The existence of evil

[Gray]

On 11/2/2017 at 10:58 AM, pogi said:

No, starving and suffering is not a moral wrong in and of itself. 

Then it appears we have very, very different ideas of morality. If you applied yours in practical life, I think you would be justly condemned for a serious moral transgression. But of course you wouldn't do that because I think your practical morality must be higher than the theoretical morality you are positing here.

Edited November 4, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

On 11/2/2017 at 11:49 AM, smac97 said:

I see malice there.  I see no conceivable motive except malice.

I do not attribute malice to God.

What you are describing is a matter of life and death.  By analogy, you would need to impute onto God a plan to deliberately and maliciously deprive His child of existence or salvation.  That is the analog, and it doesn't work.

The better analogy would be this: "Your child is hungry at 10:00 at night, and asks for a candy bar.  You offer her a slice of toast instead.  You have the power to giver her a candy bar, and yet you don't give it to her, allowing her to to choose between a slice of toast or being a little hungry until the morning."  Do I see "evil" there?  Nope.  I see a parent who knows what is good for the child, and what the child can and cannot handle, and should and should not have.

Thanks,

-Smac

A child is infected with an excruciatingly painful disease. The village has no effective medicine, and furthermore not enough food. The child slowly and agonizingly dies over the course of months, at the age of five.

Is this situation similar or dissimilar to a kid wanting a candy bar at 10pm? Is that how God's non-intervention is to be justified?

Edited November 4, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

23 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

This is the classic problem addressed by Lehi in 2 Nephi 2:11-29,

God has no choice in the matter,.  The law must be obeyed.  Even in the face of horrific evil and suffering, as we see worldwide right now.  Just in Africa, for example, millions are dying of hunger & thirst today, and the few aid workers available will be lucky to save a few.  The same is true of the unfortunate Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh.  I can assure you that things will only get worse.  This is a test of our resolve to help.  To do righteousness.  We certainly have the resources to save our brothers, but will we?

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2017/march/16-million-people-at-risk-of-dying-as-famine-grips-3-african-nations .

We have the resources now, but we didn't have the resources 500 years ago. What was God's excuse then?

I don't say that to try to accuse God. Just illustrating the problem.  Human agency can not prevent all or most evils. 

Edited November 4, 2017 by Gray

[Bobbieaware]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

Then it appears we have very, very different ideas of morality. If you applied yours in practical life, I think you would be justly condemned for a serious moral transgression. But of course you wouldn't do that because I think your practical morality must be higher than the theoretical morality you are positing here.

Let’s suppose a lone someone is stranded on a barren mountain through no fault of his own and the unfortunate fellow ends up starving to death as a consequence. Where is the moral wrong and who is the responsible party?

[pogi]

19 minutes ago, Gray said:

Then it appears we have very, very different ideas of morality. If you applied yours in practical life, I think you would be justly condemned for a serious moral transgression. But of course you wouldn't do that because I think your practical morality must be higher than the theoretical morality you are positing here.

I think you are confusing the argument.  Are you really accusing people who suffer of being immoral?

I stand by what I said, “there is nothing morally wrong about suffering in and of itself.” If there was, those who suffer are immoral.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Yes, but of course in that case how can a toddler know their parent is actually good? Their parent could be an evil serial killer, for all they know.

The only way the toddler knows is through their continual experience with their parents and their parents interacting with them.  I think that's true for us with God as well.  

[Gray]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I think you are confusing the argument.  Are you really accusing people who suffer of being immoral?

I stand by what I said, “there is nothing morally wrong about suffering in and of itself.” If there was, those who suffer are immoral.

The person who allows such suffering to continue when they have the power to intervene has committed moral transgression.  Surely you understood that to be my meaning  

[Gray]

29 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The only way the toddler knows is through their continual experience with their parents and their parents interacting with them.  I think that's true for us with God as well.  

But they still can't really know if their ability to discern is so limited. A serial killer can appear kind but inwardly they're not.  So if we're like toddlers (a common argument in these discussions) even more serious theological problems are raised 

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

Let’s suppose a lone someone is stranded on a barren mountain through no fault of his own and the unfortunate fellow ends up starving to death as a consequence. Where is the moral wrong and who is the responsible party?

The moral wrong could lie with God in that case. That's the problem of evil. 

[bluebell]

25 minutes ago, Gray said:

But they still can't really know if their ability to discern is so limited. A serial killer can appear kind but inwardly they're not.  So if we're like toddlers (a common argument in these discussions) even more serious theological problems are raised 

No, there is a level of faith involved as well.  Eventually a sure knowledge is possible with enough experience, but not until more maturity is gained.  I'm not sure though why that would be considered an 'even more serious theological problem'?

