IC please clarify for us

[Fairy]

Human beings don’t seem to have a problem with evil. If they did have a problem with it, it’s because it’s perceived as a grave threat to their life. But even as evil is known to exist, no person is immune to it’s insufferable suffering effects, unavoidably so.
And yet this doesn’t change the fact that people still choose to live. They continue to reproduce so that others may come to experience life already knowing evil exists. If they didn’t choose to live, they would all be choosing to die, probably by suicide. But suicide is not natural, it’s a forced decision based on false beliefs about the true nature of life. Suicide is believed falsely to be a permanent solution to a temporary problem, so it’s a pointless choice. Humans can choose not to be evil, in the same context they can choose to love and be at peace.

It’s obviously clear that humans have the ability to transcend the illusory nature of Maya’s illusion, to abide in Truth, the only thing that’s real.

If evil was their main problem, no doubt they would spend their entire existence attempting to avoid it at all cost, but they don’t do that, rather, they prefer to preserve their natural state of being which is love and peace. Humans are transcendental beings, believe it or not. That’s something you have to figure out for yourself, no one else can teach you that. You have to think this through for yourself first.

Evil then, is known by the transcendental human being to be a transient in the world of Maya’s illusion, while simultaneously being aware of the hidden in plain sight “Truth” beyond the transience of this world.

The Truth is goal of life. Attain this goal.

[Fairy]

Escapism …

Science is a means to escape the harsh realities of nature.

Computers, cars, houses, climate control, food additives … all scientific ways to escape nature, and tedium.
What are all those folks doing with their faces glued to their phones?
Are they not escaping into distraction from the immediate reality of their environment?

Of course they are.

https://youtu.be/n41U1p5E53M?is=YbnLBYXemHmTP7_J

The truth hidden inside “The Truman Show”

[phyllo]

But let me turn the tables, since you ask so many questions: how can an Atheist claim that the way the world is, is any problem for Theists? And how can it constitute any reason for them to disbelieve? Don't they think the world is the product of accident plus time? What then is this concept so alien to their own suppositions, called "evil"? And how can they ask questions about what they don't believe to exist?

First of all, an atheist who argues "The Problem of Evil" is a problem for ALL theists is being silly. But they can argue it is a problem for that (important) subset of theists who believe an all good, all kind, etc. deity created the universe. Precisely because that subset of theists needs an explanation of why such a deity would create/allow evil. It's not just the atheist who considers it a problem but the people of that subset themselves.

For theists who do not believe the Creator has those properties, all good, all kind, etc. and those who do not believe in any creator deity do not have to consider "The Problem of Evil". The PROBLEM is not the existence of evil by itself but the existence of evil AND in the creation of an all good, all kind, all powerful deity.

Believers in Cthulhu would be unlikely to like evil any more than you or I. But they are not surprised by "evil exists" in the universe created by Cthulhu. To them, evil is real, but "The Problem of Evil" is not.

An excellent summary of the problem.

[Immanuel Can]

The "problem of evil" is not the mere existence of evil.

Actually, it is. That this phenomenon exists requires an explanation of any worldview, regardless of its nature.

You don't normally have questions about what is unless you have some expectation of it not being.

I don't see that this is true at all. Nobody expects decay, decline and death "not to be," but lots of people want to ask questions about them.

The PROBLEM for some of us is that we believe a deity created all, and for some purpose, and that this deity is good, kind, etc. That raises the question WHY did such a deity create/allow evil.

First you say that evil doesn't actually exist. Then you say that we have to explain how a deity allowed it?

But "good," "kind" etc. are just the opposites of "evil." How can you speak of them, too, given that you don't "have some expectation" of anything being different than whatever it is?

But those who do not believe all was created by a good, kind, etc. deity, who might not believe a deity created all, have no such problem. They don't need an explanation for WHY is there evil. Why not?

