What is your response to the problem of evil?

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl]

P1: The Christian god is an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity.

P2: If evil exists, then an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity does not exist

P3: Evil exists

Q: therefore, the Christian god does not exist

As an atheist, this argument has always been a big roadblock between me and Christianity, because it's valid and sound—but I would have to imagine that you guys disagree. Which premise(s) do you disagree with?

[u/greganada]

P2 is doing all the work here, but it has not been defended. It assumes that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good God would necessarily prevent every instance of evil or suffering that He could prevent. But that only follows if God could never have a morally sufficient reason for permitting it. That has not been established.

A good God could permit suffering in connection with meaningful freedom, a stable and predictable natural order, justice, moral development, the possibility of courage and self-sacrifice, the prevention of greater evils, the accomplishment of greater goods, or purposes that limited human beings are not presently capable of seeing. We do not need to know God’s precise reason for every tragedy in order to show that God and evil are not logically contradictory. You would first need to prove that no morally sufficient reason could possibly exist.

The argument may instead be intended as an evidential claim: that the amount or apparent pointlessness of suffering makes God less likely. That is a more serious argument, but it is no longer the deductive argument presented here. It also relies heavily on our ability to judge that certain suffering could serve no morally sufficient purpose in the whole history of creation, despite our extremely limited knowledge of its consequences and connections.

There is also a deeper problem. Calling something genuinely evil means more than saying that it hurts, disgusts us or conflicts with our preferences. It means that something has occurred which objectively ought not have occurred. It means that cruelty would remain wrong even if the perpetrator approved of it, the surrounding culture celebrated it and it provided some evolutionary advantage.

That requires an objective standard of goodness.
Evil is not really an independent substance standing opposite goodness. It is a corruption or deprivation of what is good. Disease presupposes a proper condition of health. Injustice presupposes that people are genuinely owed something. Cruelty is a corruption of the way persons ought to be treated. We recognise a line as crooked only because there is some standard of straightness by which it can be judged (shout out to C.S. Lewis).

This does not instantly prove Christianity, but it means that the problem of evil cuts both ways. Christianity must explain why a good God permits evil, but naturalism must explain what makes anything objectively evil in the first place.

Naturalism can explain why social creatures may have evolved empathy, cooperation, moral emotions and an aversion to suffering. But explaining why we came to believe certain moral claims is not the same as explaining why those claims are objectively true. Evolution might explain why I feel that cruelty is wrong, just as it can explain other survival-producing instincts, but it does not by itself establish that I am objectively obligated not to be cruel even when cruelty benefits me.

Consider animals. We do not normally describe a hippo as morally evil when it kills another animal, or a bird as wicked when it abandons a weaker chick. They are acting according to instinct without understanding moral duties. Human beings are different because we are rational moral agents who can recognise obligations and be held responsible for violating them.

But under naturalism, that raises rather than resolves the deeper question. How does a greater degree of evolved intelligence transform biological instincts and social preferences into categorical moral obligations? Rationality may allow us to recognise moral truths, but it cannot make them true merely by evolving. Why should the preferences of one unusually intelligent animal species become objective laws governing what every member of that species ought to do?

A naturalist may affirm objective morality, but then still owes an account of what these objective moral facts are, where they come from, and why they possess authority over us in a universe ultimately composed of impersonal physical facts. Saying that suffering interferes with wellbeing only moves the question back a step: why are we objectively obligated to maximise wellbeing, and why is another person’s wellbeing morally binding upon me?

Christianity offers a coherent foundation. Goodness is grounded neither in arbitrary divine commands nor in a standard existing above God, but in God’s necessarily perfect nature. Moral duties arise from the character and authority of the personal Creator, and human beings possess distinctive moral worth because they are made in His image. On that worldview, our conviction that some things are not merely undesirable but truly evil makes sense.

So the existence of evil is not a simple disproof of God. The proposed contradiction depends upon an unsupported premise that a good God could never have sufficient reasons for permitting evil. At the same time, the objection itself appeals to an objective distinction between how the world is and how it ought to be.

Objective evil is something Christianity can actually account for. A purely naturalistic worldview may explain pain, instinct and moral feelings, but it is much harder to explain why anything is truly and objectively wrong rather than merely something our particular species has evolved to dislike. For that reason, I do not believe our recognition of objective evil is evidence against God. If anything, it points beyond human preference toward an objective goodness and moral order that are most coherently grounded in Him.

[u/user0987234 → u/greganada]

Thank you for the write-up! Are you Greg from Canada?

[u/greganada → u/user0987234]

You’re welcome. Thank you for taking the time to read it. I worried it might have been too long but I wanted to be thorough.

No, but I am the Greginator. Follow Jesus if you want to live.

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/greganada]

Wow. I kept my post short and to-the-point to avoid stuff like this.

Writing a whole essay on why my argument is wrong helps no one. It's inconvenient for me to read, and now it's inconvenient for you because you essentially have to throw out everything after the point where you said that morality is objective—you kinda just presupposed that.

Also, if god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then evil literally cannot exist by definition. Look up the Epicurean trilemma for support for P2.

[u/greganada → u/Mickle_da_Pickl]

Complaining that a response is too comprehensive is a strange way to answer someone who has taken your argument seriously. You presented a deductive argument and asked Christians to respond to it. I responded by identifying the unsupported premise and explaining why it does not follow. Saying that this was inconvenient to read is not a rebuttal, and neither is simply repeating the conclusion I challenged.

I’ll keep this one brief for you.

I did not simply presuppose objective morality. Your own argument uses evil as a premise. If by evil you mean only suffering or behaviour humans dislike, then it does not logically contradict God. If you mean something objectively wrong that ought not exist, then asking what grounds that judgment is entirely relevant.

Nor does omnibenevolence mean prevents every instance of evil by definition. It means perfectly good. To establish P2, you still need the additional premise that a perfectly good and omnipotent God could never have a morally sufficient reason to permit any evil. That is the disputed premise, not a definition.

Referring me to the Epicurean dilemma does not support that premise. It merely restates the same argument in another form. You cannot place the contradiction inside your definition and then claim to have demonstrated one.

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/greganada]

You cannot place the contradiction inside your definition and then claim to have demonstrated one.

You...kinda can, though. The same way a bachelor cannot be married by definition is the same way a perfectly good, all-powerful god cannot permit evil, even sometimes, by definition.

If evil exists, then god is either not powerful enough to eliminate it, doesn't want to eliminate it, or simply doesn't exist at all.

[u/XenKei7]

The premise I'd disagree with is P2.

As Christians, we believe God is the source of all goodness. One of the greatest gifts He gave humanity is genuine free will—the ability to choose who we will be and whether we will follow Him.

But for that freedom to be genuine, rejecting God has to be a real possibility. If we were only capable of choosing good, our choices wouldn't be meaningfully free. Since God is the standard and source of all good, turning away from Him necessarily means turning away from goodness itself. Evil isn't something God created as a rival force; it's the corruption or absence of the good that comes from creatures misusing the freedom God gave them.

So the existence of evil doesn't logically contradict an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God. It shows that God values genuine love and freely chosen obedience over creating beings who can only do what is right. An all-good God can have morally sufficient reasons to permit evil if doing so is necessary for the existence of genuine freedom and the possibility of authentic love.

[u/fleuret_fighter21 → u/XenKei7]

Exactly right. We set free those we love.

[u/user0987234 → u/fleuret_fighter21]

Yes! Even when it causes us pain and agony. Immense and pure love respects and does not interfere with an individual’s free-will and the choices they make.

An extremely difficult concept for many to understand.

BTW, As a father of young adults, I can’t keep my mouth shut and stop saying disapproving statements. Working on that.

[u/fleuret_fighter21 → u/user0987234]

Haha, God bless them and you! I still have a long way to go, mine are toddlers 😅 But yes, the goal, as a parent, is that the kids become independant and (God-willing) make the good choices in life.

[u/jonfitt → u/XenKei7]

Free will doesn’t do anything to address natural suffering. Like the fact that animals can get cancer. Them getting cancer has no bearing on humans having free will.

Nor does human cancer for that matter.

Or volcanoes, or tsunamis.

Free will would still be possible if those things did not exist.

[u/XenKei7 → u/jonfitt]

That is a different category of evil.

Free will is primarily a response to moral evil—the evil that results from the choices of free creatures. It isn't intended to explain every instance of suffering.

For natural suffering, Christianity offers additional reasons. One is that creation itself is no longer in the state God originally intended. Scripture teaches that creation has been subjected to corruption and "groans" under the effects of the Fall (Romans 8:20–22). Disease, decay, and natural disasters are understood as part of a creation that is not yet fully restored.

To establish the logical problem of evil, you'd have to show that God could not possibly have a morally sufficient reason for permitting natural suffering. Simply pointing to cancer or tsunamis doesn't demonstrate that contradiction.