[bluebell]

30 minutes ago, Gray said:

The person who allows such suffering to continue when they have the power to intervene has committed moral transgression.   

Who says?  That seems like an assumption that hasn't been proven.

Edited November 4, 2017 by bluebell

[pogi]

43 minutes ago, Gray said:

The person who allows such suffering to continue when they have the power to intervene has committed moral transgression.  Surely you understood that to be my meaning  

I knew what you meant - but once again, that is not what I am talking about.  It appears that you didn’t understand what I meant.  Some people insist that suffering is “an evil”.  That simply doesn’t make sense!

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

The moral wrong could lie with God in that case. That's the problem of evil. 

It does not lie with God. Existence can only be predicated upon the immutable reality of there being an everlasting state of total and diametric opposition in all things . The genius of God is understood when we realizein the wonderful fact that he knows exactly what to do —or what not to do — in each and ever situation, and this in order to maximized the possibilities of spiritual growth and eternal happiness for each of his spirit children.

Because we do not now possess hiis perfect knowledge and wisdom some are prone to imagine that God allows evil things to occur because he is either callous or indifferent toward our suffering, but nothing could be further from the truth. The reason why he allows evil things to occur is because his perfect wisdom enables  him to know FOR CERTAIN that greater eternal good and greater eternal happiness will be eventually be enjoyed by his children if they pass through these experiences, even though in the short run somemay not understand the whys and the wherefores of evil and suffering because in the fallen state we do not share his perfect eternal perspective and vision. 

24 He doeth not anything save it be for the benefit of the world; for he loveth the world, even that he layeth down his own life that he may draw all men unto him.

Therefore, if the man on the barren mountain starves to death because God does not intervene to rescue, we can know that in the long run it was the RIGHT THING for GOD TO DO.

To prove to us that such a state of things is absolutely and unavoidably necessary in order to maximize our chances for spiritual growth and happiness, God himself cam to earth and drank the bitter cup, even the cup of the wrath of God which was filled to the brim with an infinite and eternal measure of all thing evil. Christ experienced the full measure of the negative side of existence and we are commanded to follow in his footsteps and suffer along with him so that we might also be glorified with him. “The is no otherway....” 

7 And if thou shouldst be cast into the pit, or into the hands of murderers, and the sentence of death passed upon thee; if thou be cast into the deep; if the billowing surge conspire against thee; if fierce winds become thine enemy; if the heavens gather blackness, and all the elements combine to hedge up the way; and above all, if the very jaws of hell shall gape open the mouth wide after thee, know thou, my son, that all these things shall give thee experience,  (D&C 122)

Refusing to believe what the Lord and his prophets have plainly revealed to us so that we might share, at least in part, in his eternal perspective as to the reason why the full measure of evil MUST EXIST is evidence of either an inability or, even worse, an unwillingness to accept what is plainly revealed in the word of God. There is no need to constantly rehash and debate these things because God’s peaceable answers are available to all who are willing to learn and internalize them. Those who refuse to accept God’s clearly stated reason as to why things are the way they are will be numbered among those who are forever learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.

 

Edited November 4, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

We have the resources now, but we didn't have the resources 500 years ago. What was God's excuse then?

I don't say that to try to accuse God. Just illustrating the problem.  Human agency can not prevent all or most evils. 

That doesn't obviate the test in the days of our probation.  We are a human family living in a natural universe with natural gods.  We can only learn by dealing with nature on her terms, not by shifting responsibility.  Evil is a natural part of the universe, extant even in our fairy tales.  Deal with it.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Yes, but each God is ultimately brought into being by a universe.

No.  Each god is gnolaum, exists by nature, and is not brought into being by an abstraction.  A god can neither be created nor destroyed.  Each one is eternal, having no beginning and no end.  That is Mormon cosmology.

Quote

I think there's a long way to go before any theory is able to topple the Big Bang.

Even astrophysicists who accept the Big Bang also posit an existence before the Big Bang, but that is a singularity beyond which they cannot see.  And that doesn't even deal with the multiverse and extradimensionality.  You are thinking far too small, Gray.

Edited November 4, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

But in LDS theology he DOES impose his will.

I don’t believe that is true. The premises and promises of the Atonement are that he does not impose his will on us. If he did, we would not be accountable for our actions.

Edited November 4, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

On 11/3/2017 at 7:38 AM, clarkgoble said:

Well the latter is due to free will which I think we can establish as necessary. However outside of their place in the ecosystem, I think worrying about the role of mosquitos, fleas and other such things is a good question. Likewise pimples. I know you are meaning them to be a criticism, but lets say God gives dreams to many people 5000 years ago about the printing press, about the germ theory of disease, and about common antibiotics. If we're free today and have sufficient suffering to fulfill this plan of salvation then giving knowledge about these things along with commandments regarding racism and sexism would have made everyone's life much, much, much better for billions of people. Again all he has to do is add these in to the Law of Moses.

