The problem of natural evil is a specific form of the problem of evil, the problem of reconciling the existence of evil with the existence of God. If God is all-knowing, benevolent, and all-powerful, then why does he allow evil to occur?
There are two kinds of evil in the world: moral and natural; both appear to exist in abundance. Moral evils are those evils that are freely inflicted upon humankind by humankind: deceit, murder, theft, etc.; they result from the choices of free agents. Natural evils are those evils that occur as the result of natural processes: earthquakes, forest fires, tsunamis, etc. The problem of natural evil is thus the problem of explaining why God allows this latter kind of evil to occur.
The most common response to the problem of evil—the free-will defence—holds that God rightly chose to create humankind free, and that evil is the result of our abuse of that freedom. Evil is not God’s fault; it is ours. This defence applies only to moral evil; natural evil does not result from the choices of free agents, and so cannot be justified in this way. Natural evil therefore poses a greater threat to belief in God than moral evil.
Two generic responses to the problem of evil question its fundamental assumptions. The first denies that God is morally good, casting doubt on whether he would prevent evil if he were able to; the second denies that evil exists, casting doubt on whether there is a problem to solve at all.
There is, however, an alternative response to the problem of natural evil, associated with St Augustine, that grants that evil exists but denies that any of it is natural. If this position can be maintained, then it will be possible to extend the free-will defence to cover not only those evils usually categorised as moral evils, but also those usually categorised as natural.
The defence works by suggesting that so-called natural evils—earthquakes, epidemics, etc.—are the work of demonic forces, fallen angels. They are, it is suggested, no less the result of free will than evils normally classified as moral. This defence thus effectively denies the existence of natural evils, holding that all evils result from the choices of free agents, and so that all evils are moral.
Another attempt to solve the problem of natural evil sees such evil as a just punishment for sin inflicted upon us by God. We cannot complain about natural evils, on this view, because we deserve all that we get. Natural evil, unpleasant though it may be, belongs in the world; it makes the world more just.
The chief difficulty with this view is that nature is a crude instrument of retribution; it often smites hardest those that have sinned least. The argument may succeed in casting some doubt on the supposition that a good God would eliminate all suffering; God’s benevolence and his justice may exist in tension, and a benevolent God may sometimes will just punishment. It does not, however, explain the unequal distribution of natural evil that we observe.
Perhaps a more robust approach to resolving the problem of natural evil is that which holds that it is necessary for the universe to contain some evil in order for it to contain some good. Good and evil, according to this position, are relative terms, like up and down or past and future; one cannot have one unless one has both. If this is correct, if it is impossible for one to exist without the other, then perhaps God was justified in creating a world containing evil because it was only by doing so that he could create a world containing good.
Even if the previous suggestion is resisted, a similar argument might be proposed, holding that evil is necessary in order for certain types of good to exist. Specifically, the existence of evil allows for goods that oppose evil, opening up possibilities for bravery, for compassion, and for mutual dependence, for example. These higher-order goods could not exist otherwise. A world without suffering would lack such goods as these, and would therefore be inferior.
+1
Okay I try to put some argument myself.
It might be a bit jumbled but I try to make my response as clear as the face of the moon lol.
What a bloody idiotic thoughts [no offence to TS]. Do you really believe that we cannot love unless we have hated? Love will exists even though a person may never hate or felt hated.
So do you believe that deeper hatred makes 'higher order' love possible?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
Moral evils are those evils that are freely inflicted upon humankind by humankind: deceit, murder, theft, etc.; they result from the choices of free agents. Natural evils are those evils that occur as the result of natural processes: earthquakes, forest fires, tsunamis, etc.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all before you label something good or evil you need one parameter to justify your labeling. That one parameter is the result from the choices of free agents.
Say a rock was thrown at you by another person. You never did harm to that person. Was the rock evil or was the person evil? You cannot label the rock evil because it was not a free agent capable of making choices between good or evil.