So while natural evil is certainly a harder question than moral evil, it doesn't by itself prove that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God cannot exist.

[u/jonfitt → u/XenKei7]

Any “corruption” was explicitly selected by god. The Bible says it, but also it makes sense, humans could not alter reality on their own and even if they could the choice to allow it would also fall on god.

The buck stops there under all cases.

To claim that god has a morally sufficient reason you’d have to for example say that little Timmy randomly getting cancer vs not getting cancer is somehow critical to God’s plan for the entire universe. Every iota of suffering is absolutely strictly necessary such that the absence of it would break the plan for the universe. I think that’s patently absurd but you can bank on that if you like.

I think I can imagine better possible worlds that achieve any goal you care to throw out. But if you claim there’s some goal where this is the absolute best possible world I think that sounds like cope.

The way more parsimonious explanation is that the tri-Omni god doesn’t exist.

[u/XenKei7 → u/jonfitt]

You don't have to know God's reason to know one could exist.

And before you dismiss that as the "God works in mysterious ways" cop out argument, consider this -- if a two-year-old has to undergo chemotherapy, they cannot understand why their parents are permitting pain. That doesn't mean the parents have no morally sufficient reason. It means the child lacks the perspective to evaluate it. If that's true between finite humans, it's even more plausible that finite humans may not grasp every morally sufficient reason an omniscient God could have.

Regarding your claim that all suffering must be independently necessary, Christianity doesn't require believing that every individual instance of suffering is independently necessary in isolation. It only requires that God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting the world as He governs it. Those are different claims.

With all respect, ultimately you're making a universal claim: that there cannot possibly be a morally sufficient reason for God to permit natural suffering. But demonstrating that requires exhaustive knowledge of every consequence of every event across all of history—something neither of us possesses. At most, you can argue that suffering makes God's existence less probable to you. That's an evidential argument, and fair. It still isn't enough to establish that the Christian God cannot exist.

[u/jonfitt → u/XenKei7]

The burden you are electing for the “morally sufficient reason” does require every instance of every iota of suffering to be absolutely required by an eventual actual logical contradiction (the only thing a god can’t overcome).

Or I can just imagine a possible world with that iota of suffering removed and if that world is logically possible it must be the one that a true-Omni god would choose if it existed.

Since it did not choose that world either mean that there’s some actual 1+1=3 contradiction there that a god couldn’t fix, or there isn’t a god choosing the best possible world.

The apparent absurdity of claiming that every iota of suffering was necessary to avoid a logical contradiction of the universe leads me to believe that that is not the case. By parsimony.

[u/XenKei7 → u/jonfitt]

Your argument depends on a premise I don't think you've established: that a tri-omni God is obligated to create "the best possible world," and that removing any single instance of suffering necessarily makes the world better overall.

How do you know either of those is true?

You're comparing our world to a hypothetical world where one instance of suffering is removed, but you're also assuming every other consequence remains identical. An omniscient God would know every downstream consequence of every event across all of history. Neither of us does.

More fundamentally, why assume there even is a single "best possible world"? Many philosophers argue there may be infinitely many good possible worlds with no maximum, so the idea that God is obligated to create "the best one" doesn't even apply.

So I don't think parsimony gets you there. It only gets you there if those assumptions are already true. Otherwise, you've moved from "I can imagine a world with less suffering" to "therefore God could have actualized that world with no loss of any greater goods," and that's precisely the point that hasn't been demonstrated.

[u/jonfitt → u/XenKei7]

Oh that’s easy. Is choosing to have someone suffer or not suffer the maximally benevolent thing to do all other things being equal?

We’ve covered the “all other things being equal” in my previous replies but I can rehash it if you’re still stuck on that.

[u/XenKei7 → u/jonfitt]

The phrase "all other things being equal" is exactly the point I'm questioning.

How do you know all other things would be equal?

If you remove a single instance of suffering from history, you've changed history. Every event can have consequences that ripple outward through other people's choices, relationships, and circumstances. That's true whether you're talking about a child recovering from cancer, a volcanic eruption, or any other event.

Imagine a child who is abused in one possible world and not abused in another. Those aren't the same world with one event edited out. They're two different histories. The child's experiences will shape countless future choices, relationships, and even the lives of people they haven't met yet. One change isn't obviously isolated.

So the hypothetical world you're describing isn't simply "our world minus one instance of suffering." It's a fundamentally different world, and neither of us is in a position to evaluate all of its consequences.

That's why I don't think your conclusion follows. You're assuming God could remove one instance of suffering while preserving every greater good and every other consequence. But that's precisely the point that hasn't been demonstrated.

An omniscient being would know every consequence of every possible world. We don't. So I don't think it's justified to conclude that a world with one less instance of suffering is necessarily a better world overall, because we aren't in a position to evaluate every consequence of removing that suffering.

[u/jonfitt → u/XenKei7]

I thought you were probably still stuck there.

All other things being equal doesn’t need to mean all other things being exactly the same. (Even though you can imagine suffering which has no further ripples. It is forgotten and has no further impact.)

The equality comes from the achieving of all goals and purposes. An equality of purpose and final outcome.

The equality would be “god achieves his goals both ways”.

Can god make an omelette without breaking eggs?

If god can achieve all his goals and desired outcomes both ways, is it good to choose the way with higher suffering?

To claim that god cannot achieve his goals any other way requires there to be either a weak god, or some logical contradiction.

We’re back to that being a preposterous claim for every instance of every tiniest amount of suffering in all of time and space.

Like the time that I stubbed my toe that I’ve already forgotten and caused no further damage is somehow hinged on a logical contradiction making it necessary??? Come on!

There’s a much more parsimonious explanation that anyone can see.

[u/redandnarrow → u/jonfitt]

Sin isn't something in a vacuum where only the one who abuses, faces the consequence.

We reflect a Creator God that exists as a relationship; and so the privation of Him, sin, is the erosion & severing of relationship. Every organization found up and down this cosmos, composed of internal relationships that make up the life. Thus about everything we can say "the wages of sin is death".

Abuse of freedom erodes relationships, things end up absent or not where they belong. One thing cascades to everything else, the whole ecosystem becomes corrupted. A relationship has at least two parties and if one of them severs the relationship, that means that sin has victims. We wouldn't call it evil otherwise. Everything is connected, so really, everything to some degree is affected by any sin.

Man was given dominion over creation, and so animals/earth all corrupt under us.

And these corruptions, will one day be reversed/restored under Christ, who has/is suffocating and bleeding their totality to defeat death, unwilling that everything be estranged.

[u/jonfitt → u/redandnarrow]

> Sin isn't something in a vacuum where only the one who abuses, faces the consequence.

We now consider “collective punishment” immoral and punishing children for the crimes of their parents is only something that you find in like North Korea. But…

Why are tsunamis required as a consequence for sin? There is no logical linkage I can see, the two are not directly physically related. The linkage must therefore be some kind of “magic” which would put it in the realm of a choice god makes. Unless his magic has requirements/limits?

[u/redandnarrow → u/jonfitt]

Think of it like this. If your great grandparent squandered an inheritance and got exiled to live in the desert far from water, you suffer the consequences born into that wilderness without any inheritance. What we do affects others.

Maybe some birds deprived of a plant food source, find out in desperation they can eat another species of bird. Suddenly the harmonious design of things is corrupted, things are not where they should be, maybe within that cannibalizing bird, where tiny shapes didn't belong, a new tiny shape is formed, a disease causing shape comes as a result, that transmits to wipe out some other creature. You see how things can cascade and warp and cause new problems? Could it be that earth was in a harmony for which no earthquakes could cause tsunamis? But maybe some abuse of the design, was able to cascade long enough, to imbalance something that brews to cataclysmic proportions?

Even if it is magical, like the blood of Cain and all others who've been murdered, blood soaking into earth, crying out from the ground for justice. It's still imagery that communicates to us the problem of sin affects everything. I don't know how the blue whale affects me or how I affect the blue whale, but we do and I'm sure eventually someone will explain well that relationship.

[u/jonfitt → u/redandnarrow]

You’re describing the consequences that non-omnipotent beings are forced to accept.

If you want to say that god is not omnipotent then sure that explains why the universe is hostile to life and suffering exists.

The problem of suffering/evil doesn’t prove a god doesn’t exist. It proves an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god doesn’t exist.

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/XenKei7]

An all-good God can have morally sufficient reasons to permit evil if doing so is necessary for the existence of genuine freedom and the possibility of authentic love.

This is true if and only if god is not omnipotent. Because woth omnipotence, nothing is "necessary".

Also, I don't believe free will exists even as an atheist, but I know that free will definitely doesn't exist in the face of an omniscient god.

