Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

If God Exists, Why Is There So Much Evil?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

This is a reply to an atheist, or a believer.

This thread has been inspired by some of the posts i have read on the 'why do you not follow or believe in God'. Whilst there are notably good reasons(which can be refuted), a lot of people attest that they do not accept a God who could bring death, suffering, allow the human free will to cause so much carnage. This argument, or the argument of evil, does not hold to atheistic logic. It plays on emotion, rather than objective deduction. I also had this dilemma. There was so much injustice in this world, but then i thought, well what is 'injustice' , what is 'right' or wrong? ' What gives me the ground to attest such objective concepts even exist? To an atheist, morality is relative.

To give you a practical example, take the below cell. You can have two positive electrode potentials, but the least positive one will be the negative terminal, i.e the one donating the electrons overall.

[spoil]400px-Galvanic_cell_with_no_cation_flow.png[/spoil]

So why can't we find anything concrete like this in morality?

Why is this relevant? Evil and good are all relative.

As an atheist, you are obliged to accept there is no objective morality. Any kind of moral act has some sort of evolutionary benefit to promote survival. Richard Dawkins agree's with me on this, in addition of a plethora of atheists.

Let me break it down further:

As an atheist you believe humans are complex organisms made out of trillions of cells, each cell made out of many more atoms ect. You arose through a process of random mutation and natural selection. There is no good or evil: there are only acts which promote survival, and acts against survival. This is the 'scale' by which you can compare good and evil.

Thus, there is nothing objectively wrong with rape. However, rape destabilizes society. To an atheist, a stable society grants benefits in terms of survival, so it is in ones interest to not rape. There is nothing objectively disgusting about it, but it is 'immoral' because of it's consequence ultimately on survival.

Furthermore, the scale by which you measure morality is survival. If a Diety chooses to give eternal life for the finite one we live here, this nullifies the ground by which anyone can say ' x is good' or 'x is bad'. Thus, the argument for evil disproving God really is superfluous. If your morality is coming from acts which benefit your survival, eternal life for any suffering in a finite one, even according to atheistic morality is a positive 'moral' act because you end up surviving - forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evil exists so must be a proof on why God exists.

God creates laws and boundaries If you follow the laws (and everyone does), then there won't be any evil. If heavens universe didn't follow their laws, then life would haven't existed. But because they follow their laws, there is no evil from them.

Evil is only coming from humans who are not following the laws.

Also, this evil is a reminder of hereafter that this is not our world like Jesus (as) said, "my kingdom is not of this world" and we can say similar things such as "our residents, is not of this world".

So because so much evil exists, then God must exits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I never question God ,, but I sometimes let me emotions rule me as to ask why this happened ...if you are an at atheist it tough to believe since you will never believe there is a wisdom behind every action .. Forbidden acts and favored acts ..

That does not stop us from sometimes asking why these things happened ..

I give you an example I have been struggling with ..

Last December a teenager went into a school in Connecticut and shot 20 kiss sprayed them with bullets ...

My profession we dispenser large doses of anti psychotic , anti depressants meds to 4-5 yrs old girls who we presumed have been raped or abused .

I can not understand how 4 years old girls and boys if you look at the Vatican scandles can be raped ...so your heart my ask why while your brain if you believe in Allah swat ( and I absolutely do ) tries to find reason ..

There is there must be ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

This is a question most people ponder and one that can often create doubt and weaken faith. However to me, the answer is simple and obvious.

This world is the domain of Shaytan, so naturally there will be evil. Allah has allowed it to be because this life is our test.

This test is not only for us as individuals but even moreso as a society. We all have to strive to defeat evil as much as we can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Do you belive God would allow 4 years old girls the pain and the degradation of rape ?

but those are the cause of people rejecting good thus evil is the resultant, then free will acts in, also life being a test acts in, plus maybe this happens as a sign from Allah so people who do cause evil see it and maybe stop, but at the end of it all Allah judges, dont forget this world is a millisecond of the true life. Therefore people who are effected by other peoples actions really isnt anything and that their true life is going to be 99999999999999999999999999999 better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Do you belive God would allow 4 years old girls the pain and the degradation of rape ?

This reasoning, God allowed it, then is God responsible for a child bullying another child, a man insulting another man, or is God responsible for the battle of Siffin? Whilst this is the cause of man's sentiment, God has the greater right of being thanked for He gave us the ability to do good and whatever evil there is it is from our own selves. Most surely, we have become a trial for one another. Then ask: 'Did your hands command you doing this mischief, or your legs?' So that you may say God enforced me to do this evil. Or is it your dreams? So that you may say God commanded me to do such. Nay, by God! You answered the call of the devil whilst you had the capability to turn on your heels, i.e. intellect.

An intellect that is the source of your good who questions your actions.

'...by the soul and Him who fashoned it, and inspired it with [discernment between] its virtues and vices...' - Quran, al-Shams, 91:7-8.

Asking you, 'O man, should you really be doing this?' Then who is more injustice than those who claim evil for God and they neglected their intellect and reclined towards the devil's path?

'Whatever affliction that may visit you is because of what your hands have earned, though He excuses many [an offense].' - Quran, al-Shura, 42:30.

Had God wanted we would have been a nation under His command, then no evil would exist. But man differed for each and everyone had a free will and took their path and thus evil was created by their hands.

