Problem of Evil refuted completely
My sincere prayers for Dr. Sean M. Carroll: that he finds faith in God’s existence. In my very recent discovery of Sean’s personality by way of accident on web; sorry for my late discovery of him. I am taken by grief to find him vulnerable. Such a charming man would stand-out elegant on magnificent couches in heaven. Therefore, I felt like, I have to toss some criticism on his works such that he may be awakened. How can anyone remain unresolved with blunders such as the problem of evil? It is utterly misleading and delusional that personalities such as Dr. Sean Carroll are of this view. This paper is a challenge for what it contains as refutation for this mired in the sciences of philosophy. This paper ushers a thought-provoking modern narrative on this long-standing ill-conjectured philosophical bug.
I would like to draw the reader’s attention to the fact that, there are many authors expressing their views on the subject. I’m in way slightly different because of the fact that my narrative is Quranic. It is a Muslim view on a subject hugely debated in the western world. I wish to tip you of another in the line connected title “Does determinism shear freewill” is dealt with thoroughly here.
Table of Contents
Enlightenment has always been that our thoughts help us solve problems of obscure dimensions. One of its kind, this work is designed exclusively for modern readers who are best at exerting to fight-out bias. This book ushers a thought provoking modern narrative on a couple of long standing philosophical subjects, mainly the arguments aim to discredit God’s non-existence for the findings of evil and suffering. And then progresses to reconcile freewill with determinism and appeals to Atheists, Agnostics, Students of Science and to Religious folks of Abrahamic heritage.
This work progressively argues how circumstantial-determinism and freewill are congruent. Instead of too much speculation on the mystery surrounding the subject attention is drawn to reflect on the reality of presence in which we live and exchange gains. An in-depth discussion on why humans are faced with this seemingly a riddle of freewill amidst determinism which orchestrates evil is brought to simplicity of understanding. It also proposes how the law of determinism can be effective in evaluating philosophy of various beliefs and religious creeds. Framed in multiple sections and simple explanations it adds to the comprehensibility of the subject.
The subject itself is thoroughly dealt with utilising realism found in the Quran. Let me divulge a quick analogy before you, in that our likes & dislikes and their swapping positions in our consciousness are a good example to allude towards freewill & its realism, but a grandeur argument underpins this work to disqualify freewill in-compatibilism and thus the prevalence of evil.
I have noticed philosophical subjects of this nature are popular amongst non-religious and often religious people are brought to present their apology. Which they have best done in the last century earning the prestigious title “the apologists”. Therefore, I have exclusively highlighted traditional wrongs that did subtly slip in diluting the understanding of this very important argument among the adherents of Abrahamic faiths. Hope you will enjoy reading this piece of literature. My best wishes for the readers.
The problem of evil
We will begin asking how did a God under His prowess allow evil to manifest? In more sarcastic words how apologetically would anyone attempt to reconcile the coexistence of God and evil?
If it was but truly necessary…now give me a break!
Since middle ages, all the ensuing theories by theists in favor of (the omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent) God’s plausibility in the face of evidential evil are clubbed under compilations known as ‘Theodicy’. Atheists in totality have deemed these theories as unworthy defenses to logical arguments of the form modus Tollens and have since attained some leeway in professing theists as merely apologetic towards the paradox of problem of evil. In this pretext the problem of evil is driven to disqualify God by reflecting that God cannot exist because there is evil which does necessarily rule out His existence in their argument.
In my opinion the problem of evil is theorized to refer to God condescendingly. In man’s anciently thought & carved philosophy of religion which now on documentation has ticked over 2500 years is a sort of philosophy which is concocted in downright ignorance from the knowledge of what God explains as truth in His revealed messages.
So, then: is it fair that man hijacks God’s understanding by capsuling Him in his own whims? Or even attempts to make Him redundant through partial understanding of natural processes and through our findings of immensity of perhaps only the material existence. Can we then only perplex non-causality of the reality to sponsor a one-way opinion that God is unfindable via material perceptions?
