Answering the Philosophical "Problem of Evil" Argument: God & Logic

StopS

Let's Define a Couple things, okay?

Definition of EVIL

ADJ

Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful the evil effects of a poor diet.

Noun

That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction a leader's power to do both good and evil.
Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction the social evils of poverty and injustice

Free Will
n.

The ability or discretion to choose; free choice chose to remain behind of my own free will.
The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.

Wow! I feel so bad that I didn't define freewill and evil to you. I didn't realize that you didn't have access to a dictionary, so I did you a favor, and got these definitions from Dictionary.com. ???

Again, if you would cut the sarcasm you would maybe realise that I am not after dictionary definitions, but your own.

So according to the dictionary freewill is the ability to make a choice for yourself, so if you're telling me that the concept of individual choice isn't real, then okay. If that's what you're saying then you might as well succumb to your base instincts, and if that results in getting into trouble with the law, then you can defend yourself in court by saying that you really didn't have a choice, and if that's what you believe I guess you win this argument.

Unfortunately when it comes to religion and religious bias, the objectivity falls by the wayside. Dictionary.com also calls an atheist someone who denies the existence of god. What nonsense!
More aptly, it should say something like "Free will is the ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints. The existence of free will and its exact nature and definition have long been debated in philosophy." and continue with "nomological determinism is the way nature works for everything, so free will does not exist"

Sam Harris "And yet the facts tell us that free will is an illusion."

This carries on and on and I could bring endless definitions and opinions on the non-existence of free will in reality. I think the personal impression should work best here.

If free will is granted by a god, can an atheist have free will and freedom of choice?

In terms of evil I took the simplest definition, which didn't involve belief in the supernatural. So evil is defined as something that is the source of suffering, injury, or destruction, and I would add that the source of these things must be consciously causing these events. I would add this because, without conscious intent from the source of those harms, its simply misfortune or bad luck. I used the word evil with that definition in mind Intentionally inflicted suffering, injury, or destruction.

Sounds good.

So if God doesn't exist, what has the choice to inflict harm on others? The human being; every bit of suffering that can be categorized as evil (according to the definition above), is the result of human choice. But if you don't believe that humans are not responsible for any of their actions, because they don't have a choice, then the concept of evil is fiction.

If none of us take responsibility or are responsible for the harm inflicted on our fellow human beings, then it will continue to happen. Without the concept of free choice, morality, and ethics become mute points. Without choice this becomes a doggy dog world, where the only law is survival of the fittest. This world will only get better if we take responsibility for our actions, and if we consciously CHOOSE not to do any harm. Those who claim God caused all the evil are delusional, and are rejecting any form of responsibility. The choice to do harm is your choice alone.

No no no, that's not what I am talking about. I am saying that free will or freedom of choice are natural and don't require a god. I don't know if you are one of them, but in general, Muslims believe their god is responsible for controlling individual fates and thus is the cause for tsunamis, earthquakes, eruptions, .....

Another point without evil, we would not have suicide bombers, which even worse, have a religious origin in the case of Muslim suicide bombers. They believe they are acting on behalf of their god and evil is a necessary phenomenon. But why is it necessary? Is there anything positive in it except that we get to see the benefits of non-evil?

zulf81

Again, if you would cut the sarcasm you would maybe realise that I am not after dictionary definitions, but your own.

Unfortunately when it comes to religion and religious bias, the objectivity falls by the wayside. Dictionary.com also calls an atheist someone who denies the existence of god. What nonsense!
More aptly, it should say something like "Free will is the ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints. The existence of free will and its exact nature and definition have long been debated in philosophy." and continue with "nomological determinism is the way nature works for everything, so free will does not exist"

Sam Harris "And yet the facts tell us that free will is an illusion."

This carries on and on and I could bring endless definitions and opinions on the non-existence of free will in reality. I think the personal impression should work best here.

If free will is granted by a god, can an atheist have free will and freedom of choice?

Sounds good.

