theodicy

[MikeNovack]

A Christain and a Buddhist walk into a bar together .......... after some drinks they begin talking

The Christian said,
"It bothers me, God, all powerful and beneficent, graces me with eternal life. But here, while I live this life, all around me I see suffering, I see evil. Could not all powerful and beneficent God have created the world without evil?

The Buddhist responded,
"You look at this wrongly.
See this rock, it does not suffer.
No evil can befall it.
The same with anything else
That's not alive.
But you who are alive, suffer.
You experience evil befall you.
Not just you, but anything alive.
That's what it means to be alive,
To suffer..

Could God have created this world
Devoid of suffering, without evil?
Of course God could have done that,
By never having created life.
It's not a matter of power and kindliness,
No more than God could make a rock suffer,
Can God make life without evil.

Of course, the Buddhist wouldn't really say this in terms of God, though a Hindu might. The point is THESE religions grew out of asking a different question about the human condition. They asked "Why do we suffer, experience evil?" Their answer was, "because you are alive" (but you can't escape by dying)

The Christian response please (or Jewish, Muslim, etc.)
"Why is the Buddhist/Hindu explanation wrong? That suffering and experiencing evil are NOT intrinsic to being alive. Are not precisely what we mean by living vs non-living. That we do not have "being a living creature" <=> "suffering and experiencing evil" and "being non-living <=> "not suffering, not experiencing evil".

Michael

[Belinda]

A Christain and a Buddhist walk into a bar together .......... after some drinks they begin talking

The Christian said,
"It bothers me, God, all powerful and beneficent, graces me with eternal life. But here, while I live this life, all around me I see suffering, I see evil. Could not all powerful and beneficent God have created the world without evil?

The Buddhist responded,
"You look at this wrongly.
See this rock, it does not suffer.
No evil can befall it.
The same with anything else
That's not alive.
But you who are alive, suffer.
You experience evil befall you.
Not just you, but anything alive.
That's what it means to be alive,
To suffer..

Could God have created this world
Devoid of suffering, without evil?
Of course God could have done that,
By never having created life.
It's not a matter of power and kindliness,
No more than God could make a rock suffer,
Can God make life without evil.

Of course, the Buddhist wouldn't really say this in terms of God, though a Hindu might. The point is THESE religions grew out of asking a different question about the human condition. They asked "Why do we suffer, experience evil?" Their answer was, "because you are alive" (but you can't escape by dying)

The Christian response please (or Jewish, Muslim, etc.)
"Why is the Buddhist/Hindu explanation wrong? That suffering and experiencing evil are NOT intrinsic to being alive. Are not precisely what we mean by living vs non-living. That we do not have "being a living creature" <=> "suffering and experiencing evil" and "being non-living <=> "not suffering, not experiencing evil".

Michael

There is a third way besides the Buddhist way and the Abrahamic way.

The third way is that suffering is reduced insofar as we align , harmonise, with God or Nature. The question arises "How may we align, harmonise with God or Nature?" The method is reason.

[Walker]

August 20, 2025

Plato Solved the Problem of Evil 2,300 Years Ago
By Professor Frank J. Tipler

https://www.americanthinker.com/article ... s_ago.html

[Gary Childress]

https://www.americanthinker.com/article ... s_ago.html

Or maybe there's no God, at least not a benevolent one. That would probably be a much simpler solution to the problem of evil. However, we humans seem to cling to our superstitions.

[Walker]

https://www.americanthinker.com/article ... s_ago.html

Or maybe there's no God, at least not a benevolent one. That would probably be a much simpler solution to the problem of evil. However, we humans seem to cling to our superstitions.

The big brains mentioned at the end of the Plato link would likely frown on such reasoning, backed by whims, that concludes God is a superstition just because folks have superstitions, but the big brains probably wouldn't be surprised that the conclusion of their inferences previsioned multiverse and quantum theory. Plato was also a fan of Socrates.

[MikeNovack]

Or maybe there's no God, at least not a benevolent one. That would probably be a much simpler solution to the problem of evil. However, we humans seem to cling to our superstitions.

