---

a) if by natural evil you mean natural disasters, then I'd say stop being so human-centric. tidal waves and earthquakes are not evil,

---

---

they are natural occurrences, and part of the obscurity and beauty of the universe.

---

By my definition, benevolence is the prevention of suffering, not merely the prevention of literal evil. Afer all, countering evil would be virtueless if not for the harm it prevents. Ergo, unprevented disease and disaster are incompatible with a benevolent God. One could use a tautology and define benevolent as "whatever God is doing," as exceedinglyrare does, but that would be meaningless. There's no reason to worship Him unless we know that His idea of good is the same as ours.

---

2. Regardless of that, you can't say "God is not good because there is suffering now". The suffering we are facing might be the way to a level of good unparalleled by anything prior to it.

---

---

It was personification.

---

Personification is silly

---

Natural disasters, disease, etc. cause suffering. I don't see how they make a lesser case against theism than "gratuitous evil," and you haven't explained -- unless you believe their "obscurity and beauty" affects it somehow.

---

Yes they do, but they are not agents of choice. Weather and natural disasters are the result of billions of factors, all of which when compounded create certain phenomena.

To say that weather is EVIL because people suffer from it is just plain ignorant and childish. Natural disasters are part of nature, they have reason, and they have no malice.

---

By my definition, benevolence is the prevention of suffering, not merely the prevention of literal evil. Afer all, countering evil would be virtueless if not for the harm it prevents. Ergo, unprevented disease and disaster are incompatible with a benevolent God.

---

By your definition?
And you know that how? Have you seen the result of this world? how we end up?

Have you experienced a world without suffering and disease? Perhaps such a world is far worse than our own. Perhaps disease and suffering are what is necessary for humans to realize that inflicting such things on others is wrong.

Perhaps also, such things are the result of our being animals. Basically, you are arguing that God can't exist because:
a) there is nature
b) humans act animal-like from time to time, and sometimes suffer from mental disorders.

Are you debating theism or Christianity?

---

One could use a tautology and define benevolent as "whatever God is doing," as exceedinglyrare does, but that would be meaningless. There's no reason to worship Him unless we know that His idea of good is the same as ours.

---

because your view of good is necessarily correct, eh?
Everyone does what is, to them, good. They may know that it is considered wrong by others, but even those who do evil things believe that their actions are good in some way. Hitler thought he was doing a GREAT good; are you making the claim that:
a) There is no reason to worship god unless everyone agrees what "good" is?
b) We can have a better understanding of "good" than a god that is claimed to be omniscient?

Making the argument that it is silly to worship god unless his idea of good is the same as ours is senseless. there are two ways god can go.

1. God is, in fact, evil. In this case god would do the most evil he could do without causing any good. Seeing as how there is much more good than evil in the world [or at least there is not a majority of evil as opposed to what could be considered 'normal'], this seems not to be the case.

2. God is benevolent. Here, god would do the most good for the most beings while limiting the evil necessary to accomplish that. This may seem like a fault in system, however, let me explain it:

p1  Evil is not an entity, evil is the lack of good.
C1  Since evil is the lack of good, and not an independent entity, God did not create evil, however in his creation of good, there laid the opportunity for a lack of good, and thus, evil exists.
p2  god gives us the ability to choose [let us not call it free will, since the existence of that is debated]
P3  We can choose to do good or not to do good
C2  It is therefore possible that in our choosing not to do good, we choose to do what is called, "Evil".
P4  Taking away our ability to choose would be against what god set up for us. [god would be a liar]
C3  [from P4 and C2] It is logically impossible for God to take away our ability to choose; God must therefore deal with the possibility of evil.

and extension of the argument:
P1'  God is omnipotent
P2'  Omnipotence is the ability to do anything that is logically possible for said being to do
C1'  It is logically impossible for god to rid the world of evil, therefore his not being able to is to no fault of his. His omnipotence is therefore shown in the ability to create the greatest good, despite evil, and without taking back our ability to choose by choosing for us.

Post edited at 10:17 am on Oct. 26, 2008 by Event Horizon

-------
Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful.It's the transition
that's troublesome.   --Isaac Asimov

-------
The truth is what money can be made from a lie.