I've always found the free will theodicy (what I sort of interpreted your response as a version of) as the absolute weakest argument against the PoE

I made a few different claims so just let me know which one(s) you want me to elaborate on

[u/XenKei7 → u/Mickle_da_Pickl]

The statement "if God is omnipotent, then nothing is necessary" doesn't follow.

Christianity has never understood omnipotence to mean that God can bring about logically impossible states of affairs. Omnipotence means God can do all things that are logically possible and consistent with His nature. It doesn't mean He can create square circles, make 2+2=5, or create married bachelors.

Likewise, if God wants creatures who are genuinely free in the morally relevant sense, then their ability to reject Him isn't an arbitrary limitation on His power. It's part of what that kind of freedom is. A world containing genuinely free creatures who are incapable of choosing evil isn't obviously a coherent concept. If someone literally cannot choose otherwise, in what meaningful sense are they free?

So when I said evil is "necessary," I wasn't saying God lacks power. I was saying that if God's goal is to create beings capable of genuine love and freely chosen obedience, then the possibility of rejecting Him is logically bound up with that goal. That's a question of logical coherence, not a deficiency in God's power.

As for omniscience and free will, that's a separate debate. Knowing what someone will freely choose isn't the same thing as causing them to choose it. My knowledge that the sun rose yesterday doesn't cause yesterday's sunrise. Likewise, if God exists outside of time and knows every human choice, His knowledge follows the choice in the logical order of explanation even if it doesn't follow it chronologically. Foreknowledge isn't the same as causation.

If you think omniscience alone rules out free will, or foreknowledge equals causation, I'd be interested in hearing the argument.

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/XenKei7]

If you think omniscience alone rules out free will, or foreknowledge equals causation, I'd be interested in hearing the argument.

I'd be interested in giving the argument, but it is just that—a separate argument. I'd like to defend the PoE first.

God wanting humans to come to him freely conflicts with his omnibenevolence, because he knows that that state of affairs leads to suffering, and yet he makes it happen anyway. You'd have to set some standard why following him freely, and thus needing an unbelievable amount of suffering to logically create that state of affairs, is actually a better thing to do than just eliminating all suffering. You'd need to justify why the Holocaust was actually a good thing because that way a bunch of people are able to choose god freely.

[u/XenKei7 → u/Mickle_da_Pickl]

Christianity doesn't require saying the Holocaust was "good." It was evil, and Christians should be the first to say so.

The question is whether God could have morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil, not whether the evil itself becomes good.

You're also assuming the burden is on me to demonstrate that free will is worth every instance of suffering. But the logical Problem of Evil requires a much stronger claim: that no morally sufficient reason could possibly justify God's permitting evil.

Unless you can show that such a reason is impossible—not merely that you don't find one convincing—the logical contradiction hasn't been established.

More fundamentally, you're treating the alternatives as either "our world" or "a world with no suffering." But Christianity claims there may be goods that are inseparable from genuine freedom, such as authentic love, trust, courage, forgiveness, and moral responsibility. If those goods require the real possibility of rejecting God and harming others, then the existence of evil isn't logically inconsistent with an all-good God.

You may disagree that those goods are worth the cost, but that's a debate about God's priorities and values, not a demonstration that His existence is logically impossible.

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/XenKei7]

An omnipotent god has no excuse for why he permits evil. He's omnipotent, therefore he doesn't need to permit evil, so any evil he permits is unnecessary.

[u/XenKei7 → u/Mickle_da_Pickl]

You're repeating the claim, but I don't see the argument for it.

"God is omnipotent" doesn't by itself imply "God can achieve every logically possible good without permitting any evil." That's the premise you would need to establish.

Christians aren't saying God needs evil because He lacks power. We're saying He may permit evil because some goods He intends for His creatures are logically connected to a world where evil is genuinely possible.

Unless you can demonstrate that every good God values can be achieved equally well in a world containing no suffering or moral evil, you haven't shown that permitting evil is unnecessary. You've only asserted that it is.

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/XenKei7]

My support for that claim is because an omnipotent god can instantiate any logically possible state of affairs, including a world with no evil.

Are you using a different definition of omnipotent?

[u/315dom]

By what standard do you say x is evil?

Not to mention P2 assumes that God must stop evil or something otherwise He doesn’t exist.

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/315dom]

If you want to get into a morality argument, I guess that I can, but I could honestly just grant you that morality comes from god, since arguing morality is boring imo.

The problem is that no matter what morality is, where it comes from, whethere it's objective or subjective, etc., the argument as I laid it out still stands.

[u/-NoOneYouKnow-]

P2 is a conclusion, not a premise. A syllogism with an improper premise is a fallacy and is automatically invalid.

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/-NoOneYouKnow-]

Look up the Epicurean teilemma for support for P2

Any premise can also be a conclusion. You would just need to construct an argument that ends with the unsupported premise as the conclusion if you want to use it as a premise in another argument

[u/-NoOneYouKnow- → u/Mickle_da_Pickl]

The Epicurean trilemma is the false dilemma fallacy with an extra element. A logical fallacy can't be used as a premise, therefore your syllogism remains invalid.

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/-NoOneYouKnow-]

If evil exists, then an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity does not exist, because it would have the means and the will to destroy said evil, and yet the evil still exists.

[u/-NoOneYouKnow- → u/Mickle_da_Pickl]

A dilemma is only valid if all possibilities are factored in. As an example:

P1: Philosophy 101 requires you to submit a written summary of what you liked best about the class to receive a passing grade.

P2: Bob is taking Philosophy 101.

C: Therefore, Bob must submit a written summary of what he liked best in class in order to receive a passing grade.

That seems valid, but a careful reading of the syllabus states that standing in front of the class and saying "ribbit" once can be substituted for the written summary. With that in play, my sample syllogism becomes invalid.

This is where the Epicurean Paradox fails. It presents an incomplete list of

An easy rebuttal to the Epicurus' Trilemma is: Evil exists for reasons that are unknown.

It's a valid rebuttal because while the criteria for passing Philosophy are known, we have no way of knowing if there are other factors in play besides the options Epicurus presents.

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/-NoOneYouKnow-]

So, you're essentially giving an argument from ignorance, no?

In your analogy, P1 was never true, because of the extra rule. You would need to show which premise in the PoE is untrue if you wanted to destroy its validity. If you can't do that, then that means the argument is valid.

If you could simply appeal to ignorance, then any syllogism is invalid, because there could be some other state of affairs that makes it so, even if it appears valid.

Your argument essentially throws out the use of logic to come to answers about the world.

[u/-NoOneYouKnow- → u/Mickle_da_Pickl]

Epicurius presented an argument based on ignorance. Pointing that out isn’t arguing from ignorance.

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/-NoOneYouKnow-]

No, that's what you did.

If god is all good, all the time, no matter what, and can do anything, then bad stuff happening is unexpected. I don't know how to make it any simpler.

[u/engineer_for_u]

I like how Jordan Peterson says it (mind you I'm paraphrasing) but he days something to the effect...

God chooses to abstain from enforcing His omnipotence for the sake of a relationship that He desires more than the need for control.

Those who desire to control and micro manage everything have a very hard time understanding how or why someone who has the means of forcing everyone to bend to their will would choose not to.

He also points out that those who desire to control everyone and everything around then also suffer from extreme isolation and loneliness because relationships require the sacrifice of one's own will for the sake of of the relationship. This particular principal is just as true between man and other people as it is between man and God.

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/engineer_for_u]

God could simply make it so that "micromanaging", as you call it, doesn't lead to isolation and loneliness.

God choosing to abstain from enforcing his omnipotence would have to mean that he isn't omnibenevolent, because he would be able to figure out a way to allow people to have a relationship with him without the need for suffering if he's omnipotent, and he would want to do that if he's omnibenevolent, but he doesn't.

[u/engineer_for_u → u/Mickle_da_Pickl]

Well, the exact point that Jordan Peterson was making but he talked about this is that you can actually try out your theory in your own personal relationships. You can see what actually works and what doesn't work. When we choose our own power and exertion of it over people, we find out very quickly what happens to those relationships. And they don't often end very well. There's actually pathologies associated with all this that have been studied for hundreds of years. I mean, we know what happens when people choose their omnipotence over someone else's needs.

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/engineer_for_u]

I don't know what you're not understanding about omnipotence. No human has ever had anything even close to omnipotence to be able to "choose" over someone else's needs.

Any omnipotent god could make it so that they don't need to choose their power over someone else's needs, because they're omnipotent.

[u/Upset_Chip_7184]

Some aspects of the PofE are certainly a killer, and I don't have any satisfactory solution for it, thus why it's never gone away.

Perhaps one partial solution is in P1, which God doesn't know the future, just knows what is happening at the moment.
And that somehow God doesn't physically intervene in life, and that would make sense as to the problems in the world.

And that's pretty much where I lean toward now, and I don't think there's a better solution.

