The Problem of Evil

Well, the destinction has been made by some between a natural occurences result not equalling evil, when a man's intention does.

"The Greatest Enemy of Knowledge is Not Ignorance, It is the ILLUSION of Knowledge. Stephen Hawking"

It appears that there are three possible co-equal authors of evil: God, nature, and man. Beyond these there should be no argument.

If one's argument says that man is the sole author of evil, then that argument is rather presumptuous and pessimistic. It not only presumes to know the dynamics of all of humanity but that that dynamic is evil.

As well as assuming knowledge of the dynamics of evil

"The Greatest Enemy of Knowledge is Not Ignorance, It is the ILLUSION of Knowledge. Stephen Hawking"

Look here, Lefty, if we're gonna talk about evil, it has to be defined. Main Entry: [2]evil
Function: noun
Date: before 12th century
1 a : the fact of suffering, misfortune, and wrongdoing b : a cosmic evil force
2 : something that brings sorrow, distress, or calamity
[Webster, Merriam. Collegiate Dictionary(10thed). Webster, 2002.]

[  Edited by Romach at   ]

Now that generally accords with the basic definition I gave on the bottom of page 7.

The point of relativaty gives evil all the dynamics it needs to be anything but cut and dry. At least as far as accepted application. There is also the realm where people start adding accomplices, witness who don't act, acts against animals, and of course tons more. But if you want it cut and dry then we are indeed sufficiently evil, regardless of the souce.

"The Greatest Enemy of Knowledge is Not Ignorance, It is the ILLUSION of Knowledge. Stephen Hawking"

Animals can be the object of evil. No one has ever denied that. As for accomplices in evil acts and those who are unethical, immoral, etc...we're talking about human complicity in evil, but not in natural evil. One might count God as an accomplice, as unethical, as immoral. etc...which would make God complicit in natural evil.

So, one might say that if God is all powerful, then God should have the ability to either keep the little girl from being crushed in the earthquake, or bring her back from the dead if she is crushed. One might also say that if God is all knowing, then God should know that the little girl will be crushed in the earthquake and should protect her from being crushed. One might also say if God is morally perfect, then God should choose to save the little girl from being crushed if he can. If God is not able to prevent natural evil because he's not all-powerful, not all-knowing, or not all-perfect, then God is accountable for the natural evil in the world that he has created, unless one simply says that God did not create the world.

quote:

---

One might also say that if God is all knowing, then God should know that the little girl will be crushed in the earthquake and should protect her from being crushed. One might also say if God is morally perfect, then God should choose to save the little girl from being crushed if he can.

---

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."

How does a book make a sound except when you close it, drop it or turn the page?

I suppose they do have those electronic children's books. What on earth are you talking about?

Oh, just relating your arguement (my perception) as related to scripture OT, Book of Job. Evil enters into Job's life, arguements made in reguard the thing done by Job to have these curses upon his life.

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."

So, in your vague way, you're saying God made a deal with with Satan to afflict Job, to murder his family, to kill his animals, destroy his crops, and turn his friends against him, not because he couldn't prevent Satan, not because he didn't have the foresight to see what Satan was going to do, but because he just wanted to prove a point. Well, that's just downright evil in my book. And to whom was God proving a point...to Satan? "He won't curse me to my face if I stop protecting him...watch...."

How could he have been proving a point to Job? Job calls God down to question him and God essentially says, "I don't have to answer to you, punk." Now, if God were making a point to Job, and not to Satan, I would think that God would be a little more helpful in making Job understand. If one were to say that Job got more and/or better stuff at the end of it, well I would be a little confused if I were Job. Why the hell would I want my family killed only to have what...a better family? That seems rather pointless, not to mention cruel, unusual, and traumatic.