Talk:Problem of evil

Contents WP:SPLIT from Problem of evil and moved to Religious responses to the problem of evil
This article has been split into two articles due to length. Sections 4 and 5 have been copied and moved to Religious responses to the problem of evil. I will now add a short summary of it and a link to it to this article. Please go there and edit as you see fit! Original history of editing remains here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Problem of evil is now at 8400 words - well within the limits. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Unsolicited advice
What's the distinction between the sections "Religious responses" vs "Responses, defences and theodicies"? Ideally, sections should not overlap. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey  buidhe ! Defences and theodicies are listed under definitions, and that's all they are; they are simply defined, no arguments are presented. That's where they belong.
 * Religious responses included at one time, all the religious arguments, which are really all the arguments there are against the problem of evil, that are already stated in the article by their p[roper titles. Having a separate section for religious responses meant all the same things being restated, which was not only redundant, but was also misleading - as if 'religious responses' were something separate from what is already discussed. So I split the article, and religious responses is now a separate article. If you think it should be removed entirely, I have no objection. Perhaps leave the link to it? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 *  buidhe  Hey, don't do anything radical yet. Your question has prompted me to do something with the organization of this article that makes it clearer that there are secular responses to the problem as well as religious ones. That differentiation is not clear. Most of what's in this article is religious responses, and it shouldn't be left that way. Our readers need more. Perhaps some rearranging and then reabsorbing some of Religious responses back into this article will be appropriate, but there should be a secular section and a religious section, and there isn't. I will work on that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , That's good, I wasn't really clear on there being both secular and religious responses to the problem of evil so I'm glad you're clarifying it. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 *  buidhe  See what you think now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

revert at
I am aware 'that that' construction is grammatical, it's just rather ungainly in written form. It distracts from the logic as it draws attention to itself instead of the defining clause which follows it; 'that that' leads to confusion over meaning, and most sentences benefit from being reworded to avoid it. Its use is declining. It's inelegant. I won't get into an edit war over this, but surely you can see that particular sentence could be stated better. How about "Supporters of the free will explanation state that altering the logical natural outcomes of choices would no longer embody free will."? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Rearranging to better recognize secular views
I am going to post a major reconstruction tag on this article in order to add a section on secular responses, and make it clearer that the detailed arguments section that is already there are all religious responses. This will require moving things around in the rest of the article as well, so it is a major overhaul, but it needs to be clearer who says what and why, and organization is the key. I will wait a bit to see if there is anyone who has any major objections to reorganizing up front, but of course, objection may not come till after, and that's perfectly fine too. Please don't be quick to revert, post here and I will accommodate all objections as best I can. Normally I would post those changes here first, but there is just too much. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC) See "Unsolicited advice" above. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay, I think I am done now. Thank you for your patience. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for clarifying secular vs. religious responses, that's helpful. However, now we have an issue where content is duplicated, for example there are two sections about "Evil as the absence of good (privation theory)". (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Au contraire mon frere  buidhe  - there are two sections titled the same - is that wrong? - but they are not duplicates.Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Addition of a section on Hermeneutics
The Biblical texts are narratives of how people experienced the intervention / presence of God in their lives. Which is why we have to be careful when translating texts like the Bible into legal logical documents. The texts describe how evil disrupts the relationship with God. However it is not a philosophical abstract evil (influence of Greek philosophical thought). It is not something binary, but more relational. The texts do not connect it to Satan but to the ability to rebel to one's own detriment. 105.225.223.189 (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

"Protest Atheism" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Protest Atheism and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 22:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)