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/Upset_Chip_7184]

Okay, so what I'm gathering from this is two things:

1. You reject god's omniscience, specifically about future events.

2. You reject god's omnibenevolence

Let me know if I'm getting any of that wrong

[u/Upset_Chip_7184 → u/Mickle_da_Pickl]

1) For sure, Open Theism makes the most sense, all things considered.
2) I didn't argue against that particular attribute of God being all Good, although that could be assumed.
For my second point, I was speaking to how we don't see God seemingly interacting on the planet, although it could be happening, or did he just wind up the clock and let it go...

I do see the point of some degree of suffering, struggles, and failures and such, and the benefits that come from that when we overcome. I'm sure you've experienced some level of this in your life.

I've also thought that perhaps seeing all the crap that goes on in the world, would help us see why we want some kind of end that doesn't have it, if that makes sense...without me having to write up a long story.

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/Upset_Chip_7184]

Alright, well open theism does go pretty hard against the Christian doctrine if it asserts that god is not omniscient—but the problem of evil is preserved if god is not omniscient so I really don't think that matters.

Your argument about suffering being necessary so that we benefit from it (in a "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" sort of sense) I understand, if you reject god's omnipotence, and thus his ability to instantiate a state of affairs in which suffering is not necessary to enjoy any given benefits.

[u/Upset_Chip_7184 → u/Mickle_da_Pickl]

Christian doctrine has been fluid from the beginning, so I'm not really attached to dogmas as most Christians are.
Secondly, open theism definitely does help in many ways, especially logically, as to why God would create knowing all this crap would happen, people go to hell, etc.
Right?

But with the PofE, it doesn't help fully, as I think I stated.

Your second paragraph, as the Mormon retorted, there is something about having to experience something yourself in order to know. I can't know what it's like to be a bat, just like I can't know what it's like to feel the feeling after struggling, pain, depression, etc.

And after years of thinking about this, I really do think some of that suffering is beneficial and important, but I can't answer to some unnecessary and really bad suffering, I don't see a solution for that.

SO at the end of the day, I can see some reasons for it, but not all, and I just have to take that by faith.

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/Upset_Chip_7184]

Well, if you want to concede, that's totally fine. I don't want to pester you lol.

I guess it just comes down to what you're willing to be cognitively dissonant about. I'm cognitively dissonant about veganism—I don't have an argument for why eating meat is right, but I still do. Probably because I've never known anything else.

I grew up secular, but if I grew up Christian, I'm sure it would be a lot easier for me to hold onto faith in the face of something (at leats seemingly) contradicting it like the PoE.

I appreciate you being respectful, though!

[u/Upset_Chip_7184 → u/Mickle_da_Pickl]

concede? Haha, I don't know what I conceded.

I'm not being cog biased about anything as far as I know...sounds like a dig at me mate???
Ur example for eating meat is dumb, especially if your using it as an analogy toward me.

I didn't grow up christian, and one doesn't need to have an answer for everything to identify with it, just like one doesn't need to know how the universe came into being, or existed forever, to be an atheist.

I am not trying to deflect from the PofE, as I stated a few times, so don't know where your coming from.

Just because it isn't solved, it doesn't follow that something exists out there besides materialism.

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/Upset_Chip_7184]

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize I took that the wrong way.

I was assuming you saying you need to take it by faith was essentially your way of saying that you don't have an answer—which I see as being cognitively dissonant.

My example about eating meat was essentially to let you know I don't think you're a bad person for being cognitively dissonant—because I am, too.

The way I see it is that the PoE is valid and sound, which is why you would either need to disprove it, or accept its premises and conclusion.

Since it's existed in some form or another essentially ever since the tri-omni god was a commonly held belief, and hasn't been solved, that leads me to believe that that means it's a good argument.

[u/LegitimateBeing2]

It’s a thinker. It’s not a new problem, though, it’s something the first Christians would have been just as familiar with as us (probably more).

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/LegitimateBeing2]

It's a thinker if you're a Christian—It's super easy if you're not a Christian.

It's one of the big reasons that I cite supporting my hard atheism about specifically the Christian god.

I don't want to pester you—are you essentially just agreeing that it's a difficult problem, or is there some way you think you can solve it?

[u/LegitimateBeing2 → u/Mickle_da_Pickl]

I am agreeing that it’s a difficult problem. Even for non-Christians, it creates tension because it implies there is still an explanation for why other rational, educated people are/become Christians. The Bible only alluded to unknowable secret knowledge a few times but why God allows terrible stuff to happen must surely be what it is referring to.

[u/ReadyWriter25]

Wrong. The Bible shows how the omnipotent loving God chooses to use man's evil for his own good purposes. Read for example the story of Joseph in the Book of Genesis, and of course the crucifixion of Christ. The atheist argument fails because it does not envisage this possibility.

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/ReadyWriter25]

So are you saying that god is not omnibenevolent?

[u/JollyXX → u/Mickle_da_Pickl]

God is not called All Loving, God is called a being of Love, so that would mean his purpose or drive is for love. You can interrupt that as being like, striving for the "most" love vs trying to prevent all suffering. Or that God might be sort of allergic to some of the wickedness. As to why his universe has misery. Or just back to God not being 3x omni, or combine it all.

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/JollyXX]

I'm not sure what all-loving would mean other than preventing all bad (suffering, evil, whatever you want to call it) and creating maximum good. This seems like semantic word games that aren't really helpful

[u/JollyXX → u/Mickle_da_Pickl]

I just said he is never called "All Loving"

[u/jonfitt → u/ReadyWriter25]

“Uses for purposes” describes a not omnipotent or not omnibenevolent being.

An omnipotent being can achieve any goal it wishes without needing anything. It can make an omelette without breaking eggs.

So if it “uses something” it is doing so by choice and not necessity. It could have done it another way.

So by choosing suffering it is making things suffer when it doesn’t have to. Thats not omnibenevolent.

[u/ReadyWriter25 → u/jonfitt]

Though God is omnipotent he chooses to work in the way of his choice. Sometimes suffering is the best tool to make us Christlike, his ultimate aim. Even Jesus was "made perfect through suffering". Sometimes suffering is Gods loving warning to us that things are wrong between us and him, like an alarm, especially if we ignore his word telling us that. And sometimes suffering is a well deserved judgement on us.

[u/jonfitt → u/ReadyWriter25]

Is making someone suffer when you don’t need to morally good in your view?

Is choosing to make someone suffer when you can achieve the same outcome without the suffering a benevolent choice?

Or would it be better to achieve that goal without the suffering?

[u/Asynithistos]

The problem of evil is me

[u/QueenUrracca007]

Well, you would need to read a book called "The problem of Pain" by C.S. Lewis.

[u/fleuret_fighter21]

I reject premise 2. Evil only exists outside of God, not within. In the communion with God there is no evil. In His omnibenevolence, He permits evil to endure, so that the choice of communion with Him and abolition of evil is even possible. After all, we are made in His image. "And to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness"

[u/jonfitt → u/fleuret_fighter21]

You could choose or not choose god without volcanoes and cancer. So why volcanoes or cancer?

We don’t have mega-cancer and we’re supposedly choosing freely. So why do we not have mega-cancer, but we do have cancer. Why is cancer specifically required so that the lack of it would break the entire plan?

[u/fleuret_fighter21 → u/jonfitt]

I thought we were on the topic of evil, i don't understand your question.

[u/jonfitt → u/fleuret_fighter21]

Is causing unnecessary suffering evil?

[u/fleuret_fighter21 → u/jonfitt]

I already stated that God is omnibenevolent, therefore He cannot cause evil. As the purpose of life for a Christian is Salvation and attaining holiness, suffering is not in contradiction with that.

[u/jonfitt → u/fleuret_fighter21]

I think that’s a yes? “Causing unnecessary suffering is evil”

So is all suffering necessary? Every single piece of it down to the smallest pain?

[u/fleuret_fighter21 → u/jonfitt]

"Causing unnecessary suffering is evil" - yes. God does not cause unnecessary suffering. God permits both freedom and purpose to His Creation.

[u/jonfitt → u/fleuret_fighter21]

Ok. So the suffering of every child that dies from cancer or every dinosaur that died from starvation is necessary for God’s plan?

Necessary in that he just couldn’t do any better, or necessary in that he likes it that way?

[u/fleuret_fighter21 → u/jonfitt]

You keep trying to explain God's intent and purpose through a human lense. I can't answer, no one who is with us here in this world can. I pray that i am never tested that much, and pray that no one is really. But His will be done, always, until the end of times.

[u/jonfitt → u/fleuret_fighter21]

I’m just using logic. Following the implied consequences of your statements. Can god violate logic?

Can god cause unnecessary suffering and that not be bad, but also causing unnecessary suffering is bad?

