If God is Good why is there so much suffering? My Answer!

Post Reply New Topic

If God is good, why is there so much evilness in this world (since God created this world)?

Either God is non-existent, or God is evil himself. But if God is evil himself, that doesn't take into account for the good things in life.
In short, we are usually left with the "atheist-response" of concluding that there is no god at all, wether it be a omnipotent good or evil god.

I have a third solution. It's already been addressed by others:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil#Free_will

It's the free will argument.

In short, it goes like this:

God is good, so he created the world, where everybody has the potential to choose goodness.
People have free will. With free will, it too implies that we have the potential to choose evil. And we use that to a large extent.

Without free will, we will not be able to choose God, and God could as well make a world where everything is good from the beginning.
The problem with such a paradisical world, is we won't know evil. We only know goodness.

I'd like to describe this visually:

Draw a dot on a piece of white paper.
Where is the dot? It's where you placed it, you say. But where exactly it is, you cannot answer, because where something is, is always in relation to something else.
In short, the dot doesn't exist. Well, it does exist, because it exists in relation to the paper it is drawed on. But what if this dot was placed in empty space?
It won't exist, other than in relation to itself. For "others" ("others" don't even exist, but I'm doing this for the sake of making a point) it doesn't exist at all.

Now, draw another dot. Then the dot exists in relation to the other dot. It exists in EXACTLY 1 (ONE) Dot Unit Lenght from the other.
Only if you place a third dot, you can actually have shape. If you place a fourth dot, you can now easily have these 4 dots in relation to each other. You have a clear shape, length, and with the fourth dot you actually also have a dimension to it (the third spacial dimension).

What I'm trying to tell you, is that in order for the world to exists at all, we need plurality.
We need both the good, the bad and the in-between and the various nuances.

I'm not usually the one people would claim is "nuanced in his views". Admittedly, it took me some time to figure this one out myself.
But now I realize that nuances is important, for something to exist.

Without the bad stuff, we won't have the good stuff because the good stuff depends on the fact that we HAVE some stuff at all!

Now back to the original topic:

As you can read in my link, to Wikipedia, this "free will" has already been addressed. Critics say:

The first critic is the Negatives-outweights-the-Positives-argument. It basically says that there is more evil than good in this world, so the good stuff can't possibly outdo the bad.

My response to that is that while it is indeed true that there exists more evil in this world than goodness, it only makes the smaller good units worth that much more. We need to hold on to the good stuff, because it is valuable.

The second critic is that God could make it more irresistible to do good than to do evil (but God seemingly doesn't!).

My response is that God would not do so, as that would destroy you free will of doing good. If doing good is irresistible, you don't actually choose it. You do it only because of you desire. It's not a real choice.
By making the evil irresistible, you not only have to make a choice to do good, what's more important is that you can blame evildoers for choosing the "easy solution first". It requires no effort, hence no need to reward the evildoers by a good conscientiousness.

The third critic is that while the free will may describe why people are evil, it fails to answer the natural evils (natural disasters).
While others may usually respond to this by saying that the natural evils are explained by other supernatural forces of evil causing natural disasters, I would instead say that the natural disasters is caused by the same basic mechanisms that causes our morality to exists: The hurricanes, earthquakes do also constitute our very basic world. Without them, there would be no Earth at all!
Just as with morality where you need the bad to describe the good, nature itself is ruled by this symbiosis of good and evil complementing each other.

The forth critic is the Deterministic-argument, that says that the world is predestined to run its course, and hence we don't have any influence on our actions.

My response is that while God may indeed have created the world predestined to run its course, and hence our free will is an illusion, our illusion of free will makes us who we are.
It gives us existence, afterall. God may have invented the evilness, to show us the good, so to speak (a very comprised argument, I know).

The fifth critic is the Omniscient One God that seems to show no evilness in his own world (Heaven). Hence God is a huge hypocrit, it seems, because he wants all of us to know that there is evil in the world, to show us the good, whilst God himself suffers no evil.

I disagree about this, as I don't see our Creator God as the one and only God.

Free will argument has been debunked so many times here. You're not saying anything new.

But I feel like commenting on your post since you took the time to make a long argument. So hold on and let me do just that.

To accept the "Free Will" defence when facing the Problem of Evil inevitably leads to a conclusion where one must agree that God considered it more important to preserve the free will of 5 single individuals (Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Hirohito and Pol Pot) than preventing the (often very violent and very painful) deaths of more than 100 million people... and that this is good...

If God does exist, then he gets to make the rules. He gets to define good and evil and make exceptions for himself. If there is a God, then morals created by humans are entirely irrelevant. If there is a God, who are we to say he's wrong?

There is no God,but there is suffering,there will always be suffering as long as there is a sentient being.Just try not to suffer.Its all suffering.

The OP's argument doesn't take into account all the awful things in the world that are not the result of the actions of anyone. I refer to human-specific parasites, earthquakes, poisons, diseases, genetic deformities, meteors, tidal waves, land slides, and lightning strikes. To say nothing of the vast inhospitable spaces between habitable planets. Removing these things would violate no one's free will.