No,missing the point, Gary. Nor does one have to be a theist to discuss this question. Atheists welcome to have their say. They would likely arguing "there is no solution to the question". Even though that means little progress to "no god", just to "if god, god is not omnipotent or not benevolent

The question more formally put: "IF there is one god and this god is omnipotent and benevolent then why would/could this god have created a universe containing suffering and evil".

The area of philosophy discussing this question is called theodicy.

You are answering a much simpler question, "why do suffering and evil exist?". To THAT question, no god, or god not omnipotent, or god not benevolent would all be obvious, trivially simple answers. When you say "However, we humans seem to cling to our superstitions" you should be meaning "why are we taking part in a discussion of theodicy?"

It's really "omnipotence" and "benevolence" we are discussing. We could generalize the God part and still have the discussion (though now we MIGHT have solutions not available with a single deity. For example:

If the creating entities are all omnipotent and all are benevolent how could creation still end up containing suffering and evil?

[Gary Childress]

Or maybe there's no God, at least not a benevolent one. That would probably be a much simpler solution to the problem of evil. However, we humans seem to cling to our superstitions.

No,missing the point, Gary. Nor does one have to be a theist to discuss this question. Atheists welcome to have their say. They would likely arguing "there is no solution to the question". Even though that means little progress to "no god", just to "if god, god is not omnipotent or not benevolent

The question more formally put: "IF there is one god and this god is omnipotent and benevolent then why would/could this god have created a universe containing suffering and evil".

The area of philosophy discussing this question is called theodicy.

You are answering a much simpler question, "why do suffering and evil exist?". To THAT question, no god, or god not omnipotent, or god not benevolent would all be obvious, trivially simple answers. When you say "However, we humans seem to cling to our superstitions" you should be meaning "why are we taking part in a discussion of theodicy?"

It's really "omnipotence" and "benevolence" we are discussing. We could generalize the God part and still have the discussion (though now we MIGHT have solutions not available with a single deity. For example:

If the creating entities are all omnipotent and all are benevolent how could creation still end up containing suffering and evil?

The "problem" of evil is reconciling it with a belief in a benevolent God. Take away the benevolent God hypothesis, and the "problem" is no longer a "problem" in the same sense; it's just reality. It's like arguing over the "Trinity". Only Christians have a problem with the Trinity because they're going off a book written a couple of thousand years ago by human beings from a couple of thousand years ago. The Trinity is not a "problem" for non-Christians.

[Gary Childress]

https://www.americanthinker.com/article ... s_ago.html

Or maybe there's no God, at least not a benevolent one. That would probably be a much simpler solution to the problem of evil. However, we humans seem to cling to our superstitions.

The big brains mentioned at the end of the Plato link would likely frown on such reasoning, backed by whims, that concludes God is a superstition just because folks have superstitions, but the big brains probably wouldn't be surprised that the conclusion of their inferences previsioned multiverse and quantum theory. Plato was also a fan of Socrates.

I doubt any of the thinkers listed at the end believed in things like talking snakes, the parting of the Red Sea, and such.

[MikeNovack]

It's like arguing over the "Trinity". Only Christians have a problem with the Trinity because they're going off a book written a couple of thousand years ago by human beings from a couple of thousand years ago. The Trinity is not a "problem" for non-Christians.

It is and it isn't. There are arguments with regard to other religions whether monotheist or polytheist.

So if I were arguing with a Christian about whether the Yazidis are monotheist or polytheist (are the seven "angels", considered to be emanations of God, part of god or fully separate entities?) and the Christian was saying "polytheist, I might respond, then how is the Yazidi supposed to think about your "trinity"?" As a non-Christian and non-Yazidi) I have a hard time considering these different with regard to monotheist?

I am still waiting for a response to my argument (from the East) that NO, an omnipotent and benevolent god could NOT create a universe that included living beings without introducing suffering and experiencing evil. That suffering and experiencing evil is precisely the difference between "living thing" and "non-living thing".