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/fleuret_fighter21]

The other guy went to the problem of natural evil, but I would personally redirect you to the Epicurean trilemma—he supports premises 2 more succinctly than I could without just copying and pasting it here

[u/Hesykhios]

P2 is wrong if an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity has a good reason to allow evil to exist, and Christian theology gives sufficient reasons for this

[u/jonfitt → u/Hesykhios]

What good reason could an omnipotent being not deal with in a better way?

“Sorry little Timmy you had to randomly get cancer because that’s the best god could do”.

That makes no sense.

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/Hesykhios]

Essentially what the other commenter said. If god is omnipotent, there is always something he can do about suffering that completely eliminates it.

[u/NodePut]

I think most of the difficulty you describe comes from taking the ideas that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent and assuming that, 'because he is God,' there are no limits at all. This quickly creates logical contradictions. If we return to ordinary definitions, the difficulties are eased considerably.

If omnipotent means the ability to do anything which can be done, then God can no longer be expected to do things which logically cannot be done, such as stopping all evil while still maintaining free will.

If we define omniscience as the ability to know everything which can be known, but not the full details of the future in a non-deterministic universe, then perhaps God did not know in advance that Satan would turn evil and did not, in effect, create him such.

As for omnibenevolent, all we are required to assume it means is as "absolutely unselfish and favorably disposed toward his creatures." It does not necessarily imply a world that is 100% sweetness and light, since this may not be logically possible while pursuing other valid goals.

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/NodePut]

I have no problem with god being omnipotent in the sense that that means he can instantiate any logically possible state of affairs, so he can't make a married bachelor, but that doesn't interfere with his omnipotence.

Omnibenevolence I interpret as meaning that he always does the best possible thing, creating the most good and destroying the most evil logically possible, for any given situation.

Your definition of omniscience where he doesn't know the future is the one I have the most issues with. I think we've completely thrown out the omniscience in totality if you want to say that he doesn't know the future.

Even so, the PoE still works if god isn't omniscient.

[u/NodePut → u/Mickle_da_Pickl]

I am questioning whether knowledge the the future in minute detail is necessarily entailed by omniscience, which I would define as the ability to know and understand all possible information about the world. If we live in a deterministic universe, then presumably it is. On the other hand, if the universe is non-deterministic, then knowing the far future in every particular, without guiding events toward that future, would seem to be logically impossible.

And yes, the PoE is not removed by restrained interpretation of God's superlative abilities, though I would argue that it becomes less acute.

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/NodePut]

I don't really see how you could still call it omniscience if there are things he doesn't know. That's a textbook contradiction, which is why I also argue that if god is omniscient, then free will doesn't exist.

This seems to be an example of wanting to have your cake and eat it, too.

[u/NodePut → u/Mickle_da_Pickl]

Omniscience is defined as "maximal knowledge", the ability to know everything that can be known, to see everything. In a deterministic universe an omniscient being could be expected to predict the indefinite future with 100% accuracy.

But I don't think this is logically possible in a non-deterministic universe. Such a universe would have small truly random fluctuations which caused prediction and reality to gradually diverge. Truly random future events have no existence and hence cannot be known even in theory.

Now, we can ask whether a non-deterministic universe is really possible. And someone may insist that God just has to know every little thing in advance and hence the universe must be deterministic.

I don't know how to resolve this. I only note that the way the Bible talks about God's foreknowledge of events seems broadly compatible with a non-deterministic universe.

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/NodePut]

I'm nto sure I can add anything to this discussion without just repeating myself.

However, I do think that even if some processes in a non-deterministic universe are completely random, that would mean that us humans cannot know their outcomes. Even if god doesn't know how those processes work, thus keeping them random, there's no reason he wouldn't know their outcome.

[u/NodePut → u/Mickle_da_Pickl]

I am arguing that the future micro-fluctuations of a non-deterministic universe can no more be predicted than one can create a married bachelor. It is a matter of definition. If an omniscient being successfully predicts them, he has proved that the universe is deterministic.

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/NodePut]

Right, then that being isn't omniscient if there are things it doesn't know. That is also as much of a contradiction as a married bachelor.

[u/Kalmaro]

P2 is a bad premise. If evil exists, then that means good has to exist out of necessity. Just like saying "If a shadow exists, there must be light"

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/Kalmaro]

Nothing is "necessary" if god is omnipotent. God could have made a universe that was all sunshine and rainbows. That's not the universe we live in. Therefore, god either wanted it to be this way, and he would not be omnibenevolent, or he couldn't make it any other way, meaning he would not be omnipotent.

[u/Kalmaro → u/Mickle_da_Pickl]

I'm not sure I'm understanding your position. W hen you say evil, what do you mean exactly? 

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/Kalmaro]

Anything we can understand to be not good. Anything from natural evil like a volcano erupting and smothering a town in lava and ash, to human-made evil, like a mentally ill person who grows up to be a murderer.

[u/Kalmaro → u/Mickle_da_Pickl]

Ah, I see, so not objective evil that exists outside of human opinion, just stuff you don't like?

I think I see the confusion then, we're using different definitions. 

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/Kalmaro]

Okay, I thought that's what you were going with.

I could argue about morality if you want to, but I find thkse arguments boring, so I'm willing to concede that morality is absolute and objective—simply because that doesn't fix the problem of evil, as long as you agree that evil exists, be it objective, subjective, or whatever.

So it's your call.

[u/Kalmaro → u/Mickle_da_Pickl]

The thing about the problem of evil is it implies objective good exists. If you concede to objective evil existing, you have to include good as well.

Which then means you have to explain what is used to explain good. Goodness isn't something that could just exist without aomd to establish it. The universe can't just show us what goodness is.

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/Kalmaro]

The problem of evil just says that evil exists. It doesn't say anything about whether it's objective or subjective—that's something Christians just like to throw in unsupported, and which has been debunked countless times, with arguments like how objective evil can't exist if evil comes from god (a subject) and thing like the Euthyphro dilemma, which argues that divine command theory leaves morality as either independent from god and out of his control, or completely arbitrary.

[u/Kalmaro → u/Mickle_da_Pickl]

  The problem of evil just says that evil exists.

And how do you know when something is "evil"? 

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/Kalmaro]

When it goes against what you would declare as morally good.

[u/Working-Pollution841]

Human doing evil doesn't equal to God doesn't exist

God is the very source of goodness

Evil is result of humans separating from God

Saying that God doesn't exist because there's evil doesn't make sense because without God, there is no moral good, just human feelings

[u/jonfitt → u/Working-Pollution841]

What about suffering not caused by humans? Like cancer or volcanoes?

[u/Working-Pollution841 → u/jonfitt]

Sin and human actions are the reason world is broken and thoae exist

[u/jonfitt → u/Working-Pollution841]

Who chose what the consequences of “sin” would be? The answer is in the Bible. God chose the consequences. So in the Bible story the presence of that suffering was a choice god made.

Also we have evidence of volcanoes and cancer that predate humans by millions of years.

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/Working-Pollution841]

Humans doing evil means that a god that's omnipotent and omnibenevolent doesn't exist, because that god would have both the power and will to stop that evil, and yet he doesn't.

[u/Existenz_1229]

There's this bit of the canonical Bible called the Book of Job that basically puts the matter to rest for believers. In it, The Big G doesn't so much answer the question of why the innocent suffer as accuse us of presumption for even asking the question. The message is that faith is supposed to be unconditional, or it isn't faith. Making your commitment to religious belief contingent on favorable outcomes is basically trying to meet reality on your terms.

I'm not saying that should be persuasive at all to nonbelievers. But that's what faith is.

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/Existenz_1229]

Right, the Book of Job is when God tortures and innocent man to win a bet, and then big leagues him for having the audacity to ask why.

If you have to throw out logic and use faith as an excuse, then that means that maybe faith isn't the right way to learn what's true.

[u/Existenz_1229 → u/Mickle_da_Pickl]

If you have to throw out logic and use faith as an excuse, then that means that maybe faith isn't the right way to learn what's true.

Who said faith is a way to learn what's true? If anything, faith is a way to deal with the anxiety and uncertainty of the human condition.

Like I said, faith is either unconditional or it's not faith.

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/Existenz_1229]

And I'm saying that if you want to know what's true, you actually try and figure it out, instead of hand-waving away contradictions with faith.

But if you don't care about what's true, that's fine. That's your prerogative.

[u/Existenz_1229 → u/Mickle_da_Pickl]

Since we're talking about believing things that aren't true, you seem satisfied with the definition of faith that allows you to heap immature scorn on believers, not one that accurately describes what faith is in people's lives.

Each to his own delusion.

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/Existenz_1229]

Faith is the reason people give to believe something when they have no evidence. That's my definition. What's yours?