God prohibited the vices, the apparent and hidden, and sent prophet to safeguard people from the devil's path. God isn't responsible for what you do for you have been granted intellect, a soul adorned with a criterion [between virtues and vices], and the capability to hurt or forgive. Truly, anyone who has been granted these capabilities cannot claim being irresponsible for his acts. Or is a police officer not responsible for the safety of neighborhood? Or isn't man responsible for his family's sustenance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Do you belive God would allow 4 years old girls the pain and the degradation of rape ?

It is Shaytan who creates evil like this.

Allah expects us to defeat this kind of evil and purge it from our society.

It is all of us who are failing to do this duty, so in reality it is mankind that is allowing these things to happen.

We are at fault, not God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a reply to an atheist, or a believer.

This thread has been inspired by some of the posts i have read on the 'why do you not follow or believe in God'. Whilst there are notably good reasons(which can be refuted), a lot of people attest that they do not accept a God who could bring death, suffering, allow the human free will to cause so much carnage. This argument, or the argument of evil, does not hold to atheistic logic. It plays on emotion, rather than objective deduction. I also had this dilemma. There was so much injustice in this world, but then i thought, well what is 'injustice' , what is 'right' or wrong? ' What gives me the ground to attest such objective concepts even exist? To an atheist, morality is relative.

To give you a practical example, take the below cell. You can have two positive electrode potentials, but the least positive one will be the negative terminal, i.e the one donating the electrons overall.

[spoil]400px-Galvanic_cell_with_no_cation_flow.png[/spoil]

So why can't we find anything concrete like this in morality?

Why is this relevant? Evil and good are all relative.

As an atheist, you are obliged to accept there is no objective morality. Any kind of moral act has some sort of evolutionary benefit to promote survival. Richard Dawkins agree's with me on this, in addition of a plethora of atheists.

Let me break it down further:

As an atheist you believe humans are complex organisms made out of trillions of cells, each cell made out of many more atoms ect. You arose through a process of random mutation and natural selection. There is no good or evil: there are only acts which promote survival, and acts against survival. This is the 'scale' by which you can compare good and evil.

Thus, there is nothing objectively wrong with rape. However, rape destabilizes society. To an atheist, a stable society grants benefits in terms of survival, so it is in ones interest to not rape. There is nothing objectively disgusting about it, but it is 'immoral' because of it's consequence ultimately on survival.

Furthermore, the scale by which you measure morality is survival. If a Diety chooses to give eternal life for the finite one we live here, this nullifies the ground by which anyone can say ' x is good' or 'x is bad'. Thus, the argument for evil disproving God really is superfluous. If your morality is coming from acts which benefit your survival, eternal life for any suffering in a finite one, even according to atheistic morality is a positive 'moral' act because you end up surviving - forever.

Akhi. the raper is a kind of atheist as no fear of the Last Day, or a believer who is just for sake

Now Atheist are futher divided in many subcategories!!! Depends what reasons they have for becoming one...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

While talking about this topic in context of Spirituality, man is made up of three elements:

1) The Intellect

2) The Soul

3) Material body

Soul is the life.

Intellect is the gift which Allah has given to the Mankind through Prophet Adam. No other creation except man has the ability to think, to reason, to solve, to innovate. Man has the capability to change the nature through Allah's intellect, whereas animals can't. Example, a dog won't eat anything which is against the digestive system bestowed to it by nature. Even if it'll eat any such thing, immediately it's body will vomit it out. Thus, it is controlled by nature. Whereas man can change the nature by his intellect. Man has to use his intellect to change the nature and ameliorate it. So, he is called the Khalifa. Allah says: "Behold, thy Lord said to the angels: "I will create a vicegerent on earth.[2:30]"

But, man is also created of material body, so he/she also has qualities like happiness, sadness, lust, anger, hatred, love, etc. When a person is under the influence of these qualities, he/she uses the Intellect to fulfill the individual's personal motives. Many times, such actions violate the stability laws of the society and nature.

God doesn't stop man from doing this because man will ultimately have to answer for his/her deeds and misdeeds on the day of Judgement. But, if a wrongdoer's misdeeds exceeds the limits, a spiritual authority comes into action concealing itself. Because of this concealment, the world can't directly see this.

Edited by Arlene
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Your post reminds me of a wonderful saying I heard last year:

"I often wonder why God would allow so much pain and suffering in the world when He could do something about it, but I'm afraid He may ask me the same question."

That is beautiful and truly encapsulates the essence of faith. Do you have the source for that narration brother?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simplest way of explaining it to non believer who use that example is: Same reason darkness exists even though there is light.

People tend to believe that Evil is the opposite of Good. It's not, just like Darkness is simply the absence of light, evil is the absence of good. In fact, there is no such thing as darkness in physics. We just have named absence of light as darkness or absence of heat as cold. Evil is just absence of God in people who have chosen so themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I like to believe that there really is no evil against innocent that children who are raped and beaten .. Or tortured .. Animals as well ...I like to believe like Sayedna Issa .. Shubiha Lahum... Things are not what they really seem and God's wisdom will prevail for these actions ( i believe that ) ..Like the story of the orphans in Surat the cave ...they do not really feel pain ... But it's a test like many of you brothers put forward here ...

