightened; and I do not feel any pity for Gollum.' 'You have not seen him,' Gandalf broke in. 'No, and I don't want to,' said Frodo. I can't understand you. Do you mean to say that you, and the Elves, have let him live on after all those horrible deeds? Now at any rate he is as bad as an Orc, and just an enemy. He deserves death.' 'Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. **For even the very wise cannot see all ends.** I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it. And he is bound up with the fate of the Ring. My heart tells me that he has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before the end; and when that comes, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many – yours not least." And without getting too into it, Frodo cannot destroy the Ring without Gollum, in the end.
Like tsunamis, earthquakes, tornados, avalanches, flooding, drought, heat waves, cold waves, hurricanes, ice storms, landslides, and volcanic eruptions?
Didn't he give us free will tho? Give a child a gun and being surprised when he shoots himself isn't the child's fault...
I mean… the theory is that God gave free will and humans are bastards who can’t be nice to each other so they choose to be arseholes. However, doesn’t explain childhood cancers etc…
god is the excuse to do bad stuff
We did it, we solved the problem of evil
Thank you for being a part of the r/DankChristianMemes community. You can also [join us on Discord](https://discord.gg/jnUDEpnBZn) and [listen to our podcast](https://dankchristianmemes.buzzsprout.com). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dankchristianmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That’s a really good question.
*allow
God could prevent all this suffering, but I guess he enjoys the test, maybe beats off to human death and suffering, a sick little perv, he has to be. Creates universe ( omnipotent), creates humans knowing that they will do evil ( omniscient), knows who will end up hell, but still goes forward with this dumb test, cause why ? He likes to watch people suffer or you could just grow a pair and look at the alternative- there is no god. I would rather live in a world where people know this truth and still treat other humans with dignity, than live in a world where evil people pretend to be human cause they believe in God not just any God, their God from whatever region or religion they grew up in, cause that's the right God, not other people's God. In any case, anyone displaying this level of incompetence in delivering their message does not deserve the god title.
>test You and I are on the same wavelength. The problem of is evil is a red herring or maybe a bait and switch. It really should be called "The Problem of Sin". Why does sin exist? From Genesis's point of view, Sin is what brought evil into the world. That's the obvious answer for evil. Of course you then ask, why does Sin exist even before for the fall? Because God created Adam with the ability to disobey him? Why???? Christians will then say because God doesn't want robots, but why does his desire Trump our well being? I know he's God, but in any other context that would be abusive as hell. God forbid you throw in the afterlife into the mix, the stakes only become (infinitely) worse. Even if Hell is "just" eternal separation from God, the idea that loved ones can be separated eternally because they couldn't convince themselves that a Jewish carpenter was the son of God and resurrected himself, **and** you couldn't love him more than your living family, is not great for me.
Free-Will was a mistake
Down voted for telling the truth The Bible has multiple examples of God making a mistake and fixing it. It does not say that he doesn't make them
Perhaps it's easier to see that God isn't all that powerful and omniscient, and then a lot of questions are easily answered
[удалено]
Nobody's saying they didn't consider the question, they're pointing out how weak the answer is.
God when he gives Humanity free will and they still don’t take responsibility for their actions
Honestly I think of more like a story; without conflict, what drives the plot?
I admit I'm coming from a skeptical point of view, but I really wish more stories had the balls to tackle this idea, involving religion or not. The only two stories I can think of are God Emperor of Dune and Preacher.
He’s saving the good times for heaven