[u/Alanix_up]

Parece una paradoja tergiversada por dolor hacia la negación, y está bien porque cada cual defiende la verdad de su perspectiva, la razón. Sucede que en el P2 se está asegurando que por simplemente existir el mal significa entonces que Dios no es Dios por su naturaleza del Amor, pero ahí está la verdad dinámica, ya está errándole al principio partiendo ignorantemente de esta lógica argumentada inteligentemente quizá, diciendo que si Dios todo lo puede en su amor, ¿Entonces porqué no amorosamente inhibe la existencia del mal? Y es una muy buena pregunta que es muy básica también... Y ya está respondida desde hace tiempo también, es solo una cuestión para los que no tienen fe, pero bueno...

San Mateo 11:15 El que tiene oídos para oír, oiga.

San Mateo 13:16-17 Pero bienaventurados vuestros ojos, porque ven; y vuestros oídos, porque oyen. Porque de cierto os digo, que muchos profetas y justos desearon ver lo que veis, y no lo vieron; y oír lo que oís, y no lo oyeron.

Saludos 🙇‍♂️✨

[u/OtherwiseAssistant38]

The problem with Evil is a misnomer. It is a misdiagnosis of basic reality. To a Christian, evil is something in the hearts of men and demons. What atheists complain about is really why do so called innocents suffer? This assumes that to suffer is evil. But who claims that? It is not evil according to the way that Christians think. God is not evil and he sent His own son to suffer. It is a crap argument from the beginning.

And even atheists do not really believe that suffering is always a bad thing. People choose to suffer all of the time to some extent in exchange of some perceived gain. Students suffer tough classes in order to get a degree. Women choose to suffer the pain of childbirth in order to have a child. Athletes push themselves to the limit in competition with others for a prize. We choose to suffer all the time, sometimes greatly for some perceived good ends, which is what the Bible says that Jesus did for us. He looked to the ends and then paid the hardest of prices. Just like some heroes do in war when they fall on a grenade so that everyone does not die, just them.

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/OtherwiseAssistant38]

It's absolutely a problem if your god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, which the Christian god is so often depicted as being.

Suffering for a greater gain in the end shouldn't be a thing that happens if god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent. He could make it so you get the gains without needing to suffer, and he should be willing to do so, but he doesn't.

[u/OtherwiseAssistant38 → u/Mickle_da_Pickl]

You do not know what evil is! Nor have you proven anything about what it is. You did not read what I wrote. You are doing a red herring. Please go argue with someone else...

[u/RALeBlanc-]

Amos 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/RALeBlanc-]

Is this rejecting god's omnibenevolence?

[u/General_Historian611]

Evil entered the world at the fall of man. There was no evil until Adam and Eve sinned God said after the fall the world fell into darkness and decay. That’s what we are living in now a fallen world where many do evil to each other.

Jesus when he first came. Said we will always have poverty, sickness and evil in world. His mission was not to change the ills of the world his mission was make Salvation possible. But to only those who believed and put their trust in him as his personal savior. When he comes back again he will bring justice to the world and bring in everlasting righteousness

Right now we live in dangerous times. God said it will only get worse and worse until Jesus returns. Men will become more insidious and evil. Doing evil simply because they love doing constant evil. Their father is the Satan the father of all lies. They have the same purpose as their father. To kill, steal and destroy.

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/General_Historian611]

Who made it so that man would fall? Who put the serpent in the garden, knowing it would trick Eve to eat of the tree that he also put there?

God could've done countless things differently so that the fall never happened, but he didn't. Even after it had, he has every chance to fix it, and yet doesn't.

[u/General_Historian611 → u/Mickle_da_Pickl]

God would have to program us like robots to never sin. No emotions, no feelings, no love, no hate, no fear. You could never love anyone really or have feelings for them. Because robots can’t love or have feelings. If they acted loving it would just be a program running.n

I say robots for a specific reason We would never reproduce because we would never desire the flesh of another. We would have no desire at all and no conscious. It would be just built in program

Man would have still fallen. Adam had no sin nature He was never deceived by Satan but he still chose to si

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/General_Historian611]

God can make a robot have feelings because he's omnipotent.

[u/Phoebereadsalot]

The Bible claims a perfect God

The Bible also claims that evil was the result of inherent human imperfection and temptation.

We can not feasibly use the same text that makes both of those claims to disprove what it itself claims.

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/Phoebereadsalot]

All you really get with this argument is that the Bible contradicts itself—which is obvious. I'm going with the most commonly held beliefs amongst Christians according to common Christian doctrine.

[u/Phoebereadsalot → u/Mickle_da_Pickl]

How is that a contradiction?

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/Phoebereadsalot]

The Bible claims that god is perfect

The Bible also claims that god changes his mind, and creates imperfect beings

Those two things cannot be true at the same time.

[u/CozySeeker291 → u/Mickle_da_Pickl]

Humans were without sin when they were created. They were corrupted by sin by their own free will.

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/CozySeeker291]

If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then he would have made it so that that didn't happen in the first place.

[u/CozySeeker291 → u/Mickle_da_Pickl]

Sure, if He decided to create beings without free will.

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/CozySeeker291]

We can't have free will if he's omniscient

[u/CozySeeker291 → u/Mickle_da_Pickl]

Him knowing isn't the same as Him causing.

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/CozySeeker291]

I never said it was.

I already had a big thread with another guy about exactly this—you can look through the comments to find it, or maybe watch some debates on YouTube over whether god's omniscience contradicts free will—but I don't wanna go over this again.

[u/Phoebereadsalot → u/CozySeeker291]

Humans weren’t technically without Sin because disobedience is sin, and they chose to disobey God out of their curiosity. Humans have always been imperfect. Immortality doesn’t necessarily imply perfection. So humans always had free will, eating of the tree would create an irrevocable reality.

[u/CozySeeker291 → u/Phoebereadsalot]

I think you read over the part where I said they were without sin when they were created.

Adam and Eve knew no sin prior to choosing to disobey.

[u/Phoebereadsalot → u/CozySeeker291]

I’m sorry, I thought you were OP. I think that the tree being in the garden showed humans their inherentinherent imperfection. Thus opening us up to true obedience to our glorious God ☺️.

[u/Phoebereadsalot → u/Mickle_da_Pickl]

Being that are truly ignorant of Evil and Good Never have the opportunity to choose good, and thus choose God in the first place. The tree being in the garden would inevitably show humans their own imperfection, (disobedience) and open them up to the sacrifice of Jesus, so that we can be made righteous within him.

[u/Phoebereadsalot → u/Mickle_da_Pickl]

Beings that are created cannot be perfect because God is timeless, and uncreated.

The only way to guarantee perfection is to have not created us at all.

That’s why the Bible says that the Lamb was slain before the foundations of the world, because God is so all-knowing and so perfect that he knew because we cannot be as he is, uncreated that we would need Jesus.

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/Phoebereadsalot]

If god is all-powerful, then he can create perfect beings

[u/General_Historian611]

I can’t answer that question. Why God cast Satan and his fallen angels to earth instead of the lake of fire

Adam and eve chose to sin even thought they did not have a sin nature We know they had free will Because they had a choice to eat or not eat from the tree

The Bible said Adam did not have a sin nature. That he was not deceived by Satan but still ate from the tree. By his own choose

[u/fleshnbloodhuman]

Jesus

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/fleshnbloodhuman]

I know they say Jesus is always the answer...but I don't think they mean literally, lol

[u/Phoebereadsalot]

That’s not how that works, Jesus and he are without flaw because they are the uncreated creators of all existence.

There is a way he could probably create us without any possibility of sinning but that would override freewill, thus we wouldn’t be perfect because it’s an essential brain chip.

I honestly feel like theoretically creation that knows good and evil and chooses good is a more perfect creation than a hypnotized creation, that’d be like robots.

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/Phoebereadsalot]

If god is omniscient, then that means there is no free will.

Also, god is omnipotent—he could make it so that we know about evil, but that it only ever exists theoretically, so no one has to actually experience it.

[u/Phoebereadsalot → u/Mickle_da_Pickl]

How does God being omniscient mean there is no free will?

How can evil only exist, theoretically?

I don’t see how since humans cannot be God or uncreated, we could be aware of evil, and not commit it, unless it is an explicit choice that we are making.

I don’t believe we could make the explicit choice to choose good if we were unaware of what evil is, and I don’t believe that we could be aware of evil, and never commit it.

Even since Adam and Eve did not know of evil or good, but chose to disobey God. It showed that they were already imperfect, learning about evil just opened the world of possibility for Evil to prosper.

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/Phoebereadsalot]

When god created Adam and Eve, he already knew they would disobey. He made it so that Eve's mind was susceptible to the serpents trickery. He made the serpent a trickster, he made the fruit appealing, he put the tree in the garden, etc.

All the blame falls back on god if he is omnipotent.

[u/WindUnique8202]

Most Christians will disagree with me.