Just without actual suffering ..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

(salam)

My first post didn't get through so I'll try a similar one now.

You used a battery as an analogy of good and evil.

I'll use a biological one as a demonstrator.

In sura Sad, 38:84, Allah(swt) reveals that He(swt) said, "...I say what is just and fitting..."

This was in response to the Suggestor's(Shatan's) prompt "by Thy power...".

Now, think of the Animal Kingdom. Whatever you see there you will find what we have revealed as a sin:

Murder (even within the same species, not just wolf and lamb), child killing (esp with cats), adultery and illicit fornication (like dogs in the alley), vultures eating carrion, blood comsumed with meat by carnivores, some consumption akin to intoxication, deliberately (from the plant's effect on metabolism), and so forth.

Then compare Man. He is forbidden all of these. Beginning with Araf 7:19 "...approach not this tree..." and the result Ta Ha 20:121 ate of the tree and "disobeyed" was followed by other prohibitions that we see allowed in animals:

Nahl 16:115 -forbidden carrion, swine, blood

Banni Israel 17:31-39

Nisaa 4:116 forbidden other gods from Suggestor Shatan's prompt

Maida 5:91 no intoxification

Maida 5:32 murder

So, everything you know as sin or evil exists as natural in animals. But you and I have nafs and so these are prohibited to us despite the efforts of the Suggestor Shatan.

But as the Prophet(saws) is recorded in sahih hadith as saying, Man does not know what evil is until the Masih al-Dajjal comes.

(wasalam)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Why is this relevant? Evil and good are all relative.

When you say Evil and Good, it seems you are referring to the evil and suffering the problem of evil targets.

However, it can easily be proved evil and good need not be relative.

I will use an example from the philosophical literature.

There is a world, all this exists in this world are slugs. They eat for awhile and then they sleep. No evil exists in this world.

Every day, they wake up and the food is a little better, they feel a little more refreshed from their sleep.

The slugs realise things are good without needing evil.

If you don't like the incremental nature of it, you can sa things have always been maximally good. They have always had the best leaves and most refreshing sleep. They realise it is good.

Therefore, you dont need evil to exist to realise things are good.

I also find it very hard to believe all powerful God could not make us in such a way we realise good without a corresponding need for evil to exist. It certainly requires far less power than needed to create an entire universe and yet, you'd claim God was able to pull this one off.

Another objection is moral evil (bad things people do) is more than sufficient to establish the contrast between good and evil you illustrate. Yet, why do natural evils, like Ebola, Smallpox and Earthquakes exist? The problem of evil rests on the idea that the existence of any evil is incompatible with the idea of a good God. It's even worse when it's gratuitious or senseless evil. Your defense says we need evil to exist so we know what good is, fine. Allow only moral evil to exist, then we realise the difference. Yet, for some reason, natural evil also exists, it does not make sense we need to, as your attempted defense states, so we can tell between good and bad. It is senseless evil and all good being would not allow such senseless evil.

You did not need to learn how to breath. It is innante within you. Why could God not make the ideas of goodness innate within ourselves, that way, we would not need pointless evil to exist to show us the difference. An all good being eliminates suffering as much as it can. It seems the logical option for God to take and yet, your defense says, he didn't take this option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I also find it very hard to believe all powerful God could not make us in such a way we realise good without a corresponding need for evil to exist. It certainly requires far less power than needed to create an entire universe and yet, you'd claim God was able to pull this one off.

God has already created a Paradise, whereat only good exist.

Another objection is moral evil (bad things people do) is more than sufficient to establish the contrast between good and evil you illustrate. Yet, why do natural evils, like Ebola, Smallpox and Earthquakes exist? The problem of evil rests on the idea that the existence of any evil is incompatible with the idea of a good God. It's even worse when it's gratuitious or senseless evil. Your defense says we need evil to exist so we know what good is, fine. Allow only moral evil to exist, then we realise the difference. Yet, for some reason, natural evil also exists, it does not make sense we need to, as your attempted defense states, so we can tell between good and bad. It is senseless evil and all good being would not allow such senseless evil.

Provided that God is good every action of God is therefore good. Our defense is that this world cannot exist without pairs, something is always absent whilst the other exists. For example, the absence of light means darkness, good means evil. Then there is the opposite pole, south and north, west and east, protons and electrons, dark matter and light matter. Hence the world is limited whilst Paradise isn't. This is because Paradise isn't corporeal, hence, evil can therefore only be ascribed to a body. The issue is, therefore, the limitations of this world. Have you heard of the question proposed to Jesus, the son of Mary, by the devil: 'Can your Lord but the world in an egg'? Of course, the answer is that it is impossible, and impotence isn't an attribute of God. Likewise, water and fire cannot exist in a single entity. However, if this entity isn't corporeal, it is possible. Furthermore, as you said, evil is relevant. Evil is created whilst compared to an anarchy of actions, and each action differ at intensity and level.

"When your Lord said to the angels, 'Indeed I am going to set a viceroy on the earth.' They said, 'Will You set in it someone who will cause corruption in it, and shed blood, while we celebrate Your praise and procalim Your sancity?' He said, 'Indeed I know what you do not know.'" - Quran, al-Baqarah, 2:30

Perhaps, a question you are familiar with? And an answer usually replied, but denied without evidence.

Anyway, returning to the natural evil.

