Talk:Problem of evil/Archive 3

Theory of Evil
Many have claimed what evil is and that god is evil. but consider this if there is a god and what he has created he classes as good,then if what we consider evil, in his eyes may be good as he is the judge of good and evil.

For example we may consider mass homicide wrong and evil but if god considers it good then it is good thus asking how can we judge good and evil. The only thing that gives us an idea of god sintentions is religion. Altough osme religion promotes thing that other religions say is wrong so we cannot know what good and evil truly is.

sorry for the spelling mistakes on the previous theory

^unsigned post^


 * Whether God's concept of evil differs from our own is irrelevant; you can replace every incidence of the word "good" (or "evil") in the article with "good (or evil) as defined by the speaker" (in this case, humanity). If God considers our concept of evil to actually be good, and vice versa, it makes no difference, because he is still doing/being what we call evil. It's mere semantics. The clear implication in Christianity is that God is benevolent as we perceive benevolence. See, we invented the word to describe the concept, and if God doesn't fit the concept, then the word doesn't apply - get it? I hope (but doubt) this made some sense. This is what happens when you get a right-brain trying to put thoughts into coherent language. It makes perfect sense in my head, I swear. Succubus MacAstaroth 08:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It makes sense to me. If someone argues that their God is "good" in some way beyond our understanding for subjecting good people of other religions to eternal torture I have no problem in saying "your God's good is my evil". -- Q Chris 12:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Problem of evil, I have one explination read the bottom

 * 1) God exists. (premise)
 * 2) God is omnipotent and omniscient. (premise — or true by definition of the word "God")
 * 3) God is all-benevolent. (premise — or true by definition)
 * 4) All-benevolent beings are opposed to all evil. (premise — or true by definition)
 * 5) All-benevolent beings who can eliminate evil will do so immediately when they become aware of it.(premise)
 * 6) God is opposed to all evil. (conclusion from 3 and 4)
 * 7) God can eliminate evil completely and immediately. (conclusion from 2)
 * 8) Whatever the end result of suffering is, God can bring it about by ways that do not include suffering. (conclusion from 2)
 * 9) God has no reason not to eliminate evil. (conclusion from 7.1)
 * 10) God has no reason not to act immediately. (conclusion from 5)
 * 11) God will eliminate evil completely and immediately. (conclusion from 6, 7.2 and 7.3)
 * 12) Evil exists, has existed, and probably will always exist. (premise)

but the evil comes back as a result of our own actions and the devil's effect on us. God let us on the other hand choose between good or evil because it is the part of free will. That is also why evil continusly comes back and thats why we can draw parallells to the sentence that life is also in our own hands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.217.177.87 (talk)
 * 1) Items 8 and 9 are contradictory, but there are explinations. For example God eliminates the evil


 * I removed these edits from this article and from Talk:God. This is original research and not allowed on wikipedia.  The logical argument as stated in the article is of importance philosophically and historically; please do not modify it with your own ideas.  bikeable (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It should be pointed out... that what is considered evil is subjective
I mean, some consider masturbation do be evil.--Steven X (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh wait, this was pointed out in the archives, but still, the word subjective should make it's way into the article somehow.--Steven X (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)