The Problem of Evil

[Iwannaplato]

1. The point is theists has to claim their God is omni-potent and omni-whatever such that their God is than which no greater than can be conceived.
Surely you would want to claim your God is omni-potent and omni-whatever, otherwise others will claim your God is an inferior God.
If your God is inferior to the other omni-God, then the other omni-God can command your god to kiss its arse [Muslims will do that]. Surely you would not want your God to be in that position.

Plenty of people have had gods that were not all these omni characteristics. We don't have to take the god of medieval Abrahamic theologians. But what I said doesn't depend on this issue being one way or the other.

2. Evil is defined as acts by humans that are net-negative to the well being of the individuals and that of humanity.
The extreme of the range of evil is genocides with torture of millions of humans. It is so evident there many genocidal acts within the history of humanity. Note there are many other sorts of evil, e.g. torturing of babies for pleasure, etc.

Yes, I understood the possible things that are considered evil.

3. If God is omni-whatever with the capability to have the highest precision of fine-tuning the mechanisms of the Universe,
why it that the omni-whatever God cannot do the necessary to fine-tune humans so that they do not commit evil acts?

Well, I explained that.

My confidence is you will not be able to prove your God exists as real. It is an illusion that arise as a consonance to soothe the inherent existential cognitive dissonance.

That's irrelevent to the topic and my post.
Other spiritual groups [Buddhism and the likes] has recognized the above and dealt with cognitive dissonance directly and empirically.

Even more irrelevant.

The other pacifist alternatives to theism are thus more realistic without clinging to a God which has the potential to enable acts of evil and atrocities to be committed upon non-believers.

Also irrelevant. And also sounding rather Abrahamic focused.

My guess is you are Prismatic. In any case, you share the following with Prismatic.
1) you did not try to respond to my post, you simply repeated your position
2) you conflate theism with Abrahamism
3) you confuse how you think theists should believe and what you think they should believe (the omni-God) which conveniently and not coincidentally, I would guess, makes you argument seemingly easier to argue.
4) you mix issues often, as above where you bring in the issue of whether god exists or not which was not relevent to my post or the issue at hand. It's a tangent.

Again, my point is that someone who think they can use the problem of evil to demonstrate there is no God must assume they know what would be the best possible universe and that that universe would not include evil (including genocide). But that's hubris. That means they know what the best possible universe would be like or at least would not be like. But perhaps a deity, who would be at least as far beyond us as we are to children - who also often think they know what is just and right and best, when in fact they don't - knows things we do not. That some incredibly moral perfection is possibly only when evil events and people exist and have effects.

Now I understand how form our perspective this might seem like something we can rule out, though many do actually think evil is necessary for the truly good souls to express themselves. But I understand and I tend to agree. But neither you nor I can prove this. Because there is always the possibility that there are things we do not know.

But if you are Prismatic or you are like Prismatic, you cannot possibly admit you might be wrong or lack the knowledge or perspective to 'prove' this.
And I won't waste my time with you since you could not show even ONE SINGLE INDICATION that you read my post. You got the sense I didn't agree and you just presented your opinions again.

Do you know how you look to people with a certain kind of maturity (can concede things, know that they don't know everything, actually read other people's posts and respond to points made, etc) when they encounter people who make claims that they have proved things while at the same time distract, don't read, don't respond...etc?

Like the teenager who thinks he has proven he doesn't need to go to school or to work.

I'll not be reading your non-responses.

[bahman]

Let me summarize: 1) Innocents should not be exposed to evil, kicking a dog, for example,

Right. But we're begging the question of whether or not it's possible to conceive of it being better where such things were allowed (note: not "made to happen," but allowed), if it also meant that some beings could have moral freedom.

What's your answer to that?

I already answer that. Human suffering is eligible if they really want it. Animal suffering not.

2) Creating an agent with evil nature is evil, human for example,

Well, of course, human beings aren't merely evil. They are capable of good, as well. They are beings with moral freedom to choose.

So, is a free being not better than one with no possibility of freedom? You seem to say so. You say you would prefer to be free.

I agree.

Yes, human also has good nature so a + for God.

[Immanuel Can]

Human suffering is eligible if they really want it. Animal suffering not.

Wait. I need clarification.

Are you arguing that there should be no animals, or that there should be animals, but humans should not be allowed to do anything negative to them?

Probably the latter, I'm guessing?

[bahman]

Human suffering is eligible if they really want it. Animal suffering not.

Wait. I need clarification.

Are you arguing that there should be no animals, or that there should be animals, but humans should not be allowed to do anything negative to them?

Probably the latter, I'm guessing?

The animal should not be in the fallen world since they get hurt by aging, sickness, etc.

[Immanuel Can]

Are you arguing that there should be no animals, or that there should be animals, but humans should not be allowed to do anything negative to them?

Probably the latter, I'm guessing?

The animal should not be in the fallen world since they get hurt by aging, sickness, etc.

So...where should the animals be? Not in this fallen world, you say, so where?

[bahman]

Are you arguing that there should be no animals, or that there should be animals, but humans should not be allowed to do anything negative to them?

Probably the latter, I'm guessing?

The animal should not be in the fallen world since they get hurt by aging, sickness, etc.

So...where should the animals be? Not in this fallen world, you say, so where?

Heaven.

[Immanuel Can]

The animal should not be in the fallen world since they get hurt by aging, sickness, etc.

So...where should the animals be? Not in this fallen world, you say, so where?

Heaven.

Okay. So you are arguing there should be no animals on earth to be hurt, and the world should have only plants and people in it? Is that right? I'm really trying to understand here, but you're making it really difficult.

[bahman]

So...where should the animals be? Not in this fallen world, you say, so where?

Heaven.