"Say, 'Tell me, should Allah's punishment overtake you, or should the Hour overtake you, will you supplicate anyone other than Allah, should you be truthful? Rather, Him you will supplicate, and He will remove that for which you supplicated Him, if He wishes, and you will forget what you ascribe [to Him] as [His] partners.' We have certainly sent [apostles] to nations before you, then We seized them with stress and distress so that they might entreat [us]." - Quran, al-An'am, 6:40-41.

God destroying the evil lot. Perhaps, a punishment you think of undeserving or rather harsh. "And Noah said, 'My Lord! 'Do not leave on the earth any inhabitant from among the faithless. If you leave them, they will lead astray Your servants and will not beget except vicious ingrates...'" (Quran, Nuh, 72:26-27) This would be the consequence. "Why has there not been any town that might believe, so that its belief might benefit it, except the people of Jonah? When they believed, We removed from them the punishment of disgrace in the life of this world, and We provided for them for a while.'" (Quran, Yunus, 10:98) Whom believed in God whence they saw the punishment approaching. Had there not been any punishment to warn about they would remain in their negligence, joy, and play -- like the faithless already does. However, they impugn the prophet and ridicules him, saying bring us the punishment shall ya be truthful!

Then, do you know how God will reckon you so that you may seek protection? Nay, "But Allah came at them from whence they did not reckon..." (Quran, al-Hashr, 59:2) And punished the faithless through different means. How you considered the punishment of God? Does it befall all, like the people of Noah -- the sinners of that time, or every faithless who impugned the prophet -- the sinners of that time, or does it befall those whom the message has reached and those whom the message has reached alike? Or does it remain for a prolonged time, or a short, like the frogs -- as a sign of God to Pharaoh and his lot. Most surely, hath God-willed, the heavens would embark the earth, volcanoes would erupt and fill the entire world with smoke and lava alike, and begin a new creation. But His punishment befalls only those who deserve it most.

Then there is the trial of God. This is a more complex topic, however, can be explained.

You did not need to learn how to breath. It is innante within you. Why could God not make the ideas of goodness innate within ourselves, that way, we would not need pointless evil to exist to show us the difference. An all good being eliminates suffering as much as it can. It seems the logical option for God to take and yet, your defense says, he didn't take this option.

It is, '...by the soul and Him who fashioned it, and inspired it with [discernment between] its virtues and vices...' (Quran, al-Shams, 91:7-8), however, you were brought to this earth to test your criterion, and your actions is your requiem. Those who accepted the message are the felicitous, and those who impugned the message, they are the restless. Then, you might claim, this is not something I choose, to be tested, that is. It is such, you choose to be tested, whilst you have forgotten now, you will remember tomorrow. Your final abode, as previously claimed, is according to your deeds, therefore it is yourselves whom you oppress or lead to prosperity. And God isn't oppressive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

God has already created a Paradise, whereat only good exist.

I accept this point but you're answering the question you thought i asked, not the question i actually did ask in that quote.

I asked if God, who was so powerful to create the universe, could not create us to recognise good, without filling the world with so much evil.

If he can't, it seems he isn't all powerful. It's not only that he lacks power, it seems simply logically incosistent, a being that can create the universe cannot do this? Such a being surely doesn't exist.

If he can, one begs the question of why he didn't do it. Furthermore, his defense was that we need evil to recognise good, if you accept God can do this, then, it is shown that we do not need evil to recognise good.

I skipped your second corpus of objections. You keep asserting there must be pairs, i attempted to prove why there need not be pairs. In that slab of text, you did not show why this cannot be the case.

I still believe we do not need the actual existence of evil for us to know good. That is the central case of what i was replying to. Anything else is a deviation from the discussion.

Your final body of text has almost nothing to do with the chunk of text quoted so i am very confused. I contend that we do not need good and evil to be able to recognise what is good. Furthermore, even if this actually was true, why does evil need to actually exist. Why could God simply not just planted ideas and feelings of what good and evil are and thus, make us able to recognise them, without making evil an actuality in the world. Just as we do not need to learn to breathe, it is inbuilt, i contend so could God make the notions of goodness and evil inbuilt. Thus, this disproves the objection i was replying to, that evil is necessary for us to know what good is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a reply to an atheist, or a believer.

This thread has been inspired by some of the posts i have read on the 'why do you not follow or believe in God'. Whilst there are notably good reasons(which can be refuted), a lot of people attest that they do not accept a God who could bring death, suffering, allow the human free will to cause so much carnage. This argument, or the argument of evil, does not hold to atheistic logic. It plays on emotion, rather than objective deduction. I also had this dilemma. There was so much injustice in this world, but then i thought, well what is 'injustice' , what is 'right' or wrong? ' What gives me the ground to attest such objective concepts even exist? To an atheist, morality is relative.

To give you a practical example, take the below cell. You can have two positive electrode potentials, but the least positive one will be the negative terminal, i.e the one donating the electrons overall.

[spoil]400px-Galvanic_cell_with_no_cation_flow.png[/spoil]

So why can't we find anything concrete like this in morality?

Why is this relevant? Evil and good are all relative.

As an atheist, you are obliged to accept there is no objective morality. Any kind of moral act has some sort of evolutionary benefit to promote survival. Richard Dawkins agree's with me on this, in addition of a plethora of atheists.