No no no, that's not what I am talking about. I am saying that free will or freedom of choice are natural and don't require a god. I don't know if you are one of them, but in general, Muslims believe their god is responsible for controlling individual fates and thus is the cause for tsunamis, earthquakes, eruptions, .....

Another point without evil, we would not have suicide bombers, which even worse, have a religious origin in the case of Muslim suicide bombers. They believe they are acting on behalf of their god and evil is a necessary phenomenon. But why is it necessary? Is there anything positive in it except that we get to see the benefits of non-evil?

I'm being sarcastic, because you are trying to prove a point by being condescending, but that behavior is pointless as well so I apologize. No I don't believe that God is responsible for controlling individual fates at all, I believe that God is the trigger that set off the Big Bang, and I believe that I don't know what exactly he is. As far as your freewill point The definition you argued is valid if that's the same definition I am using, but its not. I'm talking about free choice, and I'm not talking about absolutes. I am well aware that there may be pressures that lead you to make the choice that you make, but in the end its still your choice. If God exists he would be the only entity that really possesses freewill according to your definition. Since we live in a Universe where "every action has an equal and opposite reaction", then we are restricted but that restriction doesn't mean that we don't have a choice. I am not making definitional arguments, I'm making a conceptual one. This is what I'm trying to say

Given Truth is elusive.
Given Truth is the opposite of falsehood.
Given Believing in the truth is something to aspire to.
Given God is an object of belief/worship.

If someone worships the truth, recognizing that they don't know the entire truth, knowing that the truth is elusive, that person is worshiping the one true God. Because believing in anything else, is believing in a falsehood, which is something that doesn't exist in reality, and is the opposite of truth.

Maybe I didn't articulate this clearly enough for you, but instead of getting into the nitty gritty of definitions, see the concept that I'm trying to make clear. If you can articulate it better, go for it.

hawk99

peace Stop S,

I can ask 1.00.000s of questions which can't be answered by the Koran, so I don't understand this statement at

If we have questions about Islam we should refer them to the Quran, it is the source.

So the creator of logic must be subjected to that very logic.

I cannot agree that "If I am so he is so" this does not necessarily follow.

Glorified is He, and High Exalted above what they say!

Evil is the opposite of non-evil, but that's a technicality.

Not true. Evil is the opposite of good.

What does "live in harmony" mean?

There are so many facets that I decided to just find a link that explains it.

http//www.wikihow.com/Live-in-Harmony-with-Others

You first need to prove the veracity of creation before you can attribute characteristics of it. Just because you find something beautiful does not prove its origins.

Veracity or truthfulness of creation? You are not going to blame me for such a perplexing statement are you?

Chapter 55 of the Koran The Merciful
In the name of the merciful and compassionate God.
The Merciful taught the Koran;

You quoting Quran? I'm impressed.

The Merciful is a better translation than all-merciful at the moment.

Obviously you read the entire post, so the conclusion of all-merciful according to Quran does not fit.

An Islamic site states There are 112 Noble Verses that contain "Most Merciful" in them in the Noble Quran!

I agreed with you about "Most Merciful," it is a better translation than all-merciful.

Do you realize that you capitalized God's attribute? lol

Of the seven translations I referenced only Muhammad Sarwar
translated rahimun to mean all-merciful.

God is never unjust is your claim. Why then is evil required???

I will step outside of Quran and give my own personal opinion which is irrelevant.

Evil is required because this creation/reality is mathematically composed of opposites

Peace O0

StopS

No I don't believe that God is responsible for controlling individual fates at all,

Did I say this? If that's what you understood I said it wrong.

I believe that God is the trigger that set off the Big Bang,

So you substitute "I don't know" with "god".

and I believe that I don't know what exactly he is. As far as your freewill point

Sorry, but are you talking about free will or free choice?
I am responding to your argument regarding free will.
Which I argue does not exist.
If you would rather talk about free choice then let's finish that immediately I don't have any opinion on free choice.

If God exists he would be the only entity that really possesses freewill according to your definition.