Alas! by the stain of our ignorance to learn the end truths or by arrogance we have relied on fallacies and pseudo-theories to disqualify the truth of God’s existence.
It is shocking. That, I wonder: why do able scientists hunch away from conceding the impossibility of escaping the plausibility of God deep within consciousness. And that it does not beguile for any greater reflection. For any more genius men to be born; that God will one day reveal before our eyes via niche endeavours. If any such ingenious occurrence must take place due to human endeavour, then the credibility of God’s non-showing thus far would earn all eligible criticism. Since, God of the old would become unjust to humanity of the past to burn them in hell for not having believed in Him unseen. In this expo, I have refuted the incoherent thought processes employed by Atheists of all times and now inherited by modernists in their line to fan the non-Causal beats. I am now ever sure that similar to a Piltdown-man hoax is underway to dupe many innocents. As of-course not everything which is set gets ratified or challenged but is assumed to be true by most science-entrants. Like manner many lies do get forged and are carried forward; so it happens also among the religious people. Half truths which later subscribers assume them to be absolute truths without being critical of them at a fundamental level. For example, it is important that students of science and commons be educated of the inconsistencies in techniques available for field measurements in dating archaeological specimens. Than, simply concreting the view among commons that dating is absolute and perfect on field as it is in lab. Which is simply not the case. A citation worth nothing is, the measurements made on Aboriginal remains in lake Mango in Australia is found to scatter 50% variation. Which strikingly explains what amount of error can accumulate for much older specimens?
However, Quran does not promote a young-earth view as Westerners are prone to assume religions to be usually making. The idea mainly got out because of the Judeo-Christians erring in their writings of their scriptural interpretation. Instead, Quran informs that man is clearly the late comer to planet earth after an epoch of its existence. In fact, our scientific findings can be the best bet to learn about surroundings- But we may have to research more to know the truth.
It is important to highlight: that all sufferings aren’t evil. Although there is sacrifice, loss and pain in all sufferings. Evil is essentially the violation of rights of fellow humans or abuse of other creatures or misuse of lifeless things.
Wordweb online interprets evil as morally objectionable behaviour. Perhaps, the results of immoral outcomes are sourced only to humans. As other creatures are impoverished from expression of any evil. Oppression is evil: such as to covet things or where deliberation is involved to manipulate fellow humans or such as exploitation of creatures including amassing of resources in utter disregard to educated environmental risks describes evil of a greed-filled mankind.
However, destruction catapulted by natural phenomenon such as forest fires that annihilates flora and fauna; consuming fledglings of all kinds. Innocent children caught to suffer in various calamities. Species encroaching upon others, viral manifestations, parasitism and culling of many life forms perhaps due to deprivation found in natural phenomenon does not make God evil. God explains, these are as His ways of bringing about nature. Destruction and resulting sufferings are by His permission. Safety and happiness are His grant. He is only morally bound to be leasing a good life for the doers of righteousness. After He has tested them for their faith by presenting some sufferings.
Due to morality being a human construct to judge other humans, evil is a human measure. God has made earth evolve in this manner- Setting it up for destroying some and nurturing others. It is God that has designed natural phenomenon and therefore explains His overpowering grip on destiny. Moral-conscience to which humans are made to accord are not the same contortions in many natural dispositions; found observable among various lively species. One can not teach intruding Lions morals not to kill the cubs of the former to bring the females into heat; for they are justified by nature to sire by force. But, surely one can bring humans who do that to justice. God has made Lions behave the way they do but has covenanted humans to a few moral standards. God, but only shies away from doing injustice to those who are committed to doing good after he has seen them live in faith.
If nature is the way it is found to be, then what ensues is there is suffering in nature and not evil. And thus, God is not shy to inform us that there is suffering for you on earth.