Let me break it down further:

As an atheist you believe humans are complex organisms made out of trillions of cells, each cell made out of many more atoms ect. You arose through a process of random mutation and natural selection. There is no good or evil: there are only acts which promote survival, and acts against survival. This is the 'scale' by which you can compare good and evil.

Thus, there is nothing objectively wrong with rape. However, rape destabilizes society. To an atheist, a stable society grants benefits in terms of survival, so it is in ones interest to not rape. There is nothing objectively disgusting about it, but it is 'immoral' because of it's consequence ultimately on survival.

Furthermore, the scale by which you measure morality is survival. If a Diety chooses to give eternal life for the finite one we live here, this nullifies the ground by which anyone can say ' x is good' or 'x is bad'. Thus, the argument for evil disproving God really is superfluous. If your morality is coming from acts which benefit your survival, eternal life for any suffering in a finite one, even according to atheistic morality is a positive 'moral' act because you end up surviving - forever.

The problem of evil is written with the assumption that God exists. It isn't made through the perspective of an atheist. I believe that, even if a deity has created eternal life in place of the finite one after death, we can still recognize some things as right and wrong. Death, murder and pain, appear to be wrong, regardless of if you believe in an objective morality or not, regardless of if you believe in a deity or not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I accept this point but you're answering the question you thought i asked, not the question i actually did ask in that quote.

I asked if God, who was so powerful to create the universe, could not create us to recognise good, without filling the world with so much evil.

If he can't, it seems he isn't all powerful. It's not only that he lacks power, it seems simply logically incosistent, a being that can create the universe cannot do this? Such a being surely doesn't exist.

If he can, one begs the question of why he didn't do it. Furthermore, his defense was that we need evil to recognise good, if you accept God can do this, then, it is shown that we do not need evil to recognise good.

I skipped your second corpus of objections. You keep asserting there must be pairs, i attempted to prove why there need not be pairs. In that slab of text, you did not show why this cannot be the case.

I still believe we do not need the actual existence of evil for us to know good. That is the central case of what i was replying to. Anything else is a deviation from the discussion.

Your final body of text has almost nothing to do with the chunk of text quoted so i am very confused. I contend that we do not need good and evil to be able to recognise what is good. Furthermore, even if this actually was true, why does evil need to actually exist. Why could God simply not just planted ideas and feelings of what good and evil are and thus, make us able to recognise them, without making evil an actuality in the world. Just as we do not need to learn to breathe, it is inbuilt, i contend so could God make the notions of goodness and evil inbuilt. Thus, this disproves the objection i was replying to, that evil is necessary for us to know what good is.

Perhaps, we should discuss the trials of God as well, as it is an inevitable part of a chain that cannot be skipped to reach the end?

Actually, I claimed that due to the limitation of this world, the corporeal, there has to be pairs. Whilst, the Paradise isn't limitless, there is only one side of the coin: Good. Furthermore, the opposite of the coin; evil (as fair punishment for those who commit evil) exist solely in hell. Likewise, hell isn't constrained like the corporeal world. Therefore, God has created the universes based on their limitations either in pairs, as a sign of Him (harmony and balance), or limitless and single (without the need of the opposite pole or absence).

Fire and water cannot exist in a single entity.

Lastly, I disagree with you, if God who created the Universe isn't capable of maintain peace on the world isn't due to Him being imptent, this is something that is more related to the reason for creation and the trials of God, that we can both further probe into if you wish, perhaps a learning experience for us both? Most surely, criticle minds shaped society as we know it today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

I accept this point but you're answering the question you thought i asked, not the question i actually did ask in that quote.

I asked if God, who was so powerful to create the universe, could not create us to recognise good, without filling the world with so much evil.

If he can't, it seems he isn't all powerful. It's not only that he lacks power, it seems simply logically incosistent, a being that can create the universe cannot do this? Such a being surely doesn't exist.

If he can, one begs the question of why he didn't do it. Furthermore, his defense was that we need evil to recognise good, if you accept God can do this, then, it is shown that we do not need evil to recognise good.

I skipped your second corpus of objections. You keep asserting there must be pairs, i attempted to prove why there need not be pairs. In that slab of text, you did not show why this cannot be the case.

I still believe we do not need the actual existence of evil for us to know good. That is the central case of what i was replying to. Anything else is a deviation from the discussion.

Your final body of text has almost nothing to do with the chunk of text quoted so i am very confused. I contend that we do not need good and evil to be able to recognise what is good. Furthermore, even if this actually was true, why does evil need to actually exist. Why could God simply not just planted ideas and feelings of what good and evil are and thus, make us able to recognise them, without making evil an actuality in the world. Just as we do not need to learn to breathe, it is inbuilt, i contend so could God make the notions of goodness and evil inbuilt. Thus, this disproves the objection i was replying to, that evil is necessary for us to know what good is.

Hey brother how are you doing? I remember talking with you on a previous thread. I will try to dissect this topic a little further for you, to see this in a different perspective.

First and foremost, God did not create evil. Evil results in the rejection of good. Even satan, which in islam was not an angel because angels dont have free will, he was a jinn, when commanded by Allah to bow to adam, he did not, so he got kicked out of Allah's mercy. That is the essence of rejecting good. Disobeying Allah, means rejecting Good, because what ever Allah commands is good, because Allah is ALL-Good.