Because they still suffer. They may have deprived themselves of the vocabulary to describe their experiences. They may have destroyed the logic they need to ask the questions they ought to be able to ask. They may even have denied themselves the realization that things could be any other way. But they won't suffer less if they do that. They'll still have the sorts of tragedies common to all men -- they'll just have no means of articulating what their concern should be.

And no, not rare, IC. It's not just atheists who disbelieve a good. kind, etc. deity created everything. So do Buddhists, Hindus, Jains, etc. Sikhs are monotheists who believe creation was by the ONE

This actually fails to represent a very, very important basis for their entire systems of thought. Their overwhelming preoccupation with "samsara." I think it's no exaggeration to say that Hinduism and Buddhism, for example, are obsessed with the question of how to interpret "samsara," the phenomenon they may not call evil but which they rather call "suffering."

Has it not occurred to you that the whole point of reincarnation is to answer the question of how "samsara" can be justified? That karma is the explanation of how somebody who is suffering miserably, like perhaps a Hindu "untouchable," can deserve what he's getting, and that dharma is the "ladder" by which, as the explanation goes, he might hope to escape it on the next cycle of being? The whole point of Nirvana is to "extinguish" desire, and with it consciousness, so that "samsara" will cease.

So these worldviews are not LESS obsessed with "evil," only different in the language they use as they attempt to articulate the same phenomenon, and the same problem.

[Immanuel Can]

The paradox of Buddhism is the realization that everything is perfect as it is.

That's no answer to the problem of evil, of course...it amounts to "just pretend it's not real."

It amounts to, accept that it is real.
The same acceptance applies to pain management.

Wishing things away with choice doesn't work.

And yet, that's the only "solution" such worldviews can suggest. You have to resign yourself to your misery, or convince yourself it's not really misery.

[Immanuel Can]

But let me turn the tables, since you ask so many questions: how can an Atheist claim that the way the world is, is any problem for Theists? And how can it constitute any reason for them to disbelieve? Don't they think the world is the product of accident plus time? What then is this concept so alien to their own suppositions, called "evil"? And how can they ask questions about what they don't believe to exist?

First of all, an atheist who argues "The Problem of Evil" is a problem for ALL theists is being silly. But they can argue it is a problem for that (important) subset of theists who believe an all good, all kind, etc. deity created the universe.

Actually, logically, he can't. He can no more invoke the moral term "good" than he can invoke "evil" in his question. He has convinced himself that neither has any objective reality.

So his question becomes, "How can a ______ God allow _________ to happen? But there's nothing in his worldview that any longer allows him to fill in either blank, because he denies any objective reality to moral good and evil.

So the question -- if we believe him -- becomes incoherent. Which is a very good reason not to take the Atheist's moral skepticism seriously; he's denying his own claimed beliefs by posing the question. It exposes that despite his evinced moral cynicism, he doesn't actually believe what he says. He knows good and evil exist. He just won't say so. He is, as the Bible puts it in Romans 1 "without excuse."

[Immanuel Can]

...evil is just something that happens.

How does that answer sit with you? Sincere question.

This could be an interesting question: IC if there were no human creatures on the Earth do you think Christian philosophy generally would recognize evil? What I mean is a world, our world as it is. I.e.the world of nature?

I'm not sure how to understand your question. The premise is that there are no human creatures on Earth, but some of them are Christian philosophers?

[Walker]

And yet, that's the only "solution" such worldviews can suggest. You have to resign yourself to your misery, or convince yourself it's not really misery.

Not really. Understanding what causes misery is the key ending misery, even in the most miserable conditions.

For example, Viktor Fankl discovered the true meaning of love, while enslaved in a concentration camp, miserable conditions most folks haven't experienced. Not a recommended classroom, but an effective power that ends misery.

Understanding love didn't make the miserable conditions into happy happy joy joy, but he wasn't miserable.

Quite a bit of misery is anticipation.

Quite a few folks work hard to convince themselves they are miserable.

[Immanuel Can]

And yet, that's the only "solution" such worldviews can suggest. You have to resign yourself to your misery, or convince yourself it's not really misery.

