> That's an unsound argument. Suppose that we find some reason R that
> reconciles the existence of God (an omnipotent, omniscient,
> autonomous, benevolent being) with the existence of evil. There is
> no reason that I can see to think that R necessarily entails that 1)
> evil will never be overcome or 2) we should not overcome evil.
No reason? I sure can't see any reason why you can think this
way. How would we as sentient beings be any different from God? If
God doesn't now overcome Evil, how/why should we ever be able to? Why
could God be different than us? If God doesn't have to overcome evil,
why should we now try to overcome evil?
> Furthermore, if R can provide a case for why a benevolent God allows
> evil, then it's possible that R is also applicable to our actions,
> and thus provides a reason for us to allow evil.
That's what a theodicy is. Ann attempt to find any reason R
that justifies evil in the presence of a God. A theodicy is an
attempt to twist evil or bad into good or into something that is
rationalized or justified.
> And if that's the case, then we've merely discovered that to do
> right we must allow some evil.
Such an idea is the ultimate of devilishness to me. How can
we find some way to twist bad into really being good so we can justify
it's existence or our (or God's) tolerance of it? Again, I prefer to
hope that such would never be required, that we can find some way to
eliminate ALL evil. Once we achieve such, as any God must already
have done, how could we be justified in not eliminating it?
Good is good and bad is bad in my book. There can be no
twisting of one into the other. I seek after and hope for perfect
goodness and make no attempts to justify any evil. Any belief or
acceptance of any idea or words like "we must allow some evil" is
faithlessly giving up in despair to me. My hope and desire is to
never give up until all evil is overcome. It is not consistent to
have such a hope and to believe in a God.
Brent Allsop