My second point is: Good and evil is not solely the result of our own perception because if we measure good and evil solely by our own perception than our labeling will merely be relative which implies that there is no true good and there is no true evil simply because we are a very subjective being. What we deemed good might be deemed evil by another group of human. Then Good and evil becomes a relative term which IS NOT. As a Christian I firmly believe that Hell and heaven is not a relative term. So to God good and evil is not a relative term. There's good people then there's evil people.
So here is my argument: You are using human perception in lableling the natural phenomenon as evil or good. First to justify the labeling of natural evil you need one parameter: The choices of free agents. Which is impossible to be determined by us. So the labelling of natural evil is a false lableling because it is solely based on human perception. The parameter of free agent is not available here. Unless you of course believe that natural disasters are the work of the devil or God but any belief needs responsible justification which in this case is not available to us.
I just want to say that the root of all evil and good is
In thine own HEART.
Every desire, wanting even to the smallest degree comes from your very own heart. From loving another person, being angry or hating to wanting to talk to someone to even simply wanting to turn off the tv. All those come from thine own heart. No they don't come from thine own mind, they may pop in your mind but they come from thine own heart.
Makes it clean. Consecrate your heart to God or at least try to. Live a life of the the Lord's chosen because you are.
And good will triumph in your heart. and in your life.
i think everyone have two side, good and evil. Some of them, good dominate evil, for some, evil dominate good, for public in general, i think the prominence of good is over the evil.
But there still are some portion of evil.
I first encounter the word natural evil, i don't know what it means, so i search on web, there is another word moral evil ,in contrast of the natural evil.
Because there do have some portion of evil, so some people visualise it, picture it to be Satan, but i think there is a little monster exist in everyone's heart,
Let's why we need law to enforcement the right over wrong, enforce the good over evil. The whole legal system is based on the premise that human is evil. i am not so familar with what westerner think, but everyone know what original sin means, in order to prevent orginal sin become dominant, we need law.
When i am in bad mood, i want to cause damage to my item, no one could be smiling all the time,
Sometimes we could be very angry, i guess war is one of moral evil in the world.
Let's presume, if your parents break up, one of your parent abuse you, treat you very bad, you have no money to be admitted for good education,
then probably you will be bad, let's how the public label you,
But don't forget, if there is no evil, then there won't be any good. Just like if there is no white, black is meaningless.
So i want to say, no matter a person is good or evil. Above all, it's natural, just like natural evil. It really exist.
So we need to have the right mentality, stop the evil to be controlling us, everyone have the chance to be evil, when he is treated unfairly.
M&P
i think good evil is a value judgement, so it only subject to setient being, hence rock does not count.
"which implies that there is no true good and there is no true evil simply because we are a very subjective being"
good point, we are subjective being, but sometimes we could be objective, otherwise there will be no chance to develope science,
i think there is true evil and true good,
good like, filial, loyal, hardworking,
but sometimes, good and evil are relative, i believe there is galaxy between ideology of east and west.
Like filial is one important quality for asia, but in west, they are individualistic, west embrace freedom, but they look for freedom outward, asian look for freedom inwards.
and sometimes good can be change to bad, bad can change to good,
like a child is pampered, he enjoy his childhood, with everything he want, but he may fail to develope discipline and stamina when facing difficult situation.
Originally posted by rokkie:everyone have the chance to be evil, when he is treated unfairly.
Evil that befell you doesn't justify evil that you are about to do. One evil doesn't justify another.
The truth is evil deeds are mostly not done as a retribution over evil done in the past.
Evil is born out mostly from selflishness. Out from the very heart of the perpetrator.
So the only solution to prevent evil is to clean our very own heart. To have repentance.
Again I feel strongly disagree with Rokkie. White didn't lose its whiteness if there was no black. And black didn't lose it's blackness if there was no white. Because each is its own color. One doesn't depend on the other. One is different from the other.
Holiness doesn't lose its majesty when there is no sinfulness just like
A mountain doesn't lose its majesty when there's no valley left on the planet.
