Macavity wrote:In fact there are lots of proposed solutions that don't "violate the riddle." Like I said, you don't seem to have done much research on how real, live, flesh-and-blood theists have in fact approached the problem. Here's a place to start...clw_uk wrote:No argument answers the question without violating the riddle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy
But if you just want to smugly stick with your Richard Dawkins cartoon version of theism, then don't bother clicking.
Oh please the problem of evil has never been resolved and the above riddle is one in a number of perfectly reasonable questions to ask
The Book of Isaiah clearly claims that Yahweh is the source of at least some natural disasters:
“ ...I bring prosperity and create disaster: I, Yahweh, do all these things
So God drowns babies, not really soliving the problem of evil here
The book of Job is offered however this doesnt help either. God is so petty that he must have a bet with the devil to know if Job will remain faithful so he allows immense amount of suffering on Jobs family just to test him, he kills children just to test Job. Apart from the obvious fact that God should know that Job would remain faithful (otherwise he isnt an all knowing God) we can see that once again "God" comes across as childish and immoral
Whats the point if God already knows everything he knows if you pass it or notThe Book of Job offers two different answers: suffering is a test, and you will be rewarded later for passing it;
"God moves in mysterious ways" which is a copout and doesnt answer the problem of evilanother that God in his might chooses not to reveal his reasons
Proposed solutions
Free will
So he is unable to stop evil and is thus not all powerful (and i would say inept). Also God can do anything so he could give creation free will without evilGod's creation of persons with morally significant free will is something of tremendous value. God could not eliminate evil and suffering without thereby eliminating the greater good of having created persons with free will and who can make moral choices
Obvious dark age superstition. Once again if God is so powerful and loving why let these "demons" run around causing trouble, unless he cant do anything ....Natural evils such as earthquakes and many diseases are sometimes seen as problems for a free will argument since they seem to not be caused by free will decisions. Possible reasons for natural evils using a free will argument include that they are caused by the free will of supernatural beings such as demons
However there was no Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden there was Evolution. There was then no "original sin" to pass down through the ages. Once again though if there was original sin, why couldnt God just forgive? Or was he unwilling to?that they are caused by the original sin which in turn is caused by free will,
Spiritual development
Evil is sometimes seen as a test or trial for humans. Irenaeus of Lyons and more recently John Hick have argued that evil and suffering are necessary for spiritual growth. This is often combined with the free will argument by arguing that such spiritual growth requires free will decisions. A problem with this is that many evils do not seem to promote this. Examples include painful deaths of very young, innocent children and animals. Others enjoy lives of ease and luxury where there is virtually nothing that challenges them to undergo moral growth
Except there was no Adam and no Fall.........The problem of evil is often phrased why do bad things happen to good people?. Some religions therefore answer that good people simply do not exist. For example, some forms of Christianity teach that all people are inherently sinful due to the fall of man and the original sin; for example, Calvinist theology follows a doctrine called federal headship, which argues that the first man, Adam, was the legal representative of the entire human race. A counterargument to the basic version of this principle is that an omniscient God would have predicted this, when he created the world, and an omnipotent God could have prevented it.
You cannot put together and all powerful, all knowing, all loving ever present creator God and the problem of Evil. The only way to get around it is to subtract from the idea of God in some way such as in Dystheism
Now from Buddhism
Which is actually in line with thisIf the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Why does he order such misfortune
And not create concord?
If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Why prevail deceit, lies and ignorance
And he such inequity and injustice create?
If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Then an evil master is he, (O Aritta)
Knowing what's right did let wrong prevail!
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
As i said earlier the problem of evil does away with notions of an all powerful, loving etc God. So it does away with the common view of a God held by most
Chris
I do show respect, i dont go into churches telling them they are all wrong and i dont go around trying to trash others beliefs for the fun of it. However this is a Buddhist website where the notion of God (big G) is held to be an erroneous view. All the arguments i have put forward would have been accepted by Buddha, i dont have a doubt about thatThanks for the helpful links, Mike and Macavity. It's easy to beat up on stereotypes, clw_uk. Harder to do some research and show respect for a wide variety of human beliefs and povs. For myself, the points Avery made the other day are important to keep in mind...
Showing that the emperor has no clothes on an appropriate forum isnt disrespect1. Being respectful of people who are wrong in other ways, and thus resolving conflicts with them.
In general there seems to be a strange defense of Theism/Deism going up here
metta