How can that be if I have not defined any god. I maintain that if god is declared omni-anything he does not have free will or free choice as there is a built-in logical limitation. But until there is a definition there is no possibility of assuming anything.

Since we live in a Universe where "every action has an equal and opposite reaction"

We don't. This is only true in the Newtonian dimension. When we leave the Einstein continuum this no longer applies.

Given Truth is elusive.
Given Truth is the opposite of falsehood.
Given Believing in the truth is something to aspire to.
Given God is an object of belief/worship.

If someone worships the truth, recognizing that they don't know the entire truth, knowing that the truth is elusive, that person is worshiping the one true God. Because believing in anything else, is believing in a falsehood, which is something that doesn't exist in reality, and is the opposite of truth.

Maybe I didn't articulate this clearly enough for you, but instead of getting into the nitty gritty of definitions, see the concept that I'm trying to make clear. If you can articulate it better, go for it.

Premiss 1 is flawed as truth is there, regardless of whether an individual can immediately perceive it. "I can't fly without aids" is true and not elusive.
Premiss 2 I agree with.
Premiss 3 is logically flawed as you can't "believe in" something factual. You can either believe it or not. It does not change the point you are trying to make, it just sounds skew.
Premiss 4 I agree with, ignoring that an object is something physically existent and proven.

Can anyone worship something without knowing what it is? Can someone worship anything where only a percentage is known?
Without knowing the full and complete truth, how can you convincingly establish there is only one of these of what you have no complete knowledge of?
Without knowing the full truth you don't know whether the opposite is falsehood because you have not yet established the full truth.

Can you show me 2 realities? No, of course not. There is only 1 reality. If we look at the same house, one side might be painted red and the other blue and we would both allocate a different attribute to it, but it remains the same object, the same reality, just from 2 perspectives. Now if you introduce another element, a god, if we can't both see it or find a way of demonstrating it, it remains irrelevant to me.

zulf81

Did I say this? If that's what you understood I said it wrong.

So you substitute "I don't know" with "god".

Sorry, but are you talking about free will or free choice?
I am responding to your argument regarding free will.
Which I argue does not exist.
If you would rather talk about free choice then let's finish that immediately I don't have any opinion on free choice.

How can that be if I have not defined any god. I maintain that if god is declared omni-anything he does not have free will or free choice as there is a built-in logical limitation. But until there is a definition there is no possibility of assuming anything.

We don't. This is only true in the Newtonian dimension. When we leave the Einstein continuum this no longer applies.

Premiss 1 is flawed as truth is there, regardless of whether an individual can immediately perceive it. "I can't fly without aids" is true and not elusive.
Premiss 2 I agree with.
Premiss 3 is logically flawed as you can't "believe in" something factual. You can either believe it or not. It does not change the point you are trying to make, it just sounds skew.
Premiss 4 I agree with, ignoring that an object is something physically existent and proven.

Can anyone worship something without knowing what it is? Can someone worship anything where only a percentage is known?
Without knowing the full and complete truth, how can you convincingly establish there is only one of these of what you have no complete knowledge of?
Without knowing the full truth you don't know whether the opposite is falsehood because you have not yet established the full truth.

Can you show me 2 realities? No, of course not. There is only 1 reality. If we look at the same house, one side might be painted red and the other blue and we would both allocate a different attribute to it, but it remains the same object, the same reality, just from 2 perspectives. Now if you introduce another element, a god, if we can't both see it or find a way of demonstrating it, it remains irrelevant to me.

Look, Clown, I'm done with you. You're clearly a moron, so if you don't get what I'm saying, I'm not going to waste my time. You're the only one who's acting like a fool on here, and I have no time for fools. Great ideas are built on the ideas of others. One may not have it completely right, or might not be able to dumb it down for morons, but that's what the next guy is for. Human civilization is where it is, because of the ideas of people in the past. The Quran was written for the common man who seeks the truth, it was not written to give the elite few more authority. The thing is this, you're no better than a Mullah...clown. Since the Quran was written for a common man, your B.S. is a waste of time. These concepts are not difficult to understand, it just requires thinking. People like you are the guys who hijacked the religions in the first place, because you try to claim that "only your line of B.S." is right. See the thing is you're wrong plain and simple. The book was designed to be simple, and it was written in a "clear" Arabic language.