Quran 6:17 And if God should touch you with adversity, there is no remover of it except Him. And if He touches you with good – then He is over all things competent.
Why are we then caged by God on this earth filled with sufferings? (click here)
In principle God, has chosen the rule of mercy to govern the worldly affairs. The desire of the people who theorise problem of evil is that: God could have made this earth like what He promises of a Heaven or Paradise? But! who can dictate a God? If He is God He is free to do what He wishes without consulting anyone. And so, He informs us to demonstrate test-worthiness.
Quran 67:2 [He] who created death and life to test you [as to] which of you is best in conduct– and He is the Exalted in Might, the Forgiving.
Nature that nourishes, also devours and destroys all of it; leaving signatures for the thoughtful to learn humility before God, the Creator. Can man afford to see obscurity in them and reject God? It is indeed asking and cruel to reject God. It is not God that is cruel to setup a show, such as what unfolds on earth; but He has ordained it for a certain purpose. Which He informs is to assess the receptors of freewill for their choices of honouring or rejecting God. Indeed a perfect test bed! Can the test get any better. Come forward to propose!
Therefore, He ordained humans a life on earth with the purpose to emulate justice by His gift of best stature, conscience and superior intellect which they are a recipient of from God.
Quran 2:155-157 And We (God) will surely test you with something of fear and hunger and a loss of wealth and lives and fruits, but give good tidings to the patient. Who, when disaster strikes them, say, indeed we belong to God, and indeed to Him we will return. Those are the ones upon whom are blessings from their Lord and mercy. And it is those who are the [rightly] guided.
At the least then, God is cruel!
This argument can be smashed for a couple of sound reasons. Firstly, our lives are organised in a way where people are but made to oblige to the laws of the domicile. They can’t flee from sufferings for crimes. An argument of cruelty is of no benefit, governments enforce justice. In this scenario, why do you propose that God must spare disbelief? While clearly life is by His special grant. Rebels to God are criminals, why then shouldn’t He punish them after they are warned?
Secondly, our argument of humane killings equals for God’s Godliness. We organise so many creatures for food. Vegetarians aren’t docile. They too devour many plant species, microbes and bacterium. Thus, we survive to build life and construct knowledge. But, for belief in God- We recline dumb! When we are not cruel. God isn’t cruel for the same reasons that He terminates some to give life to others in many of His own naturally commanded ways. Some that may apparently appear cruel. But, He is the irresistible enforcer of His will and the merciful. For which we need to enter in servitude before Almighty God.
Innocent life such as children along with good people who are terminated in calamities; do not see any amount of sufferings on the day of resurrection. Wherein they will be blessed with God’s mercy for eternity. Where they will only rejoice for having guarded their faith in God. Without siding disbelief for all the sufferings that they had to endure in this life.
Quran teaches kind treatment for all, including for those who reject God, vehemently. For reasons that God’s mercy surpasses His wrath except that they don’t fight the believers to undo faith. God says that such folks be overlooked graciously as God remains- The All Knowledgeable Master Creator. Which is descriptive of His attribute Al-Jabbar, the loftiest. Yet, God is undeservedly a recipient of unkind insurgence for the crimes committed by men in His name. It is correct logic to retain faith than to abuse God for the crimes of numerous wishful men.
Quran 15:85 …So overlook (faults of disbelievers) with gracious forgiveness.
Omni benevolence as derived from Latin means all good- omnibenevolent. It is further interpreted as infinitely benevolent in Oxford dictionary. And all good is a characteristic attribute now assigned to a God who is Abrahamic, against whom anti-theists are arduous in unleashing their spite.
I’m asking, is this interpretation of perhaps an exclusive good God valid?
Or is it a falsification criterion that we assume God must only be benevolent and cannot emulate distress or adversity at the verge of benevolence?
And therefore, must necessarily by His omniscience and omnipotence not just refrain from the design of evil but as ever able guard His domain from any possibility of interceptive evil.