So an answer to the question of theodicy MIGHT be:
Could create a universe without suffering and evil if a universe without living beings.
Could create a universe without suffering and evil with living beings if not dynamic; without time, static, a tableaux (if nothing happens then evil doesn't happen)
Otherwise not. Omnipotence can't produce "life" without the attributes of "life

[Gary Childress]

It's like arguing over the "Trinity". Only Christians have a problem with the Trinity because they're going off a book written a couple of thousand years ago by human beings from a couple of thousand years ago. The Trinity is not a "problem" for non-Christians.

It is and it isn't. There are arguments with regard to other religions whether monotheist or polytheist.

So if I were arguing with a Christian about whether the Yazidis are monotheist or polytheist (are the seven "angels", considered to be emanations of God, part of god or fully separate entities?) and the Christian was saying "polytheist, I might respond, then how is the Yazidi supposed to think about your "trinity"?" As a non-Christian and non-Yazidi) I have a hard time considering these different with regard to monotheist?

I am still waiting for a response to my argument (from the East) that NO, an omnipotent and benevolent god could NOT create a universe that included living beings without introducing suffering and experiencing evil. That suffering and experiencing evil is precisely the difference between "living thing" and "non-living thing".

So an answer to the question of theodicy MIGHT be:
Could create a universe without suffering and evil if a universe without living beings.
Could create a universe without suffering and evil with living beings if not dynamic; without time, static, a tableaux (if nothing happens then evil doesn't happen)
Otherwise not. Omnipotence can't produce "life" without the attributes of "life

God could create a universe without suffering. There would be no natural disasters, or else humans could be made not to fear death. And we would be able to realistically satisfy all of our desires, or else not have desires at all. But neither of those two possibilities is reality for most of us. Maybe some are better suited to the world than others, good for them, though not good for the rest of us.

[Walker]

I doubt any of the thinkers listed at the end believed in things like talking snakes, the parting of the Red Sea, and such.

Multiverse.

[Greatest I am]

God could create a universe without suffering. There would be no natural disasters, or else humans could be made not to fear death. And we would be able to realistically satisfy all of our desires, or else not have desires at all. But neither of those two possibilities is reality for most of us. Maybe some are better suited to the world than others, good for them, though not good for the rest of us.

If God could, he would.

Evolution demands we compete and that means we will always fight over the root of all evil. Women.

Why do you think Satan is rightfully depicted as female?

Thank God for women or we could not be men.

[MikeNovack]

ALERT, ALERT ---- I posted nothing of the sort in the quote being attributed to me. If you have been following what I have been posting, that Should be obvious. For example, discussing ALL LIFE (not us humans and our fear of death).
< I think this was from Gary >

God could create a universe without suffering. There would be no natural disasters, or else humans could be made not to fear death. And we would be able to realistically satisfy all of our desires, or else not have desires at all. But neither of those two possibilities is reality for most of us. Maybe some are better suited to the world than others, good for them, though not good for the rest of us.

If God could, he would.

Evolution demands we compete and that means we will always fight over the root of all evil. Women.

Why do you think Satan is rightfully depicted as female?

Thank God for women or we could not be men.

[Gary Childress]

ALERT, ALERT ---- I posted nothing of the sort in the quote being attributed to me. If you have been following what I have been posting, that Should be obvious. For example, discussing ALL LIFE (not us humans and our fear of death).
< I think this was from Gary >

If God could, he would.

Evolution demands we compete and that means we will always fight over the root of all evil. Women.

Why do you think Satan is rightfully depicted as female?

Thank God for women or we could not be men.

You have my name attributed to something I didn't post above.

[Gary Childress]

God could create a universe without suffering. There would be no natural disasters, or else humans could be made not to fear death. And we would be able to realistically satisfy all of our desires, or else not have desires at all. But neither of those two possibilities is reality for most of us. Maybe some are better suited to the world than others, good for them, though not good for the rest of us.

If God could, he would.

Evolution demands we compete and that means we will always fight over the root of all evil. Women.

Why do you think Satan is rightfully depicted as female?

Thank God for women or we could not be men.

You have your quotes mixed up. Please fix them.