Now, your argument is why didnt God just make us all good, and once again I will tell you he did. In islam we dont believe in the idea of the first sin or what ever, where everyone born is sinful until they believe, no, we say if a baby dies he/she goes straight to heaven. Yes, God could have made us all good, but then I ask you whats the purpose in that? What would be the purpose of our creation? We would therefore have no free will, because if everything is all good, it would be by Allah's command, we would have no will to disobey it. Therefore, we would be like robots. Why would God create humans like that, if angels that are all good and obey Allah 24/7 already exist?What would be the purpose of heaven and hell, or life being a test if we were all good automatically? In Shia Islam, one reason for human existence is the struggle to reach perfection like prophets and imams. Though we know we can never reach it, but the fact that we are acknowledging our existence and striving for the best moral and ethical character, is the best worship in its self. Why? Because then everything else comes into place: Social/economical/political/spiritual/physical unity. We as humans will like together in unity striving for the truth. Thus in result, by obeying Allah ending up in heaven. Not to say, we obey God to go to heaven, but we obey Allah because He is worthy of Obeying. There is a saying:

Imam as-Sadiq [as] said: ‘Verily people worship Allah in three ways: One group worships Him in desire of His reward, and it is the worship of covetous ones, and it is greed; and others Worship Him in dread of the Fire, and it is the worship of slaves, and it is fear; but I worship Him in His love - Mighty and Great is He and this is the worship of noble ones. (It is) because Allah has said: and they shall be secure from terror on that days (27: 89); and He has said, Say: ‘If You love Allah, then follow me, Allah will love you. . .’ (3:31). Therefore, whosoever is loved by Allah, he shall be among the secure ones; and it is a hidden position, cannot touch it save the purified ones.” (al-Ilal, al-Majalis and al-Khisal)

Another issue you were talking about was natural disasters and sickness. Those are just part of Allah's creations. Its a beauty of how life works. Think about it this way, if there was no sickness and natural disasters where would humans live? Where would humans being born now live. As we know already, earth's resources are being used over 50%. We are creating our own destruction, in a sense. But about sickness and disasters, if it wasnt for them, 100% we would not have been as advanced as we are today. We would not have thought to create all these types of security and pro-health. You see, in Allah's system everything is perfectly done. How we humans end up on earth, which is the most perfect to our essence. If there was no sickness we would not know how to prolong our life by vitamins, different advanced medical techniques, different cures for different sicknesses, new ways for helping disabilities. Same goes for disasters, infact both these things should make us feel and help one another all around the world. We should feel sorry for one another. Its true that some may die, but think about it this way, who were we to be created in the first, we are just but a drop of dirty semen. Yet Allah, created us by his mercy and compassion, so when Allah wants to take our life, then that should be a blessing too, because of the time he gave us on this temporary life. If we were to all obey Allah in the first place, then there would be no worry of death because we would end up in heaven anyway. I hope I explained myself well, and didnt forget any points out. I hope this isnt a too long of a post not to read fully.

Nice talking to you again. If you can please watch lectures on these types of topics by Hassanain Rajabali, He explains it much better then me. Peace be with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem of evil is written with the assumption that God exists. It isn't made through the perspective of an atheist. I believe that, even if a deity has created eternal life in place of the finite one after death, we can still recognize some things as right and wrong. Death, murder and pain, appear to be wrong, regardless of if you believe in an objective morality or not, regardless of if you believe in a deity or not.

Actually this is an incorrect view. The Atheist brings up the problem of evil saying that "IF there was a God, why is there evil". Thus, the atheist puts it upon themselvs to assert the condition or need for : A - a God to exist, and B- the problem of evil because of God existing.

Again, right and wrong are not even 'objective' realities. Your perception of right or wrong according to atheism is simply based on survival. Otherwise right or wrong has no meaning. Pain is there to help you survive itself.

It's a scary thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simplest way of explaining it to non believer who use that example is: Same reason darkness exists even though there is light.

People tend to believe that Evil is the opposite of Good. It's not, just like Darkness is simply the absence of light, evil is the absence of good. In fact, there is no such thing as darkness in physics. We just have named absence of light as darkness or absence of heat as cold. Evil is just absence of God in people who have chosen so themselves.

God tells us himself he will set up evil and misfortune to test us. Tsunami's and natural disasters are simply a 'test' from God, even if they are totally random. As is death, cancer, and whatever other ilness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I accept this point but you're answering the question you thought i asked, not the question i actually did ask in that quote.

I asked if God, who was so powerful to create the universe, could not create us to recognise good, without filling the world with so much evil.

If he can't, it seems he isn't all powerful. It's not only that he lacks power, it seems simply logically incosistent, a being that can create the universe cannot do this? Such a being surely doesn't exist.

If he can, one begs the question of why he didn't do it. Furthermore, his defense was that we need evil to recognise good, if you accept God can do this, then, it is shown that we do not need evil to recognise good.

I skipped your second corpus of objections. You keep asserting there must be pairs, i attempted to prove why there need not be pairs. In that slab of text, you did not show why this cannot be the case.

I still believe we do not need the actual existence of evil for us to know good. That is the central case of what i was replying to. Anything else is a deviation from the discussion.