And contrary to many people's belief . . .
There is strength in goodness itself much more so than in evil.
But people tend to view evil as a source of strength...they are blinded to see that there's much strength in goodness. Much more than in evil.
Have you ever seen a sure victor resorting to evil? I guess not but a loser may resort to evil ways to allow him to win a situation that otherwise he couldn't. Evil is for sure losers. It gives them hope. It buys them time. It gives them what they wanted that otherwise they couldn't have. Evil is for the desperate people.
To emphasize my point: Do you see a winner in these names:
rapist, pedophile, murderer or serial killer, dictator, mass murderer, thief, cheater, liar, conman, etc
Do you see a winner in those names? Do you even see a slighest image of a winner in those names?
I certainly would have guessed not. But you would see a serious flaw of character in those names. Men that fail. Men that were desperate. Men which is above all in dire need of help from his fellow men. Men who could not but would not.
Of course in real life it may not be so easy to see those names. They may be masqueraded with titles such as the beloved fuhrer, comrade leader, deputy prime minister or prime minister or president, CEO, etc. Behind those titles they may be the men who simply could not but would not.
Originally posted by rokkie:and sometimes good can be change to bad, bad can change to good,
You mean the people change.
But good and evil will remain the same.
Though we often put a permanent labeling of good or evil to people we often forget that good or evil is the result of free agent choices. People can have a change of heart. Maybe not that often but they do.
The thing is there is no one alive no matter how evil may think of himself as being evil. He will breath, walk and keep on doing his things never thinking himself as an evil person. That's how blinded a person can be. Making excuses and blame shifting he will do just about anything to convince or to lie to himself that he is not a bad person. Because guilt is too much an emotion for any human being, most of them fear it and choose to shut it down. Consciously and subsconsciously. That's why many many people need God touching their heart in order to repent.
Originally posted by Miracles&Prophecies:
Evil that befell you doesn't justify evil that you are about to do. One evil doesn't justify another.
The truth is evil deeds are mostly not done as a retribution over evil done in the past.
Evil is born out mostly from selflishness. Out from the very heart of the perpetrator.
So the only solution to prevent evil is to clean our very own heart. To have repentance.
Again I feel strongly disagree with Rokkie. White didn't lose its whiteness if there was no black. And black didn't lose it's blackness if there was no white. Because each is its own color. One doesn't depend on the other. One is different from the other.
Holiness doesn't lose its majesty when there is no sinfulness just like
A mountain doesn't lose its majesty when there's no valley left on the planet.
let me put it this way, if you are 190 cm tall, i group of people who is 170 cm, you are tall, but in group of 200cm people, you are short.
So tall and short , really is a relative term, so i instead of saying, black losing its blackness, when there is no white,
i say without shortness, there is no tallness, as i said, if everyone is 210 tall, then you are no longer tall.
We have reach an agreement, and good and evil is relative term.
When you say holiness doesn't lose it's majesty, let's say you are smart, fullfill every moral code, but if you are compare with mother teresa, or any other sage, you lit is just like when moon seeing sun, her lit will be in shadow. And you become less good, when putting you with the rest of sages.
Originally posted by Miracles&Prophecies:And contrary to many people's belief . . .
There is strength in goodness itself much more so than in evil.
But people tend to view evil as a source of strength...they are blinded to see that there's much strength in goodness. Much more than in evil.
Have you ever seen a sure victor resorting to evil? I guess not but a loser may resort to evil ways to allow him to win a situation that otherwise he couldn't. Evil is for sure losers. It gives them hope. It buys them time. It gives them what they wanted that otherwise they couldn't have. Evil is for the desperate people.
To emphasize my point: Do you see a winner in these names:
rapist, pedophile, murderer or serial killer, dictator, mass murderer, thief, cheater, liar, conman, etc
Do you see a winner in those names? Do you even see a slighest image of a winner in those names?
