God and the problem of evil or the problem of God and evil?

Caveat: I am not religious but do enjoy thinking through such questions so let us begin.

We must separate our terms. God will for our purposes=Perfect Being; Evil can be split into two different types:

1. Humans knowingly doing evil

2. Natural catastrophes

We shall start with the more interesting (2) first. The problem: God created the World and the World works in a causal fashion (or at least seems to). But if this is true, either God made a mistake (contradicts the definition of God) or he is Evil (again contradicts the notion of God, for Evil is a lack of Good and lack is not perfect). These are untenable answers, so perhaps we should explore other avenues. Let us talk about a concept called epistemic distance. This is the notion that God separates himself from us, not in presence but in knowledge, ie we do not know him. The reason for this is that God wants us to make an unconditioned (free) choice. Now, if natural catastrophes only happened to Evil people, wouldn't it be a little suspicious. Wouldn't we be likely to believe in God, as that which punishes Evil with Earthquakes. Thus in order to maintain epistemic distance, he allows natural catastrophes to occur equally to all people, regardless of their moral/religious standing.

However this does not answer the question as to why these events occur at all. We must explore the Euthyphro problem. Is Good Good because God says so, or is Good Good in and of itself (say following a logical principle)? If Good is Good merely because God says so, well this is not a very convincing argument to do Good, for that is an argument from authority. Thus the other option sounds more appropriate, that is God follows (ethical) rules which are Good in and of themselves. Okay, so God wants to create a world that is the most perfect and the most varied. In order to do this he must follow logical rules. But the second he creates a good world there will necessarily be evil in that world (for the concept of Good is meaningless without its Evil counterpart). Furthermore in order to make it the most varied and follow logical laws, there will be evil consequences. Thus, he creates a world that is most varied within the structure of the Good.

2. What is more desirable: a lover that loves you because if they don't they will suffer, or because they are a robot that follows your every command? Or is it better that a lover loves you of their own free will, with the possibility of erring? The second option seems most Perfect, thus God creates us as free with the possibility of us sinning. Furthermore in creating the Good, he nec. creates the evil, because the Good is meaningless without its opposite.

The one major flaw of this argument is: if God keeps epistemic distance it means that the categories that we understand cannot be applied to God, for we would understand these categories. We understand the category of existence and perfection, thus we cannot say or even understand what it would mean to say God, is, Perfect. Thus we cannot understand any of this without contradicting the terms of our argument.

With this flaw we have come full circle and must ask ourselves again the question and approach it from a different angle.

But I am tired now Socrates and must abscond to my bed...

EDIT

Guitarist- I think that, in your ribald haste, you might have misunderstood Hume. Hume was tired of the old metaphysical arguments of God, and was asking an essential question about this supposedly "good" God. He might be aiming his attack at thinkers like Leibniz, who claimed that God creates the best possible world. What Hume is in fact saying is that we have no justification for Evil iff God is good and created the world. Thus he is saying, Even if there was a God, given the state of affairs of the world, he cannot be taken as a Good God without a lot of explaining and waffling. Thus he is attacking the notion of God as though He were real. This is a common exercise in philosophy and a strong one. It says, instead of debating existence, I am going to show you that even if this entity did exist as you say, it is not actually what you mean. This is an especially potent argument in this case, for God is supposedly the highest Good and the most powerful. But given that bad things happen (for instance you do not mention natural evil) we have to affirm either that God is not omnipotent, or that God is not Good. However, the supports of this notion want to have their cake and eat it too. They want him to exist as all-powerful and as all-Good. Hume is saying even if we grant you his existence, He is not what you say He is.

Thus this phrase needs to be thought about more carefully and not thrown away in haste. It draws on a long philosophical tradition and has spawned a long philosophical tradition for a reason.

You only address human evil but you do not address natural evil. You express a metaphysical principle (as I did above) but you belie it in the same post. If God is omnipotent, then why does he have to follow the rules of logic such as "a term only has meaning if there is something that is not that term". You have attempted to affirm that God is omnipotent and that God is bound by the laws of logic. Thus the internal contradiction of this seemingly Sound Common Sense forces us to reinvest in the problem.