Okay. So you are arguing there should be no animals on earth to be hurt, and the world should have only plants and people in it? Is that right? I'm really trying to understand here, but you're making it really difficult.

Yes.

[Immanuel Can]

Heaven.

Okay. So you are arguing there should be no animals on earth to be hurt, and the world should have only plants and people in it? Is that right? I'm really trying to understand here, but you're making it really difficult.

Yes.

Okay...so now you're saying that you think God should have made a world in which human beings are free, but there are no animals. But there will be human "animals," and they will still get hurt: but that's an acceptable trade-off, since human beings get freedom out of it?

Have I caught your drift?

[bahman]

Okay. So you are arguing there should be no animals on earth to be hurt, and the world should have only plants and people in it? Is that right? I'm really trying to understand here, but you're making it really difficult.

Yes.

Okay...so now you're saying that you think God should have made a world in which human beings are free, but there are no animals. But there will be human "animals," and they will still get hurt: but that's an acceptable trade-off, since human beings get freedom out of it?

Have I caught your drift?

Human is free to choose good or evil. There is nothing that anybody can help it with here.

[Immanuel Can]

Human is free to choose good or evil.

Well, yes, I agree they are. And that means they can choose to do evil -- to the environment, at least, and to each other, if not also to animals. And we're recognizing that that is a better "good" than if human beings had been created incapable of freedom of choice, no?

[Veritas Aequitas]

You got a very skewed sense of freedom.
What is absolutely-absolute cannot exists as real...

I didn't say that. I honestly have no idea what you're rattling on about here, and can't participate with it.

The rest of your objection seems like a kind of messed-up, simplistic objection to the effect that God can, and should, make robots that don't sin. If that's your view, that's your view.

I don't share it. I think human freedom is real, and is also a very great good. Stay with my discussion with B, and you might pick up something.

Belinda understood my point;

Veritas Aequitas wrote:

---------there is no absolute-absolute freedom for humans, otherwise, they will be like God.

That is true. God is free to do anything within the bounds of His own reason. It follows the more and better the reason, the more Godlike it is.

1. My point is you expect the human freedom given God is exactly like the freedom God has.
2. From the theism perspective, human freedom is not absolute but limited by God.
3. Thus God [omnipotent, omnibenevolent] should have the freedom to control and limit human freedom.
4. In that case, God [omnipotent, omnibenevolent] would have the ability to prevent humans from committing evil.
5. Since humans have been committing terrible evil acts, therefore God [as in 3-4] does not exist.

[Immanuel Can]

1. My point is you expect the human freedom given God is exactly like the freedom God has.

Incorrect. That was never an expectation, nor is ever going to be.

2. From the theism perspective, human freedom is not absolute but limited by God.

True.

3. Thus God [omnipotent, omnibenevolent] should have the freedom to control and limit human freedom.

Of course.

4. In that case, God [omnipotent, omnibenevolent] would have the ability to prevent humans from committing evil.

But should he: that's the issue that you're not even addressing, because you missed the preceding argument. I haven't got time to catch you up on it. But it's there if you go back.

5. Since humans have been committing terrible evil acts, therefore God [as in 3-4] does not exist.

Non-Sequitur, for more than one reason.

Thanks for playing.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1. My point is you expect the human freedom given God is exactly like the freedom God has.

Incorrect. That was never an expectation, nor is ever going to be.

2. From the theism perspective, human freedom is not absolute but limited by God.

True.

3. Thus God [omnipotent, omnibenevolent] should have the freedom to control and limit human freedom.

Of course.

4. In that case, God [omnipotent, omnibenevolent] would have the ability to prevent humans from committing evil.

But should he: that's the issue that you're not even addressing, because you missed the preceding argument. I haven't got time to catch you up on it. But it's there if you go back.

5. Since humans have been committing terrible evil acts, therefore God [as in 3-4] does not exist.

Non-Sequitur, for more than one reason.

Thanks for playing.

I believe you missed my point due to a very strong defense mechanism.

1. I stated your God generally defined to be omnipotent and omni-whatever, which would definitely include omnibenevolent.

• Omnibenevolent = (of a deity) possessing perfect or unlimited goodness.

2. If your God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent, omniscient & omnipresent really exists, then your God should have easily maintain perfect goodness in this world.
Note opposite of goodness is evilness.

3. But there are terrible evils [babies tortured for pleasure, genocides, etc.] since humans emerged, therefore there is imperfect goodness.

Since there is imperfect goodness [3], it contradict 2, therefore you God [as defined and expected in 1] cannot exists as real.

The only possible alternative for the emergence of the idea of God to the consciousness of theists is due to a subliminal psychological issue. In some significant cases, this belief in a God has directly contributed to terrible evil acts by believers [e.g. Muslims].

Thanks for playing.

??? - Hey! I am the one who raise this OP.

[Belinda]

1. My point is you expect the human freedom given God is exactly like the freedom God has.

Incorrect. That was never an expectation, nor is ever going to be.

2. From the theism perspective, human freedom is not absolute but limited by God.

True.

3. Thus God [omnipotent, omnibenevolent] should have the freedom to control and limit human freedom.

Of course.

4. In that case, God [omnipotent, omnibenevolent] would have the ability to prevent humans from committing evil.

But should he: that's the issue that you're not even addressing, because you missed the preceding argument. I haven't got time to catch you up on it. But it's there if you go back.

5. Since humans have been committing terrible evil acts, therefore God [as in 3-4] does not exist.

Non-Sequitur, for more than one reason.

Thanks for playing.

But the more that men in their choices are guided by reason the more that men are like God.

N.B. I quote the concept of reason , not as if it were the opposite of human feelings, but inclusive of human feelings, as it must be. Sages, saints , and JC Himself, are not honoured because they lack human feelings but because their reason and their reasoning was of such a high order.