Not really. Understanding what causes misery is the key ending misery, even in the most miserable conditions.

Why should we struggle to "end" that which is said to be inevitable, or natural, or automatic -- that which is nobody's fault, and isn't really "bad" to have around anyway? How could we, even if we tried?

[Walker]

And yet, that's the only "solution" such worldviews can suggest. You have to resign yourself to your misery, or convince yourself it's not really misery.

Not really. Understanding what causes misery is the key ending misery, even in the most miserable conditions.

Why should we struggle to "end" that which is said to be inevitable, or natural, or automatic -- that which is nobody's fault, and isn't really "bad" to have around anyway? How could we, even if we tried?

Well, misery ain't no way to party. Makes for miserable wallflowers.

Young folks especially have a suspicion that there is more to know, so they go looking (searching, seeking, experimenting), even the affluent ones. If folks don't have problems, they tend to invent them. It's the old story of seekers ending up where they started, while paradoxically realizing you can't go home again.

[Immanuel Can]

Not really. Understanding what causes misery is the key ending misery, even in the most miserable conditions.

Why should we struggle to "end" that which is said to be inevitable, or natural, or automatic -- that which is nobody's fault, and isn't really "bad" to have around anyway? How could we, even if we tried?

Well, misery ain't no way to party.

True: but these worldviews tell us that it's the only party in town, anyway.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I'm not sure how to understand your question. The premise is that there are no human creatures on Earth, but some of them are Christian philosophers?

No, let me try again. Is evil strictly a human issue? Imagine, say, the Amazon jungle at a period when there were no humans. Is there ‘evil’ there? I mean, within those ecological systems, within nature?

I am asking you to imagine a human-less world, and I am curious to know if you think that evil exists inherently in nature. Or if it is exclusive to man. It is not a vain question.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not sure how to understand your question. The premise is that there are no human creatures on Earth, but some of them are Christian philosophers?

No, let me try again. Is evil strictly a human issue? Imagine, say, the Amazon jungle at a period when there were no humans. Is there ‘evil’ there? I mean, within those ecological systems, within nature?

I am asking you to imagine a human-less world, and I am curious to know if you think that evil exists inherently in nature. Or if it is exclusive to man. It is not a vain question.

I don't know how to imagine such a situation, or what to deduce about it. It's clearly not the situation we have.

In the Biblical account, evil enters the world because of the choice made by human beings. Beyond that, I can't know what "would have been" if, say, there were no human beings.

Again, I don't know how to engage your question. Can you maybe just explain what you're wanting to say? Because the hypothetical and speculative nature of the question seems to me to make any answer ambiguous.

[Gary Childress]

I'm not sure how to understand your question. The premise is that there are no human creatures on Earth, but some of them are Christian philosophers?

No, let me try again. Is evil strictly a human issue? Imagine, say, the Amazon jungle at a period when there were no humans. Is there ‘evil’ there? I mean, within those ecological systems, within nature?

I am asking you to imagine a human-less world, and I am curious to know if you think that evil exists inherently in nature. Or if it is exclusive to man. It is not a vain question.

I don't know how to imagine such a situation, or what to deduce about it. It's clearly not the situation we have.

In the Biblical account, evil enters the world because of the choice made by human beings. Beyond that, I can't know what "would have been" if, say, there were no human beings.

Again, I don't know how to engage your question. Can you maybe just explain what you're wanting to say? Because the hypothetical and speculative nature of the question seems to me to make any answer ambiguous.

It might be something along the proverbial lines of whether a tree falling in the forest when no one is around makes a sound. If an asteroid obliterates a planet with no living beings on it, then has anything "wrong" happened? However, if an asteroid obliterates the Earth, then it seems clear that a lot of harm has been done to those of us who inhabit the planet (at least for the few seconds it may take for a living being to theoretically transit from "feeling" pain and dread to feeling "nothing at all").

[phyllo]

"Wrong" and "harm" are evaluations done by creatures capable of abstract thinking.