Featured Why does God allow evil?

For popular or very good threads
AgnosticBoy said:
William said:
Each answer depends on what you already think God is. If God is “the ground of being” rather than a cosmic parent, the question morphs entirely.
Click to expand...
Excellent post, William. It covers a lot of key points.

I am curious about the concept of God being the "ground of being".

What does this mean and how does it relate to morality? Does it resolve the problem of evil or make it a non-issue?
Click to expand...
The phrase “ground of being” (popularized by Paul Tillich, but with roots in older philosophy) means that God isn’t thought of as a being among beings — not a person who intervenes sometimes and ignores other times — but as the underlying reality that makes existence possible at all.


So instead of picturing God as a cosmic agent with super-powers, “ground of being” frames God as:


  • the depth or foundation of existence,
  • the condition that allows anything to be,
  • Being itself, rather than one more being within the universe.


How this shifts morality​


  • Morality doesn’t come from arbitrary divine commands (like rules imposed by a super-sovereign).
  • Instead, morality is tied to alignment with reality-as-such. To live in truth, love, or justice is to live in harmony with the very ground from which being arises.
  • “Good” then means participating more fully in being (flourishing, integration, wholeness), while “evil” is distortion, fragmentation, or diminishment of being.


Does this resolve the problem of evil?​


  • Yes, partly: If God is not a personal overseer, then it makes no sense to ask, Why didn’t God stop that earthquake or that assassination attempt? The “ground of being” doesn’t intervene in that way. Evil and suffering exist as part of a finite existence experience, not as a puzzle about divine inaction.
  • But not fully: It still leaves the existential sting of suffering - people still ask (and can answer) why reality itself is structured with so much pain. But it removes the logical contradiction, because God isn’t defined as both all-powerful and micromanaging creation.


Seeing God as the ground of being removes the logical contradiction of the Problem of Evil. God isn’t a micromanager who withholds intervention; rather, God is the reality that makes existence possible. Evil and suffering remain part of finite existence, but the question shifts: not “why does God allow this?” but “how do we live meaningfully within a world where these conditions exist alongside love, truth, and flourishing?”
 
  • Exceptional post!
Reactions: AgnosticBoy
William said:
So instead of picturing God as a cosmic agent with super-powers, “ground of being” frames God as:


  • the depth or foundation of existence,
  • the condition that allows anything to be,
  • Being itself, rather than one more being within the universe.
Click to expand...
Got it. I've heard the likes of Deepok Chopra making similar claims, but I feel he's not good at fleshing out what it means. And others hardly get a chance to explain it on religion forums if they it is instantly dismissed as "woo" or maybe too far from the monotheistic concepts of God.

I would think though the most basic form of It would be what it is before everything else existed. I remember you before referring to It as some type of consciousness and that it has intelligence.

William said:
How this shifts morality?
  • Morality doesn’t come from arbitrary divine commands (like rules imposed by a super-sovereign).
  • Instead, morality is tied to alignment with reality-as-such. To live in truth, love, or justice is to live in harmony with the very ground from which being arises.
  • “Good” then means participating more fully in being (flourishing, integration, wholeness), while “evil” is distortion, fragmentation, or diminishment of being.
Click to expand...

(y) (y) I like this because it shows that there's no need to completely reinvent the system of theistic morals we have now, but rather it's to make it more impersonal, rooted in nature as is, as opposed to being rooted in a personal being.

William said:
But not fully: It still leaves the existential sting of suffering - people still ask (and can answer) why reality itself is structured with so much pain. But it removes the logical contradiction, because God isn’t defined as both all-powerful and micromanaging creation.
Click to expand...
Yes, not fully. Or would that just depend on if it offers a solution to the problem and how practical and accessible that solution is to mankind and the world, at large? I think Christianity provides some resolution but it can be seen as being very limited, and that's besides the logical problem of reconciling an all-good God that intervenes in human affairs with evil in the world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: William
AgnosticBoy said:
William said:
So instead of picturing God as a cosmic agent with super-powers, “ground of being” frames God as:


  • the depth or foundation of existence,
  • the condition that allows anything to be,
  • Being itself, rather than one more being within the universe.
Click to expand...
Got it. I've heard the likes of Deepok Chopra making similar claims, but I feel he's not good at fleshing out what it means. And others hardly get a chance to explain it on religion forums if they it is instantly dismissed as "woo" or maybe too far from the monotheistic concepts of God.

I would think though the most basic form of It would be what it is before everything else existed. I remember you before referring to It as some type of consciousness and that it has intelligence.
Click to expand...
Yes. That is the best option as far as I can tell. Use The Razor to trim all excess dogma involved in theistic ideas of "God" leaves us with the sum;

"IF we exist within a created thing
THEN whatever created it must be conscious and intelligent

That makes the Problem of Evil secondary, because the “problem” only emerges once you load in all the dogmatic extras.
AgnosticBoy said:
William said:
How this shifts morality?
  • Morality doesn’t come from arbitrary divine commands (like rules imposed by a super-sovereign).
  • Instead, morality is tied to alignment with reality-as-such. To live in truth, love, or justice is to live in harmony with the very ground from which being arises.
  • “Good” then means participating more fully in being (flourishing, integration, wholeness), while “evil” is distortion, fragmentation, or diminishment of being.
Click to expand...

(y) (y) I like this because it shows that there's no need to completely reinvent the system of theistic morals we have now, but rather it's to make it more impersonal, rooted in nature as is, as opposed to being rooted in a personal being.