Your final body of text has almost nothing to do with the chunk of text quoted so i am very confused. I contend that we do not need good and evil to be able to recognise what is good. Furthermore, even if this actually was true, why does evil need to actually exist. Why could God simply not just planted ideas and feelings of what good and evil are and thus, make us able to recognise them, without making evil an actuality in the world. Just as we do not need to learn to breathe, it is inbuilt, i contend so could God make the notions of goodness and evil inbuilt. Thus, this disproves the objection i was replying to, that evil is necessary for us to know what good is.

Slavery already existed. The prophet Pbuh actually reformed it. Slavery then was not as we know it now either.

Please read this:

Why did slavery exist during Islam? And how did Islam deal with it?

First, it is important to know that thousands of years ago life was different than today. Today, people wouldn't accept slavery for any reason. The reason for this is because people are a lot more independent both financially, education wise, mentally, etc... But people back then were different. When a tribe or a group of people lose a major battle and their money is mostly, if not all, is taken as war booty by the other side, then people could and would accept being slaves for the following reasons:

1- Both financial and social security. When their country or tribe lost the war, they also lost most or all of their money as war booty. Being out of money and food, it becomes necessary for an individual to find the means for basic survival in life. Living as a slave would provide this.

2- Protection from hostile individuals. Even under the Islamic rule, you can still find hostile individuals who violate the Law and take matters into their own hands. An enemy family can be sometime in danger if they don't have a "protector".

3- Widows, Orphans, and the extremely poor of the enemy side need the financial and social protection from a Master. Back then, there were no governments with good social system that protects everyone. Slavery back then was that social system in special cases.

There are probably more points I can add, but I think these are sufficient enough.

Islam and Slavery:

Islam is a religion that came to fight slavery and end it once and for all. During Judaism and Christianity, slavery was at its highest peak in the Middle East. People were enslaved and they and their children were inherited and passed down to generations for ever. This tradition came from Leviticus 25:44-46 in the Bible's Old Testament, and further continued in the New Testament in 1 Timothy 6:1, 1 Peter 2:18, and Colossians 3:22.

Now keep in mind that the entire Bible is corrupted and unreliable and is mostly filled with man-made cultural laws and corruption!

GOD Almighty Said: "`How can you say, "We [the Jews] are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?' (From the NIV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)"

The Revised Standard Version makes it even clearer: "How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. (From the RSV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)"

In either translation, we clearly see that the Jews had so much corrupted the Bible with their man-made cultural laws, that they had turned the Bible into a lie!

See Also Deuteronomy 31:25-29 where Moses peace be upon him predicted the corruption/tampering of the Law (Bible) after his death. The Book of Moses predicted that the Law (Bible) will get corrupted. The Book of Jeremiah which came approximately 826 years after did indeed confirm this corruption.

So Leviticus 25:44-46, 1 Timothy 6:1, 1 Peter 2:18, and Colossians 3:22 above are highly doubtful to be Divine Revelations from GOD Almighty, the Most Just, Most Merciful, and Most Wise. Please visit Just who were the real authors of the Bible? You will see comments from the commentary of the NIV Bible (one of the most used Bibles world wide) itself admitting that most of the Books and Gospels of the Bible are corrupted. No one ever claimed ownership of the current Books and Gospels. The owners/writers are unknown.

When Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him received the Divine Revelations of Islam, slavery among the Pagan Arabs, Jews and Christians was quite common. When he came with Allah Almighty's True Religion of Islam, he gradually eliminated slavery. He couldn't enforce it all at once, because it would've caused Islam to be an unsuccessful religion toward freeing slaves, and would certainly have broken Islam's system for ending slavery.

By gradually freeing slaves and making it be acceptable to the society of many different pagan cultures and traditions, the idea of eliminating slavery became powerful enough that after Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him died, the freed slaves remained free and non of them was ever enslaved again.

Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him said:

Narrated Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari: "The Prophet said, "Give food to the hungry, pay a visit to the sick and release (set free) the one in captivity (by paying his ransom)." (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Food, Meals, Volume 7, Book 65, Number 286)"

Always remember!

It was not Islam that started slavery, but it was Islam that ultimately ended it. Please visit The liberation of slaves in Islam to see the Noble Verses from the Noble Quran and the Sayings of Prophet Muhammad that command the Muslims to free all slaves.

On a different note, my OP showed how no-one has any moral ground. The only scale morality can objectively be measured in is by survival. A 'slave' survives, they also help you survive. No 'danger' to your survival is induced. Thus your disgust as slavery according to the atheistic idea of it is simply an appeal to emotion.

Today marks the Holacaust day, a day when many jewish people among other groups in society were victims of mass genocide. Arguably one of the worst tragedies on earth. However, Hitler did not like Jews and played to emotion.

No-one has any moral ground by playing to emotion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Hello pureethics, i am doing well, i hope you and your family are just as well. I am back again but i think only for a short while. I thank you for your reply and the time it must have taken to write a piece like that.

Please note, in my post, i was not claiming the Problem of Evil conclusively shows there is no God (no argument could) nor was i even saying it might show that. My main purpose was to show that, the defense that evil necessarily needs to exist for good to exist is not a good defense.

So, as such, i will not reply to most of your post, in this thread i was merely replying to that particular defense. I have read it and i will probably read it a few more times once i think it over.