Which insanely infers the state of humans as inhumane forever. Come-on O Atheists, spare yourselves!
Because, the argument infers humans must not have erred! Must not have been harmful to others even if it be to eat for survival.
Perhaps, Atheists are for arguing that God hasn’t in His prowess safeguarded against interceptive evil by creating us in a state which can never ever be free from bringing any harm unto other creatures forgo between ourselves.
Therefore, they conclude, God does not exist.
Infinite is an idea foreign to God in Quran. Quran 10:61 …And is not absent from your Lord any [part] of an atom’s weight within the earth or within the heaven or [anything] smaller than that or greater but that it is in a clear register.
The built-in denial via casting the idea of infinite numeracy to God’s holiness depicts that such an entity must necessarily shun the design of evil. Perhaps, due to ignorance they assert that God does not exist in the face of evidential evil.
On the contrary benevolence is shewed at the findings of want and apathy that the potential evil creates. This fact presents a mountain of evidence to dismiss false inventions propounded in the problem of evil.
Is understanding of truth greater than fact or is it, that: logics and assertions need to comply with facts which will then ensure its adherence to truth. Think!
The theory that God the omnibenevolent must not design evil and suffering is a concocted premise. Aimed to disqualify God by its logical contra-positive at the onset of the contradictory evidential findings of evil and suffering to the first premise which says, if God is benevolent. The important point is the second part of the premise is concocted which says, then evil and suffering must not exist.
Where must the validity of such a premise rest? Where is the truth? Or who qualifies to ratify and substantiate this premise?
The contradictory of the second premise that if suffering is clearly in want of munificence the premise that God is munificent and commands munificence is equally valid in the argument. As the evidential findings show a continuously sustained cosmos which was resulted at the expense of many unknown mysteries and forces. And further the display of numerous life forms that cherish at the expense of numerous others exhibiting the munificence of God to sustain His domain. And further the ability imparted in humans to be altruistic is evidence for refuting the ill-conjectured argument in the problem of evil.
I have just shown how it is conceivable that enriched & cherishing lifeforms which is the evidential display of God’s munificence and the gifts of altruism contradicts the first assertion that there is evil in sufferings; therefore justifying the truth table for logic of the form modus Tollens that God and sufferings due to evil can without hesitation coexist.
Ar-Rahman, the all beneficent & merciful in essence; Al-Quddus, the most holy, most pure & perfect; As-Salaam, the source of peace; Al-Wahhab, the bestower of goodness & bounties are few among numerous attributes of Almighty God that encompasses goodness. Essentially God remains the bestower of goodness & unbounded mercy.
All such Omni benevolence is realized in the face of the absolute want which beckons for it and remains in need of mercy and of such attributes. In absence of its need the value for beneficence remains unobserved. The meaning of beneficent, is generous in assistance to the poor; inferring the state of want without which generousness is under-observed. As such good or less-good is a human trait. It is totally inappropriate to assign humans coordinated character to God. If there were a second god, then perhaps how good they were between them would be a sensible measurement. In the wake of an omnipotent creator depreciation in His characteristics perhaps lacks a standard for measurement. Because there remains no comparison for Him.
Quran 112:4 And there is no comparison of Him.
Instead the correct premise must be that God, the omnibenevolent must not command or recommend evil. But must emphasise righteousness and prohibit evil. If God recommends evil, then the evidence for His claim as a credible God becomes invalid. Therefore, to discredit the argument of God’s validity in Abrahamic faiths a clear citation of an evil recommendation by God is perhaps the only prerequisite.
Muslims are foremost to be test-ready. For facilitating a stage for falsification of God’s existence. If there is any truth in your (Atheistic) assertions, please come forward; the Quran is ever beckoning your criticism if you are but siding truth. Due to a Muslim’s claim of the Quran to be the evidence from God, free from any blemishes: a claim which Jews or Christians refrain from. Then, it ensues for Atheists to prove that God in the Quran has recommended evil.