I certainly would have guessed not. But you would see a serious flaw of character in those names. Men that fail. Men that were desperate. Men which is above all in dire need of help from his fellow men. Men who could not but would not.
Of course in real life it may not be so easy to see those names. They may be masqueraded with titles such as the beloved fuhrer, comrade leader, deputy prime minister or prime minister or president, CEO, etc. Behind those titles they may be the men who simply could not but would not.
that's not what i am thinking, i think evil is a black mark in every people's heart, maybe someone can get strength from evil. like anger,
i think evil is evil. Everyone should have the right mentality, some people earn money by cheating, the money is earned, but he lost his purity in spirit.
Originally posted by rokkie:
We have reach an agreement, and good and evil is relative term.When you say holiness doesn't lose it's majesty, let's say you are smart, fullfill every moral code, but if you are compare with mother teresa, or any other sage, you lit is just like when moon seeing sun, her lit will be in shadow. And you become less good, when putting you with the rest of sages.
I'm sorry but I have to disagree that good and evil is a relative term. Good is good and evil is evil.
Because hell and heaven are not relative condition which implies that God's judgement is not relative.
You were comparing good with another good. There are all level of goodness as there are all level of position of power for men in heaven. All people who are in heaven are saved people but not all of them will have or will share position of power with Christ just like not all of them will be raised back to life immediately.
Originally posted by Miracles&Prophecies:
You mean the people change.But good and evil will remain the same.
Though we often put a permanent labeling of good or evil to people we often forget that good or evil is the result of free agent choices. People can have a change of heart. Maybe not that often but they do.
The thing is there is no one alive no matter how evil may think of himself as being evil. He will breath, walk and keep on doing his things never thinking himself as an evil person. That's how blinded a person can be. Making excuses and blame shifting he will do just about anything to convince or to lie to himself that he is not a bad person. Because guilt is too much an emotion for any human being, most of them fear it and choose to shut it down. Consciously and subsconsciously. That's why many many people need God touching their heart in order to repent.
i think i am repeating what you have said, good and bad is a relative term, as i have explained previously.
there is an old story about the good can change to bad,
an old man he lost his horse, he feel no good, but when he saw his neighbor, riding a horse, and break his leg, he feel lucky.
His son break his leg, some day, the old man is sad, but when the military is recruiting people. His son is not recruited because the broken leg, and save his life. Cause many people lost their lives in warfield.
So when the old man lost his horse, seems it's no good, but finally it become good.So as when his son break his leg
Originally posted by rokkie:that's not what i am thinking, i think evil is a black mark in every people's heart, maybe someone can get strength from evil. like anger,
i think evil is evil. Everyone should have the right mentality, some people earn money by cheating, the money is earned, but he lost his purity in spirit.
Umm what I meant by believing evil as a source of power is by being dependent on acts of evil in his daily life and relying on them to get him out of any situation. In other words by believing that sinfulness as an advantage instead of a shame.
Much like saying to himself: I'm proud that I'm a rapist, a cheater and a liar, a murderer and a conman.
Pretty foolish isn't it.
Originally posted by rokkie:i think i am repeating what you have said, good and bad is a relative term, as i have explained previously.
there is an old story about the good can change to bad,
an old man he lost his horse, he feel no good, but when he saw his neighbor, riding a horse, and break his leg, he feel lucky.
His son break his leg, some day, the old man is sad, but when the military is recruiting people. His son is not recruited because the broken leg, and save his life. Cause many people lost their lives in warfield.
So when the old man lost his horse, seems it's no good, but finally it become good.So as when his son break his leg
Errr I think the story you put is about good fortunes and bad fortunes. We are discussing about goodness or evil as a character and way of life. They are different.
