NonContradiction

I would say yes.



No

If I were analogous to God, then perhaps you would have an argument, but obviously, I am not.

I think that there is a big difference between opposing evil and preventing it. Let's suppose that I saw a 15-year old boy beating a 5-year old boy. I may oppose the 15-year old boy, but let's say that the 15-year old pulled out a gun and shot me. Now let's say that, since I am out of the picture, the 15-year old continues beating on the 5-year old. Did I prevent the beating of the 5-year old? No, but I did oppose it.

God doesn't prevent evil, but He does oppose it. If God were to prevent evil, then He wouldn't, nor would anybody else, be able to oppose it. By God's opposition to evil, He minimizes evil in the world.

NonContradiction

It's quite possible for God to have mutually exclusive desires. For example, it's quite possible that God wants to prevent evil on one hand, while on the other hand, He wants to allow it to exist so that He can oppose it. Why would God allow evil to exist so that He could oppose it? I can think of some reasons why, but the point is God could have His own reasons why. The bottom line to all of this is if God had good reason to allow evil to exist so that He could oppose it, that would preclude Him from preventing evil.

CALDONIA

The whole concept of "prayer" negates any logical belief in any God. A Creator need not allow anything against His will. Therefore, prayer is a direct expression of doubt of His intentions and attentions, it presumes the power of persuasion of the created over the Creator, it seeks to overcome the doctrine that whatever happens is "God's Will."

Funny how people have faith that wishful thinking (prayer) may change their life, but know that at a red light no amount of prayer will turn the signal to green.

NonContradiction

In the best of all possible worlds, we would not have hijackers ramming planes into buildings killing innocent people.

My argument establishes that God need not prevent ALL pain and suffering, assuming that He is Omnibenevolent. Now, the argument becomes one of there being too much or too little pain and suffering in the world. Who decides what is a gratuitous amount of pain and suffering in the world? Does God, since we have established that He need not prevent all pain and suffering, regulate the level of pain and suffering in the world?

In closing, I would like to say that, IMO, the greatest amount of pain and suffering in the world is caused by institutionalized evil. What do I mean by institutionalized and noninstitionalized evil? Institutionalized evil is injustice backed by the full force of law of a government. For example, institutionalized racism that existed in America against non-whites was institutionalized evil, whereas a randomn act of violence in the street, although it is evil, would not be institutionalized evil. Saddam Hussein would be another example of institutionalized evil.

Philosoft

Wouldn't an omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator bring about the best possible world (the world with the most good) by definition?

But God has regulated the amount of pain and suffering. Osama bin Laden can't kill people by thought alone. If Osama could kill people just by thinking, there would likely be more pain and suffering than there is now.
And the institution of Saddam would cause that much more suffering if he could torture people by snapping his fingers.

Wyz_sub10

You don't need to be analogous to god. You need only to be consistent in your reasoning.

Are you suggesting god is incapable of preventing evil in a similar manner? To begin with, god (unlike you) supposedly cannot be stopped in this way.

Secondly, you could stand idly by and oppose evil, in principle, and still do nothing about it. Your opposition, in this case, is meaningless and certainly of little benefit to society, other than you not engaging in similar behaviour.

But if god stands by and does nothing, simply opposing it in prinicple, then I would find that hard to equate with benevolence.

His opposition, under your definition, is meaningless. And if he could prevent evil without opposition, but doesn't, he certainly is not "minimizing" evil. I find it striking that you can actually make this claim using this explanation.

NonContradiction

Actually, I would like to revise those three statements to the following:

1) For you to experience pain and pleasure in this life.

2) For you to have patience with the pain and have gratitude for the pleasure.

3) For you to be rewarded for your patience and gratitude in the hereafter.

Now, I don't believe that the Bible, in its entirety, is the word of God. However, I don't see where the above propositions are in conflict with a loving God.

I don't see the conflict between a God being all-loving, and His wanting us to experience pain and pleasure in this life.

NonContradiction

Are you saying that we wouldn't suffer, at all, or do you allow for some pain and suffering? If God wouldn't let us suffer, at all, does that mean if I stub my toe that God isn't omnibenevolent?


I agree with you that a God whose top priority is to prevent ALL pain and suffering doesn't exist. However, you are not proving that an all-loving God who allows SOME pain and suffering doesn't exist. If you want to believe that you have proved something meaningful, go right ahead, but I don't think that you have. You might as well have been proving that Zeus doesn't exist.

NonContradiction

1) Assuming God exists and God is Tri-Omni, either He is preventing ALL evil, SOME evil, or NO evil.

2) Evil exists

3) Therefore, God is either preventing SOME evil or NO evil.

4) The world could be worse.

5) Therefore, God is preventing some evil.

The issue really isn't why doesn't God prevent evil, but rather, why doesn't God prevent more evil than He does. Do we all agree on that?

Wiploc

No, that isn't evidence that god is doing anything at all. If the world was all good, miraculously good, we might conclude that there was an all-good god. If it were all bad, miraculously bad, we might conclude that there was an all-bad god. But the world is a mixed bag, so there could be a god that is himself a mix of good and evil, or there might be no god, or a god who doesn't do anything, or a good god is fighting a bad god --- but there is certainly no reason to conclude that everything which could be worse is a sign of god's intervention.

[/B] [/QUOTE]

Certainly not. An all-powerful all-good god would eliminate all evil.
crc