One concept in the argument from evil is the idea that, if God exists and is good, then evil should not exist. But this ignores the obvious fact that it is only the presence of evil that makes the good possible.
Consider a situation which presumably confers/exudes “goodness”: finishing a marathon, feeding the homeless, or saving a man from drowning. In each situation, the good is only recognizable in contrast to an evil or bad thing: finishing a marathon is a triumph over the pain and suffering endured in the training and execution thereof; feeding the homeless is meaningful because they would otherwise starve/suffer; and saving a drowning man would mean nothing unless that man faced the potential of death.
Some degree of evil is necessary for good to exist. If humans were immortal and could never experience bad emotions, pain, or any sort of suffering – would any of the actions I listed be meaningful or good? Doesn’t seem like it. Maybe God could’ve created a world without evil, but such a world would’ve also been without good, and I’m glad we don’t live in such a boring world.
Now, some nontheists may counter, “Fine, evil is necessary for good. But there’s too much unnecessary evil in this world for the amount of good!”. This is an emotionally compelling argument, particular when made alongside of references to childhood cancer and other tragedies. But anyone making this argument would have to prove that there is both a greater amount of evil compared to good in the world, and/or that some evil cannot possible confer any goodness, neither of which I believe can be proved to any degree.
So, in summary, be happy that we live in an interesting world that has both good and evil, rather than neither.
> One concept that’s within The Argument From Evil is the idea that, if God realistically exists and is wholly Good, then Evil shouldn’t truly exist. But this blatantly ignores the obvious fact that it is only the presence of Evil that makes the Good possible.
Most Definitely Not. – But… – Alright.
> Consider a situation which presumably confers and/or which questionably exudes “Goodness”. Such as.: * Finishingly ending a marathon. * Voluntarily feeding the homeless. * Or primarily saving a man from drowning.
Okay.
> And, in each situation, the good is only recognizable in contrast to an badly evil thing, such as that eventually finishing a marathon is a triumph over the painful suffering that was physically endured within the confines of said training for said marathon and the execution of said training exercises thereof, and hospitably feeding the homeless is sincerely meaningful because they would otherwise starve from hunger and unfortunately suffer from said hunger as well, and ultimately saving a drowning man would mean absolutely nothing unless that man faced the potentiality of Death itself.
Absolutely Not.
> So, in essence, some degree of Evil is wholly necessary for Good to exist. Because, if Humans were immortal and could never experience bad feelings such as Pain or any sort of suffering, would any of the actions I listed be meaningfully good? Doesn’t seem like it. Maybe God could’ve simply created a world that’s without any Evil, but such a world probably would’ve also been without any Goodness, and because of that, I’m glad that we don’t personally live in such a uninterestingly boring world. And, now, some Non-Theists may counter with “Fine. Evil is necessary for Good. But there’s too much unnecessary Evil in this world for the amount of Good that comes from said Evil!”. And this is an emotionally compelling argument. (Particularly when made alongside of generally common references to matters such as Childhood Cancer and to other tragedies.). But anyone who makes this argument would have to honestly prove that there’s both a greater amount of Evil when in comparison to both the amount of Good in The World and/or that some Evil can’t possibly confer to any Goodness. Neither of which, I believe, can be genuinely proven to any degree.
Well, ultimately, and Generally Speaking and for Simplicity’s Sake, you don’t actually need to do things such as that you don’t need to physically feel and mentally experience Pain in an negatively bad way, just so that you could realistically enjoy your everyday life in an meaningfully good way at all and to wholeheartedly generate an lovingly beneficial appreciation for things such as Goodness, Compassion, and Loving-Kindess in an metaphorically undeniable way as well. – (Lymphoma and/or Bone Cancer.). – (And, even then, God **could** easily create an **Theoretically Hypothetical World(s)** and/or an **Theoretically Hypothetical Universe** – (I.E. Possible World(s).) in which Good fundamentally exist w/h out Evil. – However, and yet, that doesn’t majorly nor entirely imply, say, nor mean that God **should** and/or **would** creatively make an world and an universe that shouldn’t nor wouldn’t have Good or Evil a part of said world nor a part of said universe as well.). – (Although, in all honesty, God has already creatively made an world and an universe in which Humanity could only and should only do Good and not do Evil, and yet, and more often than not, Humanity usually if not always chooses to actively use Evil whenever they completely feel that it’s absolutely necessary for them to truthfully use said Evil for things and matters, sucn as for their own personal wants and for their own personal non-obligations, and for their own personal needs and for their own personal obligations. – (Both directly and/or indirectly.). – And so, and unfortunately, Humanity itself has to usually if not always learn what any and/or all Evils veraciously are in an knowledgeably understandable way overall and in an comprehensively acknowledgingable way altogether too. – (Unfortunately.).).
