"if god allows the devil to do evil, he's a accomplice and, if he doesn't, he's not omnipotent"
That's a phrase that I heard recently, and I think that it's from some famous philosopher, but uhm...
I don't know how to debunk it.
I'm doing my best to believe without thinking too much about that.
Some days it gets hard tho, so I'd like to hear you guys' take on it.
There is no god. The sooner you accept that, the sooner you can move on with your life.
I don't really see the point of barging into a conversation intended for people of a certain group just to say that they're all wrong. Sure, an outsider's perspective may be useful but you're even replying to the topic question
You won't be able to debunk it. Logic does not apply to faith. It's like dividing by zero. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen. Trying to apply logic to matters of faith is a fools errand.
There is another option Mr Epicure forgot to add: God can and wants to destroy evil, but has a good reason not to.
I'm not 100% certain what that good reason is yet. The instant removal of all evil from the planet and all ability to perform evil will constitute pretty irrefutable evidence of his existence to even the most determined doubter so maybe that's got something to do with it.
That is part of the paradox. Could god have created a universe where that good reason to not destroy evil didn't exist? If no, then he is not all-powerfull.
I'm doing my best to believe without thinking too much about that.
The fact that so many people unironically feel this way is bone-chilling. Wild that you'd just say it out loud.
In Judaism, ha-satan does work as a kind of public prosecutor. You get a public defender too.
There are a lot of contradictions in Christianity.
They aren't worth dwelling on if you want to remain a Christian.
you're trying to apply logic to something intrinsically illogical. if you value logic and enough that this is a major hangup, now's a good time to start distancing yourself from the church. I was the same way many years ago, but I cannot even put into words how much better my life is without a religious affiliation. going to church does not make you inherently godly. use the time you would have spent at church to help enact actual change in your community.
I was raised in the south, got curious about religion, and being the south... Yeah, so attended a Lutheran church, and was formally asked to leave for asking too many questions that required logic.
I was about 6. So, yeah.
God killed millions of people. Satan killed like? 12?
It presumes that the devil is an actual person rather than a story telling device and an amalgamation of some unrelated ideas throughout scripture and other faiths.
A model is only a crude sketch of the reality.
There's no devil causing evil. There's only us, flawed as we are.
And what God can do and what God will do are not the same.
What about all those non-human evils like earthquakes, tornadoes, droughts, tsunamis, wildfires, parasites and disease? They cause immense suffering and death, even of innocents such as the newly-born.
If god can stop these, why won't he?
(Edit: misspelling)
If he can and doesn't he's evil; if he can't he's not all powerful. Lucky for you he doesn't exist.
Sad things, tragedy, and death are not the same as evil.
Without answering the question here, just wanted to point out that it's a different question, so don't try to apply the answers to one question to the other question.
You're talking about 'the problem of suffering' not 'the problem of evil'
Ah, now we're shifting into the ancient Greek idea of "evil": what is harmful, rather than what is immoral.
But to actually answer your question, I don't remember anything in the Bible about God being omnibenevolent. That seems to have been added to Christian doctrine by later religious philosophers.
That said, I just don't know. And I'm alright with not knowing, because it's that or be tortured by something outside my control.
Rev. Mark Woods discusses this a bit.
I like his conclusion, even though it doesn't solve anything:
"arguably, when we're face to face with such things, our instinct shouldn't be to discuss them, but to get angry and do something about them. Part of our discipleship is to work for human flourishing in body, mind and spirit: we should make the world better, as far as we possibly can."
Isn't that the core principle of monotheism, that one God does everything, both good and evil?
Sure, but monotheism still has to be internally consistent, and labeling it ("monotheism") doesn't address the inconsistency.
If anything it just means that benevolent and omnipotent monotheism is intrinsically inconsistent.
Yeah, the point is that God is not "allowing" the devil to do evil. If Christianity is truly monotheistic, then the devil is a creation of God, just like anything else. There is no independent being. So yes, like the title says, he is an accomplice.
I struggle with the fact that god created Lucifer who was his right hand man, he then rebelled and God just banished him from heaven, didn't strip his powers, didn't kill him. Then he created earth and just let the devil do whatever he wanted? God is all knowing and I get the idea of letting humans have free will but just letting the devil roam around and do whatever seems odd. I dont think we brought ain into the qorld God did aonce he created everything in heaven and earth. I also struggle with us humans (we all) suffer the consequences of one action from two people thousands of years ago.
So, what you're saying is that the Book of Job disproves the divinity of a god?
This idea rests on the notion that the human ideas of good and evil are universal, and apply to a god. Why should that be the case? What if god has decided that murder is good, and will reward everyone that commits murder with a spot in heaven?
still doesn't address acts of God that kill and hurt so many (earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.), nor things God would have created and is responsible for like the existence of and harm from parasites, diseases, hereditary conditions, etc.
The core assumption here is that our definition of good is the same as any god's definition of good. What if this god has a definition of good that seems evil to us? What if god enjoys and approves of genocide, of earthquakes that kill thousands, or volcanic eruptions that cause crops to fail and mass starvations for the next two years?