Do yourself a favor, start using your brain. Its very clear that your only purpose on this site is to try and ridicule the ideas of others, because you don't have the capacity to open your mind up to ideas that you've formulated on your own. I don't know what it is Maybe you were bullied as a child, maybe your mother weened you from her milk a little to early, but regardless you still ended up being a clown. Bottom line I'm done wasting my time with a fool So take it easy, and have fun with your past-time of being a clown.

StopS

Look, Clown, I'm done with you. You're clearly a moron, so if you don't get what I'm saying, I'm not going to waste my time. You're the only one who's acting like a fool on here, and I have no time for fools. Great ideas are built on the ideas of others. One may not have it completely right, or might not be able to dumb it down for morons, but that's what the next guy is for. Human civilization is where it is, because of the ideas of people in the past. The Quran was written for the common man who seeks the truth, it was not written to give the elite few more authority. The thing is this, you're no better than a Mullah...clown. Since the Quran was written for a common man, your B.S. is a waste of time. These concepts are not difficult to understand, it just requires thinking. People like you are the guys who hijacked the religions in the first place, because you try to claim that "only your line of B.S." is right. See the thing is you're wrong plain and simple. The book was designed to be simple, and it was written in a "clear" Arabic language.

Do yourself a favor, start using your brain. Its very clear that your only purpose on this site is to try and ridicule the ideas of others, because you don't have the capacity to open your mind up to ideas that you've formulated on your own. I don't know what it is Maybe you were bullied as a child, maybe your mother weened you from her milk a little to early, but regardless you still ended up being a clown. Bottom line I'm done wasting my time with a fool So take it easy, and have fun with your past-time of being a clown.

Suit yourself.

You make a claim which I show is fallacious and when I show you step-by-step and using a very polite and factual approach what I think is wrong you quit calling me names.
Do you know "Lo! the harshest of all voices is the voice of the ass." 3119, or ?And do not insult one another and do not call each other by nicknames.? 4911

zulf81

Suit yourself.

You make a claim which I show is fallacious and when I show you step-by-step and using a very polite and factual approach what I think is wrong you quit calling me names.
Do you know "Lo! the harshest of all voices is the voice of the ass." 3119, or ?And do not insult one another and do not call each other by nicknames.? 4911

I'm glad you finally recognized you disability.

Ahmad_Bilal

Peace.

I don't see the "problem of evil" as having a genuine solution, which is why the concept of God is often philosophically debunked. The only effective determination that can be manifested, on behalf of this, is the conclusion that (1) God is not completely good, (2) God is not all-knowing, or (3) God is not all-powerful. If he's not completely good, then the idea of him also creating evil is warranted. If he's not omniscient, then it can be determined that he doesn't necessarily know all of the causes of evil and is, therefore, unable to prevent it. If he's not omnipotent, then, even if he is omnibenevolent and omniscient, he may not have the power to effectively stop evil. From a logical perspective, those are the only alternatives. It doesn't make rational sense for an all-good, all-knowing and all-powerful god to create or allow evil within his design, at least not from how I understand things.

Peace,

Ahmad

hawk99

Peace.
I don't see the "problem of evil" as having a genuine solution, which is why the concept of God is often philosophically debunked. The only effective determination that can be manifested, on behalf of this, is the conclusion that (1) God is not completely good, (2) God is not all-knowing, or (3) God is not all-powerful. If he's not completely good, then the idea of him also creating evil is warranted. If he's not omniscient, then it can be determined that he doesn't necessarily know all of the causes of evil and is, therefore, unable to prevent it. If he's not omnipotent, then, even if he is omnibenevolent and omniscient, he may not have the power to effectively stop evil. From a logical perspective, those are the only alternatives. It doesn't make rational sense for an all-good, all-knowing and all-powerful god to create or allow evil within his design, at least not from how I understand things.
Peace,
Ahmad

Peace Ahmad Bilal,

Where do you get your infomation from.