> So, in summary, be happy that we live in an relatively interesting world that has both Good and Evil, rather than neither.
Definitely No.
> good is only recognizable/meaningful in contrast to an evil…
That’s a very different claim to good is only possible in contrast to an evil. You’ve committed a bait and switch fallacy.
I disagree that good requires evil. Some of the things you list wouldn’t necessarily cease in a world without suffering and others aren’t good by themselves at all.
You keep mentioning food and sex, but I see no reason that the suffering free world a god would create would be made such that food doesn’t still taste good or sex not produce pleasure. It seems an arbitrary limitation on this god.
As for things like saving a drowning man, sure that wouldn’t exist without drowning, but saving a drowning man isn’t good. Its only mitigating an evil. It’s like saying that curing cancer is good, so a world with no cancer would be worse than a world with cancer because then we can work to find a cure. But a cure for cancer in a world without cancer isn’t good. It wouldn’t be justifiable to create cancer just so we could develop a cure.
>Evil is necessary for good to exist.
Heres a counterpoint. Good is necessary for evil to exist.
>One concept in the argument from evil is the idea that, if God exists and is good, then evil should not exist. But this ignores the obvious fact that it is only the presence of evil that makes the good possible.
One concept in the argument from good is the idea that, if God exists and is evil, then good should not exist. But this ignores the obvious fact that it is only the presence of good that makes the evil possible.
>Consider a situation which presumably confers/exudes “goodness”: finishing a marathon, feeding the homeless, or saving a man from drowning. In each situation, the good is only recognizable in contrast to an evil or bad thing: finishing a marathon is a triumph over the pain and suffering endured in the training and execution thereof; feeding the homeless is meaningful because they would otherwise starve/suffer; and saving a drowning man would mean nothing unless that man faced the potential of death.
Consider a situation which presumably confers/exudes “evil”: finishing a marathon, feeding the homeless, or saving a man from drowning. In each situation, the evil is only recognizable in contrast to a good thing: finishing a marathon will lead to a paralyzed man feeling despair over their inability to fulfil their dreams; the starving masses will be full of despair while knowing that the world produces enough food to feed them thrice over; saving a drowning man will give another drowning man hope that someone will come to their rescue.
>Some degree of evil is necessary for good to exist. If humans were immortal and could never experience bad emotions, pain, or any sort of suffering – would any of the actions I listed be meaningful or good? Doesn’t seem like it. Maybe God could’ve created a world without evil, but such a world would’ve also been without good, and I’m glad we don’t live in such a boring world.
Some degree of good is necessary for evil to exist. If humans were immortal and could never experience good emotions, love, or any sort of pleasure – would any of the actions I listed be meaningless or evil? Doesn’t seem like it. Maybe God could’ve created a world without good, but such a world would’ve also been without evil, and I’m glad we don’t live in such a boring world.
>Now, some nontheists may counter, “Fine, evil is necessary for good. But there’s too much unnecessary evil in this world for the amount of good!”. This is an emotionally compelling argument, particular when made alongside of references to childhood cancer and other tragedies. But anyone making this argument would have to prove that there is both a greater amount of evil compared to good in the world, and/or that some evil cannot possible confer any goodness, neither of which I believe can be proved to any degree.
Now, some theists may counter, “Fine, good is necessary for evil. But there’s too much unnecessary good in this world for the amount of evil!”. This is an emotionally compelling argument, particular when made alongside of references that most children are born cancer-free and an evil god would not allow survivors from tragedies. But anyone making this argument would have to prove that there is both a greater amount of good compared to evil in the world, and/or that some good cannot possible confer any evil, neither of which I believe can be proved to any degree.
So, in summary, be happy that we live in an interesting world that has both good and evil, rather than neither.
*[Now does this argument seem weak? Well that’s because it is. Every theodicy, as weak as they are, can be reversed to prove that an evil God allows goodness in the world. If this argument cannot convince you that an evil god exist, why would your equally flawed argument convince us that a good god exists?]*
This is kinda like saying “well, if I never tortured my kids, No-Torture-Sundays wouldn’t be such a celebrated day for them! actually, the idea of a non-torture day would be meaningless at that point!”.
So every time someone gets raped I should be like, ‘YAY!!!?
Personally I find the idea that we should be thankful homeless exist because it gives me an opportunity to throw them a few bucks and have some good feels about what a lovely person I am so offensive it is borderline evil, so gratz I guess, you’ve also managed to make me feel a better person.
You reference child cancer, and then in the same context give thanks we don’t live in a boring world, that the world is interesting.
Do you drop by the hospital wards caring for these children and give thanks to them for their suffering? Do you pop along to their funerals and smile with the parents at how wonderfully more interesting the world is now?
>Evil is necessary for good to exist.
OK. So there is evil in Heaven? What’s the point of eternity in Evil filled place then?