I have a few small clarifications on things that you seem to have misread within my argument (as you can perhaps tell from the spelling errors, it was written rather late at night, so, i cannot blame you for misreading).

Now, your argument is why didnt God just make us all good, and once again I will tell you he did.

Note i did not mean make us all as good beings, as perfect moral agents. I meant make us in the sense of that we have an innate recognition of good and evil, thus, disproving the defense that evil needs to exist in the world for us to know what good is.

I realise there are very good defenses and lately i've come to realise no issue, even one as strong as the problem of evil is black and white. I just think that this defense is not a very good one for the examples i explained in my earlier posts.

All the best.

Actually this is an incorrect view. The Atheist brings up the problem of evil saying that "IF there was a God, why is there evil". Thus, the atheist puts it upon themselvs to assert the condition or need for : A - a God to exist, and B- the problem of evil because of God existing.

I do not understand your point, will you care to elaborate?

The way arguments in philosophy work is that if you accept all the premises but reject the conclusion (assuming the argument is logically valid) there is a problem with your logic and/or beliefs. Of course, you can reject the premises. As a believer though, i highly doubt you will reject the very first that God exists, otherwise, you will not be a believer.

There is nothing wrong with temporarily entertaining a premise for the sake of an argument. That’s how arguments and logic work and indeed, sometimes our language. If we did not do things like this, we would have a very hard time.

I categorically reject that my view of right and wrong is based on survival. You are either very misguided about the philosophical tradition many atheists entertain, you genuinely do not believe atheists can be good people or you disingenuously assert either of these things.

I do not wish to engage in a lengthy debate on this matter, life is prescious and this is an argument that holds 0 interest for me, since philosophy is a hobby of mine and thus I do it for pleasure, you can see why I might not want to do such a thing. I suggest you read into the idea of secular humanismand the philosophical backing behind it. I also suggest you read into ideas like the veil of ignorance and the categorical imperative. I do contend you can be a good person and a functioning member of society without being religious.

Thank you for your post.

Edited by Pascal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Just answering the title. From a religious point of view : Iblees (Satan) is as good as the source of evil. Yet Allah let his actions be, untill the day of resurrection. So evil in it's self does not disprove the existance of God.

But then again, prove satan's existance to an atheist..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello pureethics, i am doing well, i hope you and your family are just as well. I am back again but i think only for a short while. I thank you for your reply and the time it must have taken to write a piece like that.

Please note, in my post, i was not claiming the Problem of Evil conclusively shows there is no God (no argument could) nor was i even saying it might show that. My main purpose was to show that, the defense that evil necessarily needs to exist for good to exist is not a good defense.

So, as such, i will not reply to most of your post, in this thread i was merely replying to that particular defense. I have read it and i will probably read it a few more times once i think it over.

I have a few small clarifications on things that you seem to have misread within my argument (as you can perhaps tell from the spelling errors, it was written rather late at night, so, i cannot blame you for misreading).

Note i did not mean make us all as good beings, as perfect moral agents. I meant make us in the sense of that we have an innate recognition of good and evil, thus, disproving the defense that evil needs to exist in the world for us to know what good is.

I realise there are very good defenses and lately i've come to realise no issue, even one as strong as the problem of evil is black and white. I just think that this defense is not a very good one for the examples i explained in my earlier posts.

All the best.

I do not understand your point, will you care to elaborate?

The way arguments in philosophy work is that if you accept all the premises but reject the conclusion (assuming the argument is logically valid) there is a problem with your logic and/or beliefs. Of course, you can reject the premises. As a believer though, i highly doubt you will reject the very first that God exists, otherwise, you will not be a believer.

There is nothing wrong with temporarily entertaining a premise for the sake of an argument. That’s how arguments and logic work and indeed, sometimes our language. If we did not do things like this, we would have a very hard time.

I categorically reject that my view of right and wrong is based on survival. You are either very misguided about the philosophical tradition many atheists entertain, you genuinely do not believe atheists can be good people or you disingenuously assert either of these things.

I do not wish to engage in a lengthy debate on this matter, life is prescious and this is an argument that holds 0 interest for me, since philosophy is a hobby of mine and thus I do it for pleasure, you can see why I might not want to do such a thing. I suggest you read into the idea of secular humanismand the philosophical backing behind it. I also suggest you read into ideas like the veil of ignorance and the categorical imperative. I do contend you can be a good person and a functioning member of society without being religious.

Thank you for your post.

As an atheist, you have no choice but to accept there is no 'objective morality. Pain is just an evolutionary construct to warn you of danger. Objectively your morals, empathy ect are all evolved traits to help you survive in a community to increase your chance of survival.

Even Richard Dawkins agree's with me.

There really is no good and evil. Good relative to what or who?

Again, you seem like a good person who wants good for humanity. However, a play to emotion does not actuate any moral ground.

If God exists, he grants eternal life/survival, which makes the argument that God can not exist because of evil superflous, because you end up surviving forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just answering the title. From a religious point of view : Iblees (Satan) is as good as the source of evil. Yet Allah let his actions be, untill the day of resurrection. So evil in it's self does not disprove the existance of God.

But then again, prove satan's existance to an atheist..

Satan is both good and evil. There is no 'evil' or pure 'good'. God brings 'evil' as trials. Most of the time indirectly by allowing the natural state of affairs to occur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...