O0

javed1

Peace
Ahmad Bilal's arguement on the 'problem of evil' are classic arguements used invariably, at some point by all atheists to attack theism and has dogged christian theologists since centuries.Interestingly,this question never seems to have bothered muslim theologians and thinkers because the answers and very effective ones at that are there in 'the source' as someone has put it----the quran . We may have to zoom out a little and look at the forest instead of the tree.
Firstly God clearly tells us that we know only so much about him as He Wills.That means our limited Grey matter cannot really and truly comprehend God's Greatness.
Secondly,belief in the hereafter is reiterated so forcefully in the Quran that a believer is convinced that there is more to come after death,that perhaps life is an unending movie ,so to judge it by a few seconds of footage would be both illogical and unphilosophical.
Thirdly the Quran speaks of being Tested.What is a test without hardships and where is the joy in drinking without the thirst.At a more common man level,this may be the the answer to the problem of suffering which in my humble opinion is much more pertinent than the problem of evil.
Javed

answerseeker

Salam StopS230 AND LO! Thy Sustainer said unto the angels "Behold, I am about to establish upon earth one who shall inherit it."22 They said "Wilt Thou place on it such as will spread corruption thereon and shed blood -whereas it is we who extol Thy limitless glory, and praise Thee, and hallow Thy name?" answered "Verily, I know that which you do not know."

The quoted bolded part brought to mind a new question for me. Unless evil existed before, how did the "angels" know that he who was being created would spread corruption and shed blood?

In many circles of those around quran, it is generally understood or sometimes stated that satan became evil when he rejected the creation of man and bowing to him, and that this is the first instance of evil in existence. But obviously the "angels" were already aware of such a thing as evil as evidenced by the question above that is quoted in bold. So who, before man was created, was spreading corruption and shedding blood?

Does anyone have any opinion, infomation or reference from quran for this?

answerseeker

Peace.

I don't see the "problem of evil" as having a genuine solution, which is why the concept of God is often philosophically debunked. The only effective determination that can be manifested, on behalf of this, is the conclusion that (1) God is not completely good, (2) God is not all-knowing, or (3) God is not all-powerful. If he's not completely good, then the idea of him also creating evil is warranted. If he's not omniscient, then it can be determined that he doesn't necessarily know all of the causes of evil and is, therefore, unable to prevent it. If he's not omnipotent, then, even if he is omnibenevolent and omniscient, he may not have the power to effectively stop evil. From a logical perspective, those are the only alternatives. It doesn't make rational sense for an all-good, all-knowing and all-powerful god to create or allow evil within his design, at least not from how I understand things.

Peace,

Ahmad

Very interesting. If the understanding that we all and everything ultimately returns to "God", which some understand as to mean is a part of "God", i.e. "God" is closer to you than your own jugular vein, then is "God" creating or allowing evil as a means to purify parts of "God"? I mean is hell or heaven different stages of development for the parts of "God", i.e. us, our souls, etc.; that "God" wants to live out through this existence?

Ahmad_Bilal

Peace, Javed.

Firstly God clearly tells us that we know only so much about him as He Wills.That means our limited Grey matter cannot really and truly comprehend God's Greatness.
Secondly,belief in the hereafter is reiterated so forcefully in the Quran that a believer is convinced that there is more to come after death,that perhaps life is an unending movie ,so to judge it by a few seconds of footage would be both illogical and unphilosophical.
Thirdly the Quran speaks of being Tested.What is a test without hardships and where is the joy in drinking without the thirst.At a more common man level,this may be the the answer to the problem of suffering which in my humble opinion is much more pertinent than the problem of evil.

