Evil and Suffering fails
Debate Rounds (5)
I have wondered off the topic somewhat and will try to summarize the point I tried to make here. Proving a 50% likelihood that a good God cannot exist does not prove that NO God, good or bad, cannot exist. The argument therefore fails when used by an atheist because the atheist must show that NO God is able to exist.
I want to also mention one other point here regarding suffering in particular. In order for suffering to be a valid reason to try and theorize that God cannot exist because of its presence, it must be proven that suffering is ALWAYS a bad thing. This is because atheists maintain a good or loving God would not want His creation to suffer. However, it is quite obvious that all suffering is not a bad thing. There is much suffering involved during childbirth but when the baby is born any loving parent will view the child as the greatest gift and joy possible to experience. The mother willingly endures the suffering. Should God make all women barren so that they do not have to endure the suffering? If He does, then would He not be a bad God instead of loving God? Taking away the suffering but also denying parents everywhere children? This is essentially an area the atheists usually avoid. How exactly is God to stop suffering? If God knows you will die today, must he take away your choice to get out of bed in the morning? Should God make you ill or forcibly prevent you from getting out of the house? Will this not make Him a type of Dictator instead of a loving God? The atheist alternative is not very logical reasoning from the premise that "if a loving God exists". I have heard many stories of people whose lives have been changed when they experienced suffering. Men who abused their children and spouses had a life changing experience when suffering was present that resulted in the man treating this family with the love and respect their families deserve instead of contempt. All suffering is not bad and it is therefore unreasonable to expect a good or loving God to deny the suffering and therefore prevent the good that could come about because of it. As a parent, how many times did you decide to leave your children to go in the direction they wanted to go so that they can learn a lesson because they did not want to heed your warnings or advise that there will be consequences to the path they are taking? How many times have you experienced suffering because you did not want to listen to a loving parent, friend or spouse? Either why way, you learned something. You either learned how to repeat your mistake or how to avoid it.
This subject touches on a comment that was made and I hope you won"t mind if I quickly address it. I spoke about a loving or good God. Some arguments refer to an ALL loving God. In the Christian religion and many others, God is never viewed or even called ALL loving. Reasoning against these religions trying to impose upon them a concept of an ALL loving God not claimed by them is unreasonable. I am also against an ALL Loving God. It is a logical contradiction. In order for God to establish order and sustain His creation He must be righteous. In fact, because He loves his creation He must of necessity be righteous. Love and righteousness goes hand in hand. Righteous in part means that order is upheld and those who go against this must be held accountable for the good of everyone else. This accountability may lead to various forms of suffering. When you teach your children, do you not reward them for the good and bad they do, or do you punish them for the bad they do? Why do you do this? Is it because you hate them? Of course not, you do it because you love them and want to teach them what is good and bad for them to avoid problems when they are older. If God is all loving then anyone can do whatever they want without any repercussions. For example: If someone raped your daughter and when caught commits suicide, how can we say justice was served? If the rapist goes to heaven, should God allow him in because He is ALL loving? Anyone with a hint of morality will say no, God should hold him accountable and not let him get away with it. Why? Because it is expected of God to be righteous and reward that person according to his works.
but i think you havnt answred my question from round 1.
"well apparently in the bible its written god created everything.. clearly he made evil as everything hasnt stopped following his perfect plan?"
is evil not in gods plan? and if it is then god pretty much is the evil, and satan is god by fear..
if god was walking around mountain high and commanding us to do his bidding, i wouldnt disagree with you about gods existence.. i see god in that case
God is Holy and demands that those who want to be with Him must also be Holy. This is not an unreasonable thing to ask because from practical experience in this present world we can observe that people like to group together to form bonds or enjoy each other"s company etc. based on like-mindedness (although like-mindedness is not necessarily the only reason). If you want to join the group you must conform to the group"s requirements, if not, then the group will probably not allow you to join. God cannot demand of people to be Holy without telling them what is expected of them or what they must do to be Holy. Therefore God gave the law to serve as a School master to teach people what good and evil is so that they may know what to do, to be with God. When God said: "Thou shall not kill" the knowledge of evil was automatically imparted because now people had a choice to kill. When God said: "Thou shall not steal" the knowledge of evil was automatically imparted again.
