View Single Post
Old 11-28-2010, 04:15 PM
Hassan_Descartes_AbdAllah's Avatar
Hassan_Descartes_AbdAllah Offline
Amateur Trainer
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: God's Green Earth
Posts: 61
Default Re: The problem of Evil

Does it? God clearly wants evil to exist. Someone who wants evil to exist must to evil, to some extent. Whatever God wants to accomplish, he can do it without evil. The fact that he is doing it with evil, means that he wants evil. Whatever he wants to do, he wants people to suffer, to be miserable, to starve and be tormented.
Well I disagree with the premise that someone who wants evil to exists must be evil to a certain degree. I gave reasons for God to allow evil on earth, punishment and test(among other reasons perhaps, God knows best). Now a Just Judge would want punishment to be carried out on a criminal. This is a fair implementation of Justice. Would this judge be called evil? I dun think so. Similarly, the evil that results from a test, this is coming from the mindset of a concerned father who would wants to test his children whether they are truly virtuous or not. While the results are evil, the motives are not. Evil has been willed for noble reasons. In other words, God intends evil for noble purposes. Had God allowed evil for evil's sake, then your argument would have held true. But that is simply not the case.

You seem to be saying that God cannot make impossibilities realities. But is this not, by definition, limiting God's power? Omnipotence is the ability to make anything happen, period. If there are things God cannot do, then he is not omnipotent. If he is not omnipotent, then the problem of evil is resolved. If you are indeed arguing that God cannot make the logically impossible possible, then you are arguing that God is not omnipotent as the term itself is defined, while using some other definition of omnipotence that is not the actual definition of the term itself. There is nothing that does not come under the banner of "omnipotence", impossible or possible.
You seem to be suggesting again and again, that "things" can be divided into two sections, possible and impossible. I completely disagree with this. I hold that "things" which are contradictory to rationalism are not "things" to begin with. They are merely empty words. Although we might say things like "married bachelor" or "dry water", fact is these are not things. These are words, meaningless words. Something which isnt a "thing" to begin with would not come under the banner of omnipotence or even potence. The main difference between our stance is: I say X is Un-doable, meaning you cant "do" X at all (consider this example: Can you "do" bread? no you cannot, thats a noun, nouns are un-doable. Similarly things against rationalism are un-doable the same way, the verb "do" can only be attached before them if we are concerned about grammar and syntac and not meaning). Therefore potence, i.e. ability to do stuff, would have nothing to do with it. On the other hand, you are claiming the un-doables are, well, do-able. This is an oxymoron if I ever heard one. These would not come under the banner of omnipotence.
All human evil comes from a single cause, man's inability to sit still in a room. - Blaise Pascal
Reply With Quote