The Qur'aan doesn't solve the "problem of evil" either. In the book, ALLAH (God) is described with the same characteristics as he's identified with in the Bible - omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence. The idea that we can't totally understand the greatness of God doesn't resolve this issue, since the same message is contained in the Bible - e.g. "How great is God beyond our understanding..." ; "Can you fathom the mysteries of God? Can you probe the limits of the Almighty?" ; etc. According to the Bible, we can't totally understand God either, and the same questions exist.

The concept of the hereafter ('afterlife&#039 doesn't answer this question either. If anything, it presents a greater issue Why would God allow evil on Earth, which he ultimately formed by creating people 'imperfectly', and then punish people after death for acting in the manner in which they were created? Since the Qur'aan says that ALLAH (God) chooses who to guide and chooses who to lead astray, then he's ultimately responsible for whether we become believers or not. If we end up in hell, then ultimately, God chose to lead us astray and send us there. This is completely contradictory to characteristics assigned to ALLAH in the Qur'aan, such as mercy and justice.

Whether the question stems from the personification of God in the Qur'aan, Bible, Torah, or any other scripture related to the Abrahamic deity, the issue persists Why does ALLAH (God) allow evil? Or, on a more characterizing angle, why does he allow bad things to happen to good people? If it's for the purpose of 'testing' them, then what happens if they fail? If those good people succumb to the evil, wasn't it God who led them astray and caused them to sin? Why should they be punished for it?

What do you think of the Buddhistic concept of suffering? If they overcome the issue of suffering through the Buddhist doctrine (Dhamma), does this nullify God's ability to test them? What do you think?

Peace,

Ahmad

javed1

Dear Ahmad,Peace.
You wrote"The idea of the greatness of God does not solve the issue".Actually it Does solve the issue.It just means thre are so many dimensions through which God operates of which we are fully clueless.We can only think in terms of temporo spatial and certain philosophical dimensions but there could be so much more about His greatness of which we r totally unaware and incapable of understanding and in some tiny recess somewhere in the infinite number of ways that God operates may be the answer to this vexed question of evil.Think in these lines dear Ahmed instead of thinking like a lawyer.
Buddhist and Hindu doctrines r totally philosophical,totally detached from reality.In practical terms the question of overcoming suffering cannot be both defined as well as implemented,so the question of nullifying Gods ability to test them does not arise.
Javed

Ahmad_Bilal

Peace, Javed.

You wrote"The idea of the greatness of God does not solve the issue".Actually it Does solve the issue.It just means thre are so many dimensions through which God operates of which we are fully clueless.We can only think in terms of temporo spatial and certain philosophical dimensions but there could be so much more about His greatness of which we r totally unaware and incapable of understanding and in some tiny recess somewhere in the infinite number of ways that God operates may be the answer to this vexed question of evil.Think in these lines dear Ahmed instead of thinking like a lawyer.

I can understand your viewpoint, and it poses a limited solution to the issue. What I was referring to, however, is a generalized understanding of the concept itself. Sure, we can say that we can never really understand ALLAH's greatness. However, we're still left with the question. Pretty much, if we adopt your viewpoint, then we're insisting that the question ("problem of evil&quot doesn't have a real solution at all, at least not one that we can ever grasp. While that determination may work for someone who already believes in the Qur'aan, the Abrahamic god (ALLAH) and the religion of Islam, it does nothing for the skeptic who is critical of those factors. If anything, it pushes him/her further away from Islam as a whole, since he/she is told that it can never truly be logically understood.

Here's my question for you How do you separate truth from falsehood? Outside of simply accepting the ideals of your belief system, what is your method of determining what it correct versus what is incorrect? Also, how do you determine what concepts to uphold from a literal (scientific) standpoint, given that the Qur'aan is not completely correct on all of them? For example, the Qur'aan, in one area, implies that the Earth is flat and that the Sun sets in a "muddy spring". You obviously know this isn't correct, or at least not literal. So, either the Qur'aan is wrong, or it's being allegorical in this instance. Do you merely accept what the Qur'aan says, or would you be willing to determine that the Qur'aan may perhaps be wrong on some things too?

