Religion says that God and evil/suffering don't appear to agree.  It says that without God things just happen and there is no moral right or moral wrong.  So it argues that God validates good.  It says that you cannot uphold good properly without him.  It alleges that atheists may say good and moral are real but that this is trying to walk without legs.

This "problem of good" is what it tells us to direct our attention to when faced by how there is so much evil, temptation and suffering in God's creation.  It says this is the problem of evil.  It calls it a difficulty but denies that it contradicts God's competence as creator and sustainer of all.  To do this it sneaks in the thought, "It is a difficulty because not everything is that bad.  Also, not everything is given to us to make us suffer more if we lose it." Ask if it we were born into an everlasting Hell of a universe then what? Say we all get only a minute of good.  If it believes its argument that good is what matters and is not a problem it will say it does not make any difference. This will show you the insanity that lies behind faith in God.

Let us ignore that and proceed.

Does the problem of good entitle us to ignore the problem of evil?  Yes.  By default yes.  Religion handles that by saying that good alone is the real and the standard and evil is just a lack of a good that should be there.  So there is no evil technically speaking.  There is just faulty good.  We need the problem of good to be more important than the problem of evil. It is more important to get an answer for it. 

Religion says the problem of good is all that we need to see.  This is supposedly about how focusing on evil is unnecessary and the point of evil is that it is not goodness.  So you look at the light. It counsels that you cannot take evil that seriously, paradoxically, if you are not looking at the beauty of the light. 

If it turned out that the problem of evil is a bigger problem than the problem of good then we are believing in God despite the evidence and have some coldness in our hearts.  What if you make evil a bigger problem than good?  Then good is unlikely to be compatible with evil. This implies that God's existence is unlikely. The belief you have in God is asking you to say God is right to let so much evil and suffering happen though it is unlikely that this is right. That is not a very compassionate attitude.

If it turned out that it is an equal problem to the problem of good then what?   We cannot talk then of one mattering more than the other.  We would have to be agnostic and admit that as we worship God for being good we know he is as likely to be malevolent.  We would have to invite people to worship God and invite people to hate and curse him in equal measure.  Toss a coin perhaps?

Try to balance the two problems and you end up claiming you end up saying that being evil and good is okay.  It is telling people that they have the right to assume that evil and good are agreeable.  That is that that you can be all-good and all-powerful and let terrible things happen. That is as bad as assuming that somebody being tortured is getting a favour.  It is making the problem of good equal to the problem of evil or vice versa. This denies that God will ever triumph over evil. It certainly takes away the attraction of believing in God.  If the problem of good is equal to the problem of evil then how do we know if we should be saying, "Evil does not disprove the existence of a good God" or "Good does not disprove the existence of an evil God" or both?

If we assume the problem of good is solved by saying there is a God, we must admit that there is a problem of evil but hold that this problem does not refute God. But if evil is a problem that means it might refute God.  That is the damn problem.  See how confused religion is here.  Or is it trying to befuddle us?

Evil by definition is what should not be. So the idea of a God who makes things fall short of the goodness they could have or who makes evil for a good reason is incoherent and insensitive and blind to the horror of the suffering of others.  The Christian answer is that he does not do that.  He makes only good and it is his creatures who damage goodness.   The fact is that evil being a lack or absence of good does not mean God is deliberately making lacks.

The Christian will never suffer as much as other creatures in the world do and therefore has no right to say this evil should be allowed to happen by God. Even more so she has no right to speak for a God and say he permitted her. It does not matter if she thinks she has a personal revelation of some kind or thinks she finds the permission in a Bible.  Or both.  In fact the latter would be vile as she cannot know if this "inspiration" is from herself or really from God!

Experience all suffering first - which is impossible - and then decide. There is something vulgar about a person who has a healthy life, saying God sent Angie some cancer for a noble reason! Nobody can tell anybody they know how they feel or that they should feel it is agreeable with the existence of a loving God.  Yet religion teaches people to pretend that they know that all the evil in the world can be ultimately justified and or condoned.

We deny that there is a problem of good.

It is a fact that if a baby is healthy and content that is good whether God exists or not.  Without God, good would still exist for if there is nothing, it is good that there are no people around to suffer. Everything has its good side.  And so does nothing.  So you don't need God to explain good. There is no problem of good. But if you believe in God you end up with a problem, the problem of evil. You are in effect believing in God not because of goodness but because of evil.

Religion invents the problem of good to get us to affirm a loving God tolerating terrible terrible things.  This is evil itself.  It is exploiting the suffering of others and telling us that we don't know what we know.  But we know good is not a problem.  It is just there. There is no problem.

There is a difference between, "Good is just there and that is that. But evil is a problem" and "Evil is a problem but it does not refute the love of God for without God we cannot call anything good and we then have a problem of good".  The latter is inventing a way to call evil a problem.  It is cynical and ideological and manipulative.


God or not, good is just there.  It has to be.  Religion tries to pretend its existence is a problem.  Why?  Because it is clear that evil and suffering do not fit a competent caring God.  It calls that the problem of evil and to annul it, it claims that if you reject God's existence over evil you also reject good.  To avoid the so-called problem of good you are supposed to argue that the problem of evil cannot overthrow God's existence and his love.  It compares to this.  X is the serial killer of children.  X is supposed to be very good.  Now you have a problem of evil with X.  Asking us to forget it because we should concentrate on the goodness of X is clearly stupid.  Here too a problem of good is thrown up to take away the force of a problem of evil.

Believers insult good by describing it as a problem if there is no God. They don't know what good is when they can say that. They don't know that good will be whether there is a God or not, whether there is anything or not. The evil person has a warped sense of good that blinds him or her to what good is. That is what makes her or him bad. The God belief is making believers evil.


No Copyright