Why assume that any god would have our best interests in their heart? Why not see god as someone that's a Warhammer 40K enthusiast, someone that enjoys pitting enormous armies against each other in wholesale slaughter?
Who's doing the evil: humans or the devil? If God allows human free will, then evil is always a possibility. The devil is limited to influence humans or be allowed to possess someone to act directly.
There are plenty of evils that are partly our wholly beyond human free will. Floods, tornadoes, earthquakes, drought, blight, pandemics, plague, infestations, fires, genetic diseases, etc. Those aren't man's doing. Whether God, the Devil, or something else entirely, the problem still stands.
The Mormons have "agency" (aka moral freedom) and the development of human intelligence as one of the key parts to the plan to have every one of God's kids (you and me) return to god after this life/test.
Moral freedom is not free if there are no other options to choose from. Hence the moral agents (you and me) are enticed by evil which is allowed to roam free for a time.
Is this the excuse Joseph Smith used when trying not to get lynched for his rampant polygamy?
I am not here to debate because this is not the community to do so, but I just wanted to point out that in the philosopher's argument OP is referencing (which I also can't remember the name of.. if someone does I'd appreciate it) also includes a part about "testing faith/character", which is something like "If evil exists to test us, then God is not all-knowing"
I hope you are having a great day! I probably overanswered below, but I think the context is helpful and not fully a "debate". I can remove this if you think I am trying to be "debating" or "combative".
I think this post is talking about the epicurian paradox: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurean_paradox
I did not say that the only purpose is to "test us", I was stating that "development of human intelligence" was one of the key reasons for the plan to have evil available in this life. When I looked at that picture, I felt like it left out the possibility of "development of children of god" as a possible reason in that flow chart.
The other feedback loops of
These seem like they might be true as sound bytes, but I think they are wrong about the scope of the plan: To have God's kids become Gods.
Mormons believe that God had innumerable children before the universe existed. The children had only spirit bodies and God was the only one with a spirit and physical body. God wanted them to become more like him. He presented a plan that would include a time of "probation" (aka life on earth) where we would (1) have no memory of before (2) have choice between good and evil just like God has and (3) do the steps to gain a physical body. This life has all of these. (NOTE: most people who profess to be christian try to say that these beliefs mean that mormons are not christian. When i read Romans 8:17, I see that this is exactly what was taught by Jesus Christ and his followers.)
Mormons also believe that the evil came from one of God's children (Lucifer) offering a different plan where (1) there would be no choice and (2) all of God's children would be choosing "Good" and (3) all would be gaining a physical body. Lucifer and those he convinced were cast out of heaven and act as "Satan and his angels", and they never got physical bodies.
In conclusion: if God is trying to make his children joint heirs with christ (aka Gods) then including in the scope of the plan a choice of evil seems like something that he couldn't take out of the plan without losing the point of the whole thing.
hi, maybe consider reading this:
"there's no evil on alpha centauri"
evil isn't an objective reality, it's a construct based on human observations.
God's goal is not our perfect comfort, but our transformation. To say that 'God should stop evil from happening' neglects the entire truth of the Old Testament and Gospel.
To become the beings He knows us to be come, we MUST struggle, because it is ONLY in struggle that we learn if we are compassionate or selfish, brave or cowardly.
Struggle exists because we lacked faith, not because God enjoys seeing us suffer.
A universe without struggle is a universe without growth, and that is not what He envisioned.
So we struggle, and are mortal, and earn our bread by the sweat of our brow.
We let Satan into our lives when humanity ate from the fruit of the forbidden tree. It is our punishment that we live in sin and have evil/bad things. But even though God gave us salvation in Christ and Satan has been beaten. And on top of that God said He will make everything new and good again. If that's not grace I don't know what is.
We let Satan into our lives because Eve (not we) ate from the fruit of the forbidden tree? Inheritance of punishments is one of the many reprehensible staples of Abrahamic religions.
Well, we actually let satan in through Judaism. In which he is more of an accuser/prosecuter. Hence you yourself can be said to be satan for accusing blame.
The genesis myth isn't literal.
The garden of eve is innocence or naïveté. Kids have what we as adults would conceive as a literal heaven. Sure, chores and whatnot, but you get to play and have some form of freedom. Actual freedom built on the backs of your parents, the keepers of your prison.
As you age, you learn and become disullusioned. You eat from the fruit of knowledge. It becomes a curse as you truly awaken from the lies you were told. However, if you are able to supersede your ego bruising. You will find the power that knowledge can also wield, and liberate you.
This is why most people leave christianity. Sometimes people can return and see the value. Fascist pig insult comes in clutch and we must be thankful for that gift at least.
(There is also the heavy sexual undertones with a 'snake,' for some reason folks forget people use metaphors - especially when talking to kids about series topics.)
Not letting it get ****ed up in the first place?
It is our punishment that we live in sin and have evil/bad things.
So, we are born into punishment because of someone thousands of years ate a fruit without understanding the consequences? That's like imprisoning someone's great-great-great-grandchild because they once jaywalked.
You're referring to the Epicurean Paradox
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurean_paradox
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_responses_to_the_problem_of_evil
This link is probably more helpful to OP.