So while I suspect you meant to ridicule I think this actually is a strong argument - one I certainly don't have a good answer for.

It seems to me you are arguing that God could be a better God if he provided for us a stress-illness-inconvenience-tragedy-bad stuff-free existence. Perhaps we all would be better off if nothing ever went wrong, but I don't think that is a good thing. So much of what- maybe all- we learn and accomplish comes from having to deal with adversity. Folks 5000 years ago dealt with their problems. We deal with ours. It’s how we make progress.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

The moral wrong could lie with God in that case. That's the problem of evil. 

I just find it amusing when humans try to impose morality upon God.  It seems so backwards and ridiculous - as if we know better! 

According to the Mormonism, instead of removing suffering, God chose to suffer with us- with ALL OF US.  Would an immoral being do such a thing?  You might have a point if God selfishly ignored our suffering.  The only logical explanation for him to suffer with us instead of saving us (and himself!) from suffering, is that there is a good reason and purpose for it all.  That is the only thing that makes sense!  

Also, you cannot apply the morality that we are expected to live by to God.  His ways are not our ways.  For example, we are commanded to forgive all, but God will forgive whom he will forgive.  Therefore, what is immoral for us under current law, is not necessarily immoral for God. 

 

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

The person who allows such suffering to continue when they have the power to intervene has committed moral transgression.  

Is that absolutely true?

We can always do more, right?  We can donate all that we have to those who suffer, so are you suggesting that extreme asceticism is the only moral way to live?  Because according to your statement above, anything else would be a "moral transgression".  

[changed]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

The person who allows such suffering to continue when they have the power to intervene has committed moral transgression.  Surely you understood that to be my meaning  

I agree - to allow suffering is morally wrong.  For me, the trouble with believing god to be loving and all-powerful come from:

- the degree of suffering. Concepts can be humanely taught.

- the disparity of the suffering, Why does one person live a sheltered life, while others live in horror?

- the lack of support - the refugee child who has never been taught of god, who is left completely alone and alienated.

- failure of suffering to result in growth for those who do not reach the celestial kingdom.  (Anyone who does not reach the highest kingdom I think is fully justified in blaming god - for not giving them the correct experiences, and not giving them the correct education they needed) the "end justifies the means" argument is nullified if "the end" is not achieved.  

 

 

 

Edited November 4, 2017 by changed

[changed]

28 minutes ago, pogi said:

Is that absolutely true?

We can always do more, right?  We can donate all that we have to those who suffer, so are you suggesting that extreme asceticism is the only moral way to live?  Because according to your statement above, anything else would be a "moral transgression".  

This is not about what we as humans can do, it is about what god - as a supposedly all-powerful being, can do.  

[pogi]

12 minutes ago, changed said:

This is not about what we as humans can do, it is about what god - as a supposedly all-powerful being, can do.  

Yes, it IS about what we can do if the question is, “is it immoral to allow suffering If one has the power to intervene?”  That applies to US too.  Or are you suggesting that we are powerless, or that the laws of morality do not apply to you or something?

Edited November 4, 2017 by pogi

[changed]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

Yes, it IS about what we can do if the question is, “is it immoral to allow suffering If one has the power to intervene?”  That applies to US too.  Or are you suggesting that we are powerless, or that the laws of morality do not apply to you or something?

These are two different topics - I started this thread, and would prefer to concentrate on god's role in all of this.  you are avoiding answering god's role, and the plan's problems.

[pogi]

23 minutes ago, changed said:

These are two different topics - I started this thread, and would prefer to concentrate on god's role in all of this.  you are avoiding answering god's role, and the plan's problems.

I am not avoiding anything.  I am trying to understand what you think is moral or not.  Is it always and absolutely immoral, or not, to allow someone to suffer when one has the power to intervene?  My question is, is that absolutely true? Without knowing the answer to that question, and how it applies to us, how can you judge God?  The concept of judging God makes me laugh!

I have already explained God’s role in suffering through the atonement.  To which I hear no response from anyone.  How could there NOT be a purpose to it if God himself chose to suffer with us instead of alleviating all suffering?

Edited November 4, 2017 by pogi

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, changed said:

These are two different topics - I started this thread, and would prefer to concentrate on god's role in all of this.  you are avoiding answering god's role, and the plan's problems.

It seems like first you have to prove there is a problem with the plan before being able to answer it.  I think that's what Pogi is trying to do. Flesh out the differences between actual problems and problems caused by unproven assumptions.  There is no way to talk about the plan's problems without first defining what is a problem and what isn't.