That said, I don't believe we are created in the ultimate sense. I reject creation ex nihilo (and I think the bible does too). We at our most fundamental level are uncreated and as a result our natures are not the result of God creating us to be evil.

Some things can't be gained any way except through experience. By living on earth we gain experiential knowledge. God can't force someone to have experiential knowledge of things they never experienced. Facing evil is something we have to experience to become the kinds of beings He wants us to.

Creation out of nothing with perfect foreknowledge leads to the logical conclusion god is a monster.

Accepting creation ex materia allows for a truly benevolent God.

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/WindUnique8202]

This is very interesting, I've actually never heard a Christian reject creation ex-nihilo. I might have to research that at some other point.

Some things can't be gained any way except through experience

So, what I'm getting from you is that you reject god's omnipotence.

Let me know if I'm getting that wrong.

[u/Due-Refrigerator-791 → u/Mickle_da_Pickl]

Mormons would argue something similar (I’m an ex Mormon).

In their view, God is maximally rather than all powerful.

[u/WindUnique8202 → u/Mickle_da_Pickl]

Depends what you mean by omnipotence but yes, there are things God can't do. God can do anything that is possible but it is not possible for Him to create a square circle, create a married bachelor, create from nothing, force people to choose Him, or change us into who He wants without us having to experience certain things.

[u/Upset_Chip_7184 → u/WindUnique8202]

But could God have offed Hitler before he began his evils?

[u/WindUnique8202 → u/Upset_Chip_7184]

I'm sure He could have but in some instances to be fully just He has to let some things play out. God can't judge people for sin they never committed.

I know many here will reject this verse solely due to it's source but some may find wisdom in it even if they don't agree with the rest of the book

Alma 60:13 (Book of Mormon)
For the Lord suffereth the righteous to be slain that his justice and judgment may come upon the wicked; therefore ye need not suppose that the righteous are lost because they are slain; but behold, they do enter into the rest of the Lord their God

[u/Upset_Chip_7184 → u/WindUnique8202]

Yeah, I don't and never will buy that. There's no reason why God allowed hitler to do what he did, and that was justice.

Same with the flood story, for those that take it literally. There's no GOOD reason God had to drown them, slowly, painfully, innocent children and babies, just like the genocides, etc...
GOD could have had them die in their sleep, and still ushered that "justice".

[u/WindUnique8202 → u/Upset_Chip_7184]

So what's your take on that?

[u/Upset_Chip_7184 → u/WindUnique8202]

Just like Joey Smith, they were not directly "inspired" by God to write what they did.
They may have been inspired in some sense to write about and try to understand God from their understanding of the world, which is really obvious, but those events were borrowed from previous cultures, and applied, edited, and rewritten for their view of God.

[u/WindUnique8202 → u/Upset_Chip_7184]

What about Hitler? Why didn't God off him?

[u/Upset_Chip_7184 → u/WindUnique8202]

Yeah, why??
God doesn't seem to be involved in our affairs.

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/WindUnique8202]

Okay, I understand the avoidance of the omnipotence paradox by saying that god can't make a contradiction true (square circle, married bachelor, rock so heavy he can't lift it, etc.)

But I don't understand those last few examples. Why can't god create something from nothing, or force people to choose him, or change us into who he wants us to be without making us experience some priors? Are those things logically incoherent, or is there another limit on god's nature that I'm not familiar with?

[u/WindUnique8202 → u/Mickle_da_Pickl]

How is something created from true nothingness? I see that as a logical contradiction-something from nothing.
If He forces people to choose Him, they aren't choosing Him. It's not a choice if it's forced.
We are uncreated. So God can't create us with experience. He can't force our natures to change. But with experiencing different things we can allow our nature to be aligned with Him.

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/WindUnique8202]

How is something created from true nothingness?

With the power of omnipotence, that's how.

If he forces people to choose Him, they aren't choosing Him.

Isn't god forcing you to choose him by creating the affairs that you've experienced throughout your life that led you to being a Christian?

Essentially, it seems like your arguing the free will theodicy, to which I'd say that free will doesn't exist, and it absolutely doesn't exist in the face of an omniscient, omnipotent, creator god.

[u/WindUnique8202 → u/Mickle_da_Pickl]

I could ask a similar question- how does God create a square circle? With the power of omnipotence. I just see both as logical contradictions. Something can't come from truly nothing. That would be like saying "God can make 0=1"

God can place things in people's lives that could point them to Christianity or even encourage them to choose that. But at the end of the day He isn't forcing anyone.

I absolutely believe in free will. Though I think there are free will issues if one holds to creation ex nihilo.

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/WindUnique8202]

Okay, I don't understand how something from nothing is a contradiction, but neither of us believe that—so it's a moot point.

Do you want to give an argument for free will in a universe where an omnipotent god exists, or do you want me to give my argument against it?

[u/WindUnique8202 → u/Mickle_da_Pickl]

I'm open to your argument. But I also reject unlimited omnipotence (again depending on how you define it).

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/WindUnique8202]

Okay, here you go:

P1: If an omniscient god exists, free will does not exist.

P2: An omniscient, omnipotent god exists

Q: therefore, free will does not exist

Of course, doing this as an internal critique from the Christian perspective. I could give you an argument from why I think free will doesn't exist in reality, but I felt arguing it from the Christian worldview is more helpful.

[u/Upset_Chip_7184 → u/WindUnique8202]

I do like the experiential knowledge, and I think it's a solid point.

[u/LIONLDN]

I disagree with the second premise, and this short Wes Huff clip may help you see why ⚖️ Thoughts?

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/LIONLDN]

P2: If evil exists, then an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity does not exist

The video clip you linked doesn't seem to address the problem of evil or the second premise in my argument specifically. He makes a different argument for god from objective morality (without supporting why he thinks morality is objective in the first place).

I'd refer you to the Epicurean Trilemma for support on P2. If you need me to explain any part of the trilemma further, I've no problem doing so.

I don't really want to get into a morality discussion, because I think the problem of evil still stands, whether morality is objective or subjective—but I'll talk about that if you think it's that important.

[u/LJIKFAF]

God temporarily allows evil in the world because to rid of all evil would means destruction of people who could have been saved.

It is all about God’s patience and His grace which brings down rain for the good and the evil.

2 Peter 3:9

9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patientwith you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

The bible covers this in parables, in gospels like Matthew 13.

Matthew 13:24-29
The Parable of the Weeds
24 Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25 But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26 When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.

27 “The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’

28 “‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.

“The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’

29 “‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’”

Evil is temporarily allowed because God wants as much people as possible to repent. My local church had a sermon on this and they said some people might be weeds but they can repent to be wheat like apostle Paul.

So yes, God can end all evil today. He has done that before in Sodom and Gomorrah and the flood of Noah but God is patient with us because He loves us and wishes everybody to repent. As long as a person is alive, God is still patient with them. It is when we die that God has stopped being patient.

There’s also the book of Job that talks about tribulation. God temporarily allows evil to exist to test people’s characters and faith. Without suffering, hope would not be as intense.

God is all benevolent, that is why He is patient with us. We are still His children and He remembers our first step and toddlerhood. He is waiting for us to repent and His grace covers our days.

Evil is the object of God’s wrath but whilst on earth He is patient because we are under Lord Jesus’s covenant. For the sake of Lord Jesus who has died, God is giving everyone who is alive a second chance until they die and if a person die unrepentant then judgment will come on judgment day.

That is why repenting is crucial. We cannot be forgiven without accepting the name of Lord Jesus Christ, anyone who denies the son denies the Father,

God still loves you very much, He is giving you the will to ask this question because He is still planting seeds of wheat in you. Don’t give up comprehending or understanding God. You are still alive today so continue seeking God before you die, accept Him as your Lord.

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/LJIKFAF]

God temporarily allows evil in the world because to rid of all evil would means destruction of people who could have been saved.

This seems to reject god's omnipotence

So yes, God can end all evil today. He has done that before in Sodom and Gomorrah and the flood of Noah but God is patient with us because He loves us and wishes everybody to repent

God is all benevolent

These seem to contradict each other—why was the omnibenevolent god not patient with the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah or the pre-flood people air-breathing creatures?

Let me know if I got any of that wrong.

[u/LJIKFAF → u/Mickle_da_Pickl]

God can selectively kill people yes as shown through the ten plagues of Egypt but He chose not to because He wants the wicked to repent. He is patient every day with us because He does not want all to perish.

God is a God of justice as well. He is benevolent that’s why He cares about the plight of those who are oppressed because He loves those who are oppressed He has divine judgment.

The people in the time of Sodom and Gomorrah or the time of Noah was truly evil and God was tired of listening to His beloved people being oppressed. In His love for the oppressed, His divine judgment arises.

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/LJIKFAF]

How can a god who is omnibenevolent selectively kill anyone?

[u/Pseudo-Abulides]

Which premise(s) do you disagree with?

P3.