Cheers!

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

WHoever answered yes to this and tried to defend the potence of God at the sametime is a moron.

the whole point of GOD is that he is omnipotent, he is ABLE. the question has never been if he is able, that question deals with the existance of GOD and there would be no point in asking that question if that is the question. But the question has always been is he not willing. THat is the crux of the matter. Explain to me how we could possibly ask questions or think for and of ourselves if he prevented all evil. Look at terrorists, rapists, murderers, haters, and the occasional lawyer. IF he prevented them... there is no free will, what the heck is he supposed to do? change their minds? knock them out with a tree? I don't think you have thought this question through at all. Neither has this David Hume dude. First of all he is adding 2 and 2 to equal 6. His logic is ilogical. His premise is poor but i agree with the conclusion, WHence then is evil? that is the question. THe answer is evil is the counterpart of good, neither can exist without the other.

David Hume had a very limited vision of the universe

Evil is subjective, what I consider to be evil might be considered ordinary by you and necessary by someone else

people who behave in extreme ways are often driven by emotions other than evil ones, but their behavior is damaging or destructive and so we call them evil

God gave us a world to dwell in where we will always be confronted by choices and decisions, it is up to us to make those choices and decisions and if we had nothing to choose from then we would not learn anything

I think the root of this idea is the belief that "Good" is an absolute. If it is always Good to help people in need and always Evil to refuse to help people in need that you could easily help then this thought of Hume's is true. (It is also a idea I strongly agree with and part of why I am an atheist)

Conversely, if we allow that a different standard of Good and Evil applies to God because "He knows things we can't" or "has to let us solve our own problems" or has a "Divine Plan" then we can't judge God's behavior in the same way. (personally I think this line of thought is a rationalization that allows people to keep outdated stale religious culture, it is a cop out).

The answer is free will. He is both able and willing, but because of His love he allows us to make our own choices. Evil does not exist as an entity in and of itself. Evil occurs when people make choices against the ideal. The ideal is exemplified in God and His character. (Everyone who has ever said, "Nobody's perfect" acknowledges that there IS an ideal, although they may not acknowledge that it is in God.)

Natural disasters are outside of this rubric somewhat, since they are not immediately caused by anyone's choice. However they are ultimately caused by that first choice to rebel against God. One of the results of that first choice was that a perfect creation became imperfect. Genesis 3 tells about this, and many other world religions have similar stories of a "Fall of Man." The overarching story of the Bible is redemption--redemption of humanity AND creation. All the wrong choices are superseded by one right choice--the book of Romans, specifically chapter 5, discusses this.

Many people's perception of GOD is just an imaginary being.

Religions base on this perception of GOD are pyramid scheme.

They ask you to donate your hard earned money for an afterlife in heaven that doesn't exist.

They threaten you with an afterlife in hell if you don't donate.

Good and evil are human's perceptions. In animals, they only understand edible or not edible ;-p

Everything are created by ENERGY through the evolution process.

ENERGY cannot be created or destroyed but it can be recycled and reuse.

Reincarnation is the recycled and reuse of this ENERGY.

LIFE is supported by ENERGY and when DEATH occurs, the ENERGY are reincarnated for another LIFE.

Therefore, ENERGY is the natural explaination of GOD

I will not speak of God only that this world is perfect in that it is both good and evil, you are both good and evil,. In your life you will do both good works and bad. A dog will love his pups and kill another dog if it gets in his way. This world provides both life and death. To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. There has to be two sides to every coin. Equality.

The origin is that God made human to pay for Satan's work.

After jesus ' death, Jesus went to hell to write spec to Satan so that Satan can make some human soul for him to play around in heaven. If someone is no good, satan would send evil to possess them in order to bring them back to good.

All are about trading between God and Satan. Human is merely money.

That is Epicurus not Hume, and quite correct. It pwned Christianity before it was invented.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Yes and he will according to his plans and schedule and purposes. Not yours.