Originally posted by Miracles&Prophecies:
Errr I think the story you put is about good fortunes and bad fortunes. We are discussing about goodness or evil as a character and way of life. They are different.
i cannot agree, i think we are discussing good and evil in general, like natural evil, it's some disaster without being commited by free agent,
like the disaster, some may view it as evil, bad fortune, but maybe we could think the other way around, like i have pointed out in the story,
The disaster come out, have toughen people's psyche. Like many races or nations who have been tortued in history, is booming now,
you can take jews as an example.
Just like a child who is pampered, will not developed stamina, willpower,
Originally posted by Miracles&Prophecies:
Umm what I meant by believing evil as a source of power is by being dependent on acts of evil in his daily life and relying on them to get him out of any situation. In other words by believing that sinfulness as an advantage instead of a shame.Much like saying to himself: I'm proud that I'm a rapist, a cheater and a liar, a murderer and a conman.
Pretty foolish isn't it.
i think you cannot blame a single person, i think how a person is, is much dependent on his life experience. Like i said, when he is raise in good family, with good education, he will probably will a good man.
When he is abused, poor education, he tend to develope anti social behavior.
the problem lay in the society.
Well as for me I don't think there's such thing as natural evil. The labeling of natural disaster as evil is false and misleading in my opinion. You cannot deemed something which is not a free agent as evil.
When you label such thing as natural evil you are deeming goodness and evil by your own humane subjectivity i,e perception and not by moral judgment as there is nothing moral about nature.
But since this is your thread I leave it to you.
Originally posted by rokkie:
i think you cannot blame a single person, i think how a person is, is much dependent on his life experience. Like i said, when he is raise in good family, with good education, he will probably will a good man.When he is abused, poor education, he tend to develope anti social behavior.
the problem lay in the society.
Of course there may be many reasons why a man become bad or evil but again being good or bad is the choice that we make. In the end the people in hell can only have themselves to blame really.
The thing is for the good people not to take rash action and most importantly not to return evil for evil. Goodness has its own way just like evil has its own way.
Like I said a bad person is one who is in dire need of help from his fellow man as well as in dire need of love from his fellow man. Heaven rejoices when a bad person return from his evil ways back to good.
Saving a soul is priceless act of compassion. Death alone is a punishment too scary let alone hell that is waiting in the end.
Originally posted by Miracles&Prophecies:Well as for me I don't think there's such thing as natural evil. The labeling of natural disaster as evil is false and misleading in my opinion. You cannot deemed something which is not a free agent as evil.
When you label such thing as natural evil you are deeming goodness and evil by your own humane subjectivity i,e perception and not by moral judgment as there is nothing moral about nature.
But since this is your thread I leave it to you.
talking about evil and good in general, is trying to solving the problem in a philosophical way, just like, without philosophy you cannot prove the existence of god, or anything god like.
Like many people think since there is so many imperfection in the world, there is perfect being, and abolute good, ultimate good, then it's god.
Some people said, mother earth is a organism, human being and any sentient being, is just like cell in human body,
Sometimes, human did bad things to mother nature, mother nature will also do bad things to them,
But natural evil, is being defined using a philosophical thought, talking about evil in general. I don't know whether you could agree there is evil is the world. And natural evil is one of them, a manifestation of it.
Yes, sometimes you attribute good or evil to nature, by feeling of you subjectively.So are we doing science project or what, i believe being subjective is unavoidable for human, and it's the beautiful part of human.It's how we are being created to be.
Without subjectivity, i don't know what i would say.
Originally posted by Miracles&Prophecies:Well as for me I don't think there's such thing as natural evil. The labeling of natural disaster as evil is false and misleading in my opinion. You cannot deemed something which is not a free agent as evil.
When you label such thing as natural evil you are deeming goodness and evil by your own humane subjectivity i,e perception and not by moral judgment as there is nothing moral about nature.
But since this is your thread I leave it to you.
buddy what you mean by "this is my thead and leave it to me"
Originally posted by rokkie:
buddy what you mean by "this is my thead and leave it to me"
Well I couldn't agree with the labeling of natural evil but since you persisted I won't debate it much further. I said my points and have nothing to add.