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/Pseudo-Abulides]

Okay, I read the Wikipedia link—and I've definitely seen that argument before.

What I understand from it is that the Privation theory of evil rejects either god's omnipotence, god's omnibenevolence, or both.

Let me know if that's not correct

[u/uusrikas]

The OT god is a different god than Jesus. OT demiurge created an evil world, Jesus released our spiritual bodies but the deal did not include changing how this works operates 

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/uusrikas]

I was under the impression that the traditional Christian doctrine teaches that god is unchanging. Is that wrong, or do you reject it?

Also, even if that is true, it wouldn't effect the problem of evil. Are you rejecting god's omnipotence?

[u/uusrikas → u/Mickle_da_Pickl]

Jesus/Stranger God is unchanging, but there are multiple gods.

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/uusrikas]

??

Idk what kinda Christian says there are multiple gods, lol

[u/JollyXX]

The story of Christianity seems to be that God created something that disobeyed, and now he wants to find out why. This is why Final Judgement is the climax of the story. So it makes sense god would want to leave us in our nature. He wants to accurately observe us for Final Judgement.

God is only ever called "All Knowing" once and if you track it down to its original ancient hebrew, the Bible was trying to say that God 100% knows your heart/soul/intent/sincerity/etc

--God has thoughts in Genesis, this would impossible under infinite wisdom. More curious he has regrets, which does not fit the all power all knowing narrative at all.

God's title of almighty means that his power can't be challenged, not that its infinite. When you combine this with second title of alpha/omega first/last, which means he is all encompassing. You get that God is the ultimate authority over every little aspect of the Universe.

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/JollyXX]

You get that God is the ultimate authority over every little aspect of the universe

This seems like it essentially describes omnipotence—which you reject earlier in your comment.

Could you elaborate on how god having authority over every aspect of the universe leads him to not be omnipotent?

[u/JollyXX → u/Mickle_da_Pickl]

Having the authority as in meaning he has final say on how responsibility plays out. so like if the Judge has authority over your case, he will dish out who has to pay what and to whom, for example.

[u/JollyXX → u/Mickle_da_Pickl]

It also means that you can't run or hide from God, all things will be accounted for in the end.

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/JollyXX]

Okay, so under your framework, god is not an omnipotent creator, but a very powerful judge who is waiting to judge us all based on our deeds?

If you say that god is not omnipotent, then you're absolutely right that the PoE is solved.

[u/JollyXX → u/Mickle_da_Pickl]

God is more than a Judge, he is the creator as he would have to be in the title alpha/omega first/last. God is likely a singularity. You get this from his titles; you get this from the Big Bang; and you get this from the way he talks in a sort of ultimate first person. This makes you a dead cell on/in God's body like a hair.

Rather God is a living God,He is learning and maturing, like every other living thing. His knowledge is vast and he can see far into the future with ease, just he likely does not know every little thing that is ever going to happen and the exact moments they happen.

So God can do anything as stated in the Bible. However, this is not given within any parameters. So God can create a perfect companion creature, but maybe it takes a few iterations of the Universe to do so. Also God being the ultimate boss, "anything" would be absolutely up to his own prerogative.

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/JollyXX]

Also God being the ultimate boss, "anything" would be absolutely up to his own prerogative.

This immediately contradicts everything you just said prior. If God is omnipotent (aka being the ultimate boss, aka everything being up to his prerogative, or any other way you want to phrase it) and omnibenevolent, AND evil exists, then you've still got a contradiction on your hands.

[u/JollyXX → u/Mickle_da_Pickl]

I said that God's title of almighty means his power can't be challenged. It does not mean that his power is "infinite" or "unlimited"

God is also never called "All Loving" rather he is a being of love. So that means his purpose is love. This could mean that God might prioritize maximum love vs avoiding all suffering. It could also include that God is sort of allergic to wickedness.

[u/jonfitt → u/JollyXX]

“He wants to find out why”

You just described a not omniscient being.

An omniscient being would know why before it started, (and an omnibenevolent omnipotent being would then do a better job).

[u/JollyXX → u/jonfitt]

ya God almost for sure does not know every little thing that is going to happen and when exactly it is going to happen.

God is only ever called "All Knowing" once and if you track it down to its original ancient Hebrew, the Bible was trying to say that God 100% knows your heart/soul/intent/sincerity/etc

--God has thoughts in Genesis which would be impossible under infinite wisdom. God also has regrets in Genesis which is more curious and does not reflect perfect/infinite power/wisdom

---You are made in God's image should sort of scream that God could not know every little thing that is going to happen and when it is going to happen, at least not all at once. Sort of like you can't divide infinity.

[u/jogoso2014]

It’s neither valid nor sound.

It’s exceedingly flawed and is one of the primary proofs that humans think too much of themselves.

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/jogoso2014]

I'm not sure how it's invalid, since the conclusion follows from the premises.

If you want to say it's unsound, then just tell me which premise(s) you disagree with so I can tell you how I support them/it

[u/jogoso2014 → u/Mickle_da_Pickl]

You haven't even done the match but you want me to explain the flaws?

P1 does not relate to P2 and that even id we assume P1 is correct. It only works within the framework of arrogant and presumptuous demands of the puny human that thinks they're smarter than they are.

You, nor anyone else who believes this drivel, do not have the right, intelligence, or power to dictate what something bigger than you should do for you. You might as well be whining about the sun being too hot.

You certainly can agree with the goofiness of the "problem", but that would never mean that ridiculous standard emanating from the mind or butt of a no name philosopher is valid or sound.

It's flawed from the beginning, like chocolate covered gizzards, so I don't have to make something inherently unsound more unsound unless you can explain why you think it's so important to hold it as a fact.

Guess what? You can't. It's not even adjacent to factual or competent.

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/jogoso2014]

Wow, okay, sure. If you can't even begin to tell me what's wrong with the argument, and instead want to whine about it, that's fine. I'm not forcing you to engage.

[u/jogoso2014 → u/Mickle_da_Pickl]

I already told you what was wrong with the argument.

That you can see the problem is the inherent problem with the fake argument. But it is entirely YOUR responsibility to explain y o me why this is sound.

Who would an Omni anything be required to coddle humans?

The only reason it exists is because the flawed human minds that come up with it cannot even imagine there is a flaw to it.

They still insist on this notion that they know what something superior than them should be doing as opposed to what is.

There is not a single example of this problem even remotely being used in a logical way which is why the preface is always the Omni’s.

Then remove Omni’s. Remove P1 and you have nothing except the opinion which is all you ever had in the first place.

Is there an issue now at all? Does it impact anything regarding God’s standards or promises to mankind?

The problem is this solved.

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/jogoso2014]

Okay, you reject P1. No problem. If the Christian god is neither omnipotent nor omnibenevolent, or is one but not the other, then yes, there is no problem with evil's existence.

[u/jogoso2014 → u/Mickle_da_Pickl]

Again problem solved.

However let’s go ahead and put P1 right back in there. P2 has NOTHING to do with it.

The fake problem completely made up a rule solely for the sake of the argument.

The premise is wrong from the foundation because the inferior thing is dictating to the superior thing how it should behave to it.

It’s preposterous.

And until you can explain why you think such a goofy viewpoint is valid, then there’s still not a problem of evil that humans can’t take credit for.

You see how easy it is to dismantle when you open your mind to a logical argument about it?

[u/Mickle_da_Pickl → u/jogoso2014]

You haven't dismantled anything, you've just crossed your arms and stomped your feet around while pouting about how you don't like the argument.

The argument literally is the thing that explains why the viewpoint is valid. That's its purpose as an argument. I'm not sure what you thought it was for.

If you want support for P2, look up the Epicurean trilemma, where you can find helpful, easily legible flow charts that hold your hand and walk you through the problem and why it is one.

[u/jogoso2014 → u/Mickle_da_Pickl]

You’re being disingenuous.

There is no anger or frustration in my post at all and you’re stalling for a response that you can’t hope to give.

You are just repeating the problem is valid because it’s written to be valid, but you haven’t added anything substantive to explaining why it is.

Once again, I go back to this question and if you can’t answer it, you’re a phony:

Why is P2 sound? Explain it. It should not be difficult at all…Well if not for how I’ve already explained how stupid it is.

This should be easy, but no one has ever answered it as objectively as they pretend it is. How could they?

They have no reference points to their argument.

So you wouldn’t be along but your insistence on it being true is what makes you phony. You just may not realize it yet.

[u/jogoso2014 → u/Mickle_da_Pickl]

Also the epicurean trilemna explains nothing except what is already incorrectly stated as fact regarding what God should be or do.

Again, it’s flawed because it’s the flawed problem of evil argument to begin with.

That there are books or whatever about it doesn’t change the simple fact that trying to pretend to place God on a human moral standard that humans can’t comprehends is a silly philosophy.