Peace,

Ahmad

hawk99

Peace,

What is so amusings about those who question God is that they think that their
intellegence is sufficient to solve questions about God.

False Attributes

What happens is this they attribute to God attributes that they invent,
like God is bound by time or God cannot be everywhere or God does no exist
or God does not have control, these are false assertions. In any disscusion about
the God of Islam, the Quran must be the source, no matter what, and rather they
accept it or reject it is up to the individual, this is the nature of belief versus disbelief.
This is the gist of the matter.

Who is more evil than one who attributes lies to GOD, while disbelieving in the truth that has come to him? Is Hell not a just requital for the disbelievers?

God is far above their claims

GOD be glorified; far above their claims.
Glory be to your Lord, the great Lord; far above their claims.
Be He glorified; He is the Lord of the heavens and the earth, the Lord with the great dominion, far above their claims.

Non-believers think they understand but they misunderstand.

Some of them listen to you, but we place veils on their hearts to prevent them from understanding, and deafness in their ears. Thus, no matter what kind of proof they see, they cannot believe. Thus, when they come to argue with you, the disbelievers say, "These are tales from the past."

To quote Godsubmitter
Man has not enough neurons to understand God! Similarly as monkey has not enough neurons to play chess!

God must be approached from Quran.

O0

Faithful-Jinn

I find your argument extremely weak because it is built on the premise that all evil originates from man.

Young babies that die from disease without a chance, natural disasters that wipe out hundreds of thousands, hunger, etc none of these come from humans.

Also I find it weakens your argument when you said in your original post that God chooses not to have power over certain things. This means that God is not all-good. It kind of goes against your point to say something like that. If God is all-good and wants the best for all humans and God also is all-powerful and has the power to make it so, how can he choose not to? If he chooses not to, then that would make him sort of good, not all-good.

answerseeker

Quote from mirjamnur on November 13, 2012, 015613 PM
Salam StopS230 AND LO! Thy Sustainer said unto the angels "Behold, I am about to establish upon earth one who shall inherit it."22 They said "Wilt Thou place on it such as will spread corruption thereon and shed blood -whereas it is we who extol Thy limitless glory, and praise Thee, and hallow Thy name?" answered "Verily, I know that which you do not know."

The quoted bolded part brought to mind a new question for me. Unless evil existed before, how did the "angels" know that he who was being created would spread corruption and shed blood?

In many circles of those around quran, it is generally understood or sometimes stated that satan became evil when he rejected the creation of man and bowing to him, and that this is the first instance of evil in existence. But obviously the "angels" were already aware of such a thing as evil as evidenced by the question above that is quoted in bold. So who, before man was created, was spreading corruption and shedding blood?

Does anyone have any opinion, infomation or reference from quran for this?

Can anyone help with this? If you can't give reference from the quran, can you just give me what your opinion is and/or possibilities?

Thanks,
Salaam

StopS

Can anyone help with this? If you can't give reference from the quran, can you just give me what your opinion is and/or possibilities?

Thanks,
Salaam

Maybe there was the concept of evil and the thoughts of corruption without actually committing any crimes.
Maybe there was a male lion who killed all the cubs of a competitor and they thought they would not do this and considered it evil, not nature.
Maybe there were roaming story-tellers who told the others stories about evil people.
Maybe they had books or simulator games with simulated corruption and bloodshed.
I think this is sheer speculation and anything is possible.

hawk99

Maybe there was the concept of evil and the thoughts of corruption without actually committing any crimes.
Maybe there was a male lion who killed all the cubs of a competitor and they thought they would not do this and considered it evil, not nature.
Maybe there were roaming story-tellers who told the others stories about evil people.
Maybe they had books or simulator games with simulated corruption and bloodshed.
I think this is sheer speculation and anything is possible.

Nonsense! and not from Quran.

O0