Old age is both unnecessary and tips the scales towards more suffering than happiness. A God should just be able to make you spontaneously die after a given age rather than make mortals go through the pain of old age.
Given that turtles do not grow old it seems unnecessary for humans to grow old.
> One concept in the argument from evil is the idea that, if God exists and is good, then evil should not exist. But this ignores the obvious fact that it is only the presence of evil that makes the good possible.
So god wasn’t good at the beginning? Or did god only become good after creating evil? And deciding to not be that?
>Consider a situation which presumably confers/exudes “goodness”: finishing a marathon, feeding the homeless, or saving a man from drowning. In each situation, the good is only recognizable in contrast to an evil or bad thing: finishing a marathon is a triumph over the pain and suffering endured in the training and execution thereof; feeding the homeless is meaningful because they would otherwise starve/suffer; and saving a drowning man would mean nothing unless that man faced the potential of death.
>Some degree of evil is necessary for good to exist.
That’s sort of like saying: “Consider the following animals: a harbor seal, a golden retriever, and panda bear. Each animal has fur, so some degree of furriness is necessary for animals to exist.”
But clearly there are many examples of animals that don’t have fur, just as there are many examples of good things that don’t require evil or even a deprivation of goodness in order for them to be good. You’ve simply cherry-picked the examples.
Consider enjoying a beautiful piece of music, giving a gift to a friend, giving your son or daughter a hug, running to stay healthy and in shape, exploring beauty by writing a poem or drawing a picture. All of these things may be “good” in some way, but it is not at all clear that some related evil must exist in order for them to be so.
Thanks for the post.
If I accept your premises, the conclusion is “a perfectly good being is impossible,” which negates an Omni-benevolent god.
I mean, your view seems to support a claim “god is, at best, pretty good, but nobody is perfect.”
Was that your goal? Cause it seems to be your result.
God by definition is capable of anything. He also set the definition of both good and evil
There is no requirement for evil to exist when God exists
If this argument is true, wouldn’t it mean that no sort of heaven or hell exists? No place could be completely without happiness (good) or completely without suffering (evil), thus hypothetical afterlife realms of happiness without suffering or suffering without happiness are impossible.
Evil is relative and a god as described in pretty much any religion could make the definition of evil someone who takes up two parking spots instead of babies getting terminal cancer.
Could you not say the opposite as well? Pain is bad because it is detrimental to our health which means health is a good thing.
Good would still exist without evil, the same way that gravity exists without anti-gravity.
If good and evil are relative not absolute, then they’re defined by their opposite. If ‘evil’ were eradicated, the bell curve moral behavior would shift. The ‘least good’ midpoint of the spectrum would become the new ‘evil’ over time.
Seems like a false dichotomy to me. The logical opposite of “good” is “not good”, which can include, but isn’t necessarily limited to, “evil”. There’s no real necessity for there to be evil specifically for there to be good; they’re independent descriptions. I don’t have to have an “evil” day at work to have what I would describe as a good day, for example.
Good and evil are just adjectives that describe our emotional reaction to particular actions or states of being. The only thing that’s “required” for good or evil is a person with preferences.
>Consider a situation which presumably confers/exudes “goodness”: finishing a marathon, feeding the homeless, or saving a man from drowning. In each situation, the good is only recognizable in contrast to an evil or bad thing
You just presented a list of subjective opinions that can be easily dismissed if someone doesn’t agree with them. For example, I think finishing a marathon is only good if it is someone’s goal to finish a marathon. Not finishing a marathon would be bad if someone tried to finish, but failed. I don’t intend to finish a marathon and have never tried to, but I don’t think that’s either good or bad. I don’t think that finishing a marathon is good simply because training for the marathon can be painful.
>feeding the homeless is meaningful because they would otherwise starve/suffer
Why are you switching from “goodness” to “meaningful”? Those aren’t the same things, and they’re not interchangeable.
>saving a drowning man would mean nothing unless that man faced the potential of death
You’re equivocating again.
>If humans were immortal and could never experience bad emotions, pain, or any sort of suffering – would any of the actions I listed be meaningful or good? Doesn’t seem like it.
Since your list wasn’t an exhaustive list of all actions people could perform, then I fail to see how demonstrating that *those* actions might not be considered “meaningful or good” demonstrate that *no* actions can be considered “meaningful or good” by anyone ever if they have the characteristics you presented.
>Maybe God could’ve created a world without evil, but such a world would’ve also been without good, and I’m glad we don’t live in such a boring world.