I do not see the logic in asserting that if God created or caused evil that He must of necessity also be evil. Let me give you an example to first show that the arguments premise (God created evil) and conclusion (Therefore God is evil) is not very logical by using an analogy. Evil exists in this world at present. Let"s imagine for a moment there is no God. If God does not exist then evil must have been created or caused by something else because it is a present day reality. If you believe in evolution as the cause for everything then evolution caused evil. If evolution then caused evil then evolution must be evil. You might say that evolution is not a person or personal but that does not change anything. The premise is something caused evil (it can be God, evolution, or even a rock etc. depending on how far your imagination can stretch) and whatever caused evil must also be evil. Some say evolution is a science and not just a theory. If this is true should we therefore conclude that by association science is also evil? Of course not, and in the same way it is not logical to say God is evil because He created it. Scientific processes were used to create the Atom Bomb that was in turn used to kill many people. Depending on which side of the bombing you were, should we therefore conclude the scientists were all evil men who made the bomb? This particular atheistic argument has too many variable applications when applied to God and thus becomes contradictory in its conclusions. The contradictory conclusions question the validity of using this type of argument in order to prove something. For example: God created or caused evil, therefore God is evil contradicts God created or caused good, therefore God is good. Which one is correct? According to structure they are both supposedly valid arguments but according to logic they cannot both be true when used in the context of trying to label God.
Intention determines whether an action or some object will be regarded as good or evil. The action or object in itself is not necessarily good or evil. The same flower a Bee uses to make honey from is used by the Spider to make its poison. This is an important distinction to make in order to understand the nature of evil and to make sense of it all. For example, consider the following contrasts: Killing someone without any good reason is regarded as an evil act. Killing someone in self-defense is not regarded as an evil act. Using a gun to kill someone does not make the creator of the gun evil. Using the same gun for self-defense does not make the creator of the gun good either. Therefore God"s intent for creating evil will determine if He is evil or not. As stated in the Bible, the reason why God created evil was to warn and teach people and to give them the knowledge not only to live in peace with each other, but also to be able to have communion with God Himself. God is fair enough to promise rewards or punishment for those who choose one of the options thus warning them what the consequences of their decisions will be in advance. It is therefore not unreasonable of God to allow evil because it is a basic principle found in all societies all over the world that people get rewarded for doing good but punished for doing evil and people everywhere agree that it is fair. If someone raped your daughter and punishment is given, will you stand up in court and say: I do not agree that this man must be punished for raping my daughter? The knowledge of evil becomes a guide to enhance and complete our understanding in order to be properly informed when making decisions and to understand the consequences and implications of our decisions. God gives many admonitions in the Bible to warn us of the dangers evil presents to ourselves, society and future generations. How can it be said that God is evil if he created evil in order to inform and teach us so that we can know what is the best option to take when confronted by certain decisions? How can God be evil if He warns us about the danger of engaging in evil acts? He clearly has our best interest in mind. The examples mentioned should be enough to point out that to simply say God is evil due to an association with evil is unreasonable.
I also do not see the logic in your argument that if evil was a part of God"s plan that He then must be THE evil. As mentioned, evil is not confined to any ONE object or being. Evil is based on knowledge. Knowledge is a familiarity, awareness or understanding of someone or something " Knowledge acquisition involves complex cognitive processes: perception, communication, and reasoning - https://en.wikipedia.org.... God had a plan when He created the universe and when He was finished saw that everything was good. When he created Adam he warned Adam not to eat of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but Adam chose not to heed the warning. It does not make sense that an evil God, who created evil, will warn someone not to engage in evil. Therefore your conclusion that God must be evil contradicts the good intentions of God to provide man with the knowledge to overcome evil. Last but not the least, God can still exists even if he is evil and the creator of evil. I will state again that the evil/suffering argument is insufficient to disprove God"s existence because it cannot conclusively prove that an evil god is not responsible for evil and suffering in the world. Evil exists. Evil can therefore not be used to prove non-existence. By association god must exist because evil exists, if god is said to be evil.
Please see the comments section for my response about visible proof for God. I could not post everything here due to the character limitations.
evil is in gods plan, god sends people to hell for his sin.. his flawed plan or accurately evil plan..
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.