Quran 7:28-29 …Say (O’ Muhammad) Indeed God does not order evil. Do you say about God which you do not know? Inform (them) My Lord has ordered justice…
Quran 16:90 Indeed, God orders justice and good conduct and giving to relatives and forbids evil and bad conduct and oppression. He admonishes you that perhaps you will be reminded.
Instead of heeding to incredible advises from Almighty God. Men often pickup fables of old and charlatans to numb their neurons. Which does make for much reading acceptance among scores of uncritical men since many millennia. Shame! At least now incoherent philosophies must clearly be off the shelf.
Let us further delve in to this subject to explore few examples to strengthen our understanding. A deer caught up in drought to die mercilessly or a couple of fledglings burned in bush fires where no human intervention is involved. How can a God let his creatures suffer so much? Where is His mercy?
Quran 25:48-49 And it is He (God) who sends the winds as good tidings before His mercy, and We (God) send down from the sky pure water. That We may bring to life thereby a dead land and give it as drink to those We created of numerous livestock and men.
All creatures follow God given natural instincts to survive. The struggling deer but becomes food for the hungry creatures up in the food chain. As scavengers take notice and then descend to feed on it. The fledglings burnt into ashes enrich the soil for next generation growth of flora. In-turns nature revives and nourishes some at the expense of others.
There is nothing uncourteous of an omnibenevolent God. This is Godly ways of how the revival of nature and life is ordained. There are always some creatures needing food and earth needing enrichment. And if it takes a drought or wild fires to feed and enrich them so it unfolds bringing death to many and rejuvenating many.
Every, other example of such sufferings brings unforeseen benefits to many other kinds. If it be that a tree is incinerated by a pyroclastic blast; like in a volcanic blast that God causes. Or a bunch of baby squirrels whose parents never return to feed them and many more…
However, man has clearly contributed to his own sufferings by his works.
Quran 5:18 …say, then why does (must not) He (God) punish you for your sins…
Al-Muqsit, the requiter, the equitable; Al-Muqtadir, the determiner, the dominant; Al-Hasib, the reckoner; Al-Adl, the utterly just; Al-Hakam, the arbitrator, the judge; Al-Mudhell, the giver of dishonour; are among attributes of God to reinstate goodness. And who is more able to punish for the wrongs and restore the rights of the oppressed?
Is He not a good God? Who is not shy to inflict and punish those that commit to evil mindlessly.
Quran 4:78-79 Wherever you may be, death will overtake you, even if you should be within towers of lofty construction. But if good comes to them, they say, “This is from God “; and if evil befalls them, they say, “This is from you.” Say, “All [things] are from God.” So, what is [the matter] with those people that they can hardly understand any statement? What comes to you of good is from God, but what comes to you of evil, [O man], is from yourself. And We have sent you, [O Muhammad], to the people as a messenger, and sufficient is God as Witness.
The construct for evil to manifest is God made. But evil is the work of man. Therefore, guard from it and endure the sufferings patiently longing for God. God reminds: the end is for those who are committed to righteousness.
The problem of evil does not contradict the plausibility of God’s existence which is often formulated in two forms: the logical problem of evil and the evidential problem of evil. Both have been successfully refuted herein completing the truth table for the logical problem of the type Modus Tollens. Thus, successfully arguing God’s credibility towards building the case for His judgement against humans responsible for evil.
Filling the truth table for:the problem of evil –
Now available on Kindle Read it on free Kindle app for Windows, iphones, Android etc…
You can subscribe for commons level which is free such that you can receive our newsletters.
Answer to Problem of Evil | Absurd theories of atheists on existence of evil | Answer to Epicurean paradox | Can Evil and God coexist | Islam Answers problem of evil | paradox of problem of evil explained | Problem of Evil | Problem of evil refuted | Theodicy | What is problem of evil which Atheists say | why did god create evil.