“Good” is just a word that describes an action or outcome that people like or prefer. “Evil” is a word that describes something that people *really* don’t like. Peoples’ preferences exist on a spectrum. I don’t like getting the hiccups, but I don’t think hiccups are evil. So, if I existed in a universe where I could get the hiccups but wouldn’t have to worry about mass murderers (which I consider evil), then there’s still plenty of room for me to experience things that I consider good. Since you can’t be bothered to provide any kind of metric that you’re using for good or evil, I have to use my own. Based on my metric, it’s totally possible to experience good without experiencing evil. Your argument failed to convince me otherwise.
“If humans were immortal and could never experience bad emotions, pain, or any sort of suffering – would any of the actions I listed be meaningful or good?”
​
You just argued that heaven is pointless.
This is a common attempted theodicy, and I don’t think it succeed for a few reasons.
1. What many people mean by “evil” is a concept in direct opposition to “good”. With this understanding, evil cannot be necessary for good, because any evil is an absence of good and any good is an absence of evil. They are opposed concepts like short and tall, North and South, hot and cold. Perhaps you reject this understanding of the terms but that brings us to the next issue.
2. If evil and good aren’t directly opposed, then the problem of evil can just be rephrased to the problem of not good. So you can say evil is necessary for good, but that doesn’t explain why reality is not maximally good. You’ve also tied yourself to arguing that evil *is* good. You have to be willing to walk up to a Holocaust victim and tell them that preventing the Holocaust would make the world less good if you want to be intellectuality consistent. Are you really willing to do that?
If this premise is true, what does it say about the existence of a good god? Wouldn’t then be an evil god necessary for a good god to exist? Some good ol’ dualism again?
>he obvious fact that it is only the presence of evil that makes the good possible.
Nothing obvious about it, you are just putting situations in contrast. If you remove the bad one nothing about the good one changes. If diseases no longer existed, would being healthy stop being a good thing? Maybe instead of good it would just be the normal state of things and no one would think about it, but again, is it a important distiction? I personally am not a huge fan of the argument of evil, but there is not much you can do to defend it either.
Is Heaven good? Do angels experience good things? Is God good? If there’s no suffering or evil within Heaven or within God, then how can these things be good?
Ok, so. Medicine is good, right? I assume we all agree. Medicine is good. It is good that there are people who have dedicated their lives to treating the sick, that makes the world a better place.
Now, imagine a world *without* disease. Due to a quirk of evolution, dangerous pathogens just never developed. This world has never known sickness. Naturally, this means this world has also never known medicine- there have never been doctors or hospitals, because there’s no need for them. You have a collection of samples of deadly pathogens, everything from black death to smallpox to COVID. Were you to unleash them on this world, it would quite rapidly develop medicine- as we established, a good thing this world would otherwise never have. You would also, of course, condemn unimaginable amounts of people to early, horrific deaths.
Are you justified in releasing the plagues?
You can do basically the same case with a world without war, without murder, without starvation, without natural disasters, so forth so forth, and the answer is always the same: *obviously not, you monster.* It is *better* that these worlds lack goodness- it is wrong to cause massive evil to promote good ends, no matter how how essential that evil is to them. A world with neither good or evil is better then a world with both- after all, were it not, surely it would be *heroic* to unleash smallpox on the plaugeless world. You’d be improving it. But we don’t think that, and we shouldn’t think that. Were evil not to exist, it would lead to a world without goodness, but it would still be wrong to create evil and rectify this.
This is not an argument *for* allowing evil. It’s an argument *against* pursuing goods, and quite a compelling one at that. After all, if your plan requires *literally all the evil in history* as an essential component, how “good” can it really by?
This is only true because it’s how god designed it for us (theoretically). He could easily design a world where only good exists and would be appreciatedz
Nice points.
Notice regarding “would have to prove that there is both a greater amount of evil compared to good in the world,” — that when *that* situation arose, we read on several occasions of how God sent destruction to the city or nation or region that had that much *excess* of evil.
For instance, this moment led to a giant flood to destroy a large excess of evil over the good:
5 The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that *every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.*
(!)
6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” — [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis+6&version=niv](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis+6&version=niv)
Or here’s another instance, where a few cities are destroyed:
49 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters *[the cities Sodom, Gomorrah and sister cities of that plain]* were **arrogant**, overfed and unconcerned; **they did not help the poor and needy.** 50 They were **haughty** and did abomination before me. Therefore I *did away with them* as you have seen.”
[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2016%3A49-50&version=NIV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2016%3A49-50&version=NIV)
So, when there is an actual pronounced excess of evil over good, then God intervenes and destroys that evil, sending *all* the people (both the guilty and the innocent in those places) on to the Day of Judgement*, where the innocent and the repentant will be saved into Eternal Life*, but the guilty unrepentant (even after having a true chance in that new place) will be “destroyed” (“body and soul”) in the “second death”. (Note also we read in 1rst Peter 3:18-4:6 they get a chance to hear the gospel and become saved, those ‘spirits in prison’, but we can still surmise they must have faith to then be saved, even there.)