William said:
But not fully: It still leaves the existential sting of suffering - people still ask (and can answer) why reality itself is structured with so much pain. But it removes the logical contradiction, because God isn’t defined as both all-powerful and micromanaging creation.
Click to expand...
Yes, not fully. Or would that just depend on if it offers a solution to the problem and how practical and accessible that solution is to mankind and the world, at large? I think Christianity provides some resolution but it can be seen as being very limited, and that's besides the logical problem of reconciling an all-good God that intervenes in human affairs with evil in the world.
Click to expand...
If there was evidence of this being the case, all we could say was that it is coming through human behaviour rather than from an external outsourced source.

iow "God as ground of being that humans express (or fail to express) through action."

This means that the problem of god and the problem of evil are...human constructs which require human solutions...so the real question isn’t why God allows evil, but how humans respond to the conditions of existence, because humans allow evil in that they do not altogether agree to what evil even is. That is specifically WHY it is a problem. If we exist within a created thing and we have a problem called evil, why is that the creators doing?
 
William said:
This means that the problem of god and the problem of evil are...human constructs which require human solutions...so the real question isn’t why God allows evil, but how humans respond to the conditions of existence, because humans allow evil in that they do not altogether agree to what evil even is. That is specifically WHY it is a problem. If we exist within a created thing and we have a problem called evil, why is that the creators doing?
Click to expand...
I see that humans create evil or help it flourish, as well. Just think of all of the list of sins in the Bible doesn't even cover some of the harmful things we see humans are causing today, like genetic engineering, artificial intelligence, and environmental ethics.

Another reason I just thought of that your view benefits from is that it allows there to be different paths more than the monotheistic religions. Different religions often contain a lot of similar ethics and I think all of those can go towards explaining what works and what doesn't, and you have no one God dictating that this religion is true and this one isn't. Reality and experience decide that.
 
AgnosticBoy said:
William said:
This means that the problem of god and the problem of evil are...human constructs which require human solutions...so the real question isn’t why God allows evil, but how humans respond to the conditions of existence, because humans allow evil in that they do not altogether agree to what evil even is. That is specifically WHY it is a problem. If we exist within a created thing and we have a problem called evil, why is that the creators doing?
Click to expand...
I see that humans create evil or help it flourish, as well. Just think of all of the list of sins in the Bible doesn't even cover some of the harmful things we see humans are causing today, like genetic engineering, artificial intelligence, and environmental ethics.

Another reason I just thought of that your view benefits from is that it allows there to be different paths more than the monotheistic religions. Different religions often contain a lot of similar ethics and I think all of those can go towards explaining what works and what doesn't, and you have no one God dictating that this religion is true and this one isn't. Reality and experience decide that.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think you’ve touched it well. Humans do generate and amplify much of what we call evil - often through tools or systems that could just as easily be used for good. So naming AI or genetic engineering as ‘evil’ misses the point: it’s the human application that matters.


And yes, the view I’ve been outlining doesn’t lock us into one religion’s claim of exclusive truth. Ethics emerge through lived reality and experience, and we can see common strands across traditions. That doesn’t mean there’s no ground of being - it means that no single religion has monopoly rights on it. Evil then is less about disobedience to one creed, and more about whatever fragments or diminishes being itself. Good is whatever sustains and integrates it
 
William said:
And yes, the view I’ve been outlining doesn’t lock us into one religion’s claim of exclusive truth. Ethics emerge through lived reality and experience, and we can see common strands across traditions. That doesn’t mean there’s no ground of being - it means that no single religion has monopoly rights on it. Evil then is less about disobedience to one creed, and more about whatever fragments or diminishes being itself. Good is whatever sustains and integrates it
Click to expand...
William said:
Instead, morality is tied to alignment with reality-as-such. To live in truth, love, or justice is to live in harmony with the very ground from which being arises.
Click to expand...

I just remembered that there's actually a Christian concept that says morals come from nature (or reality?). It's called 'natural law' and it's different than 'divine law'. This is mostly a concept from early Christianity but some Catholics still accept it today. Here are the two concepts explained:

From Google's Ai...
In Catholicism, natural law is God's moral law inscribed on human hearts, discoverable through reason, while divine law is God's revealed will, found in sacred texts and tradition, and communicated through a supernatural revelation. Natural law provides a universal foundation for morality based on human nature and the common good, whereas divine law offers specific, revealed truths, such as the Ten Commandments and the teachings of Jesus, which provide a clearer path to salvation. Both laws stem from God's eternal law, but divine law is distinct because it requires God's direct communication to humanity.
Click to expand...



So this natural law concept comes from human nature, which is really just part of nature overall. The only difference is that William's system of ethics appears to only revolve around nature or reality alone, whereas Christianity goes further and brings a personal God into the picture.
 
I wouldn’t describe what I’m saying as ‘impersonal.’ It is personal - being itself, source itself - intelligent, purposeful, and relational. The difference from Christianity is that I don’t locate this in a single Person God mediated through church, holy book, and preachers. My view doesn’t depend on institutional channels. The ground of being is direct and universal, accessible through reality itself. That’s why I say no one tradition has monopoly rights on it.
 
William said:
I wouldn’t describe what I’m saying as ‘impersonal.’ It is personal - being itself, source itself - intelligent, purposeful, and relational. The difference from Christianity is that I don’t locate this in a single Person God mediated through church, holy book, and preachers. My view doesn’t depend on institutional channels. The ground of being is direct and universal, accessible through reality itself. That’s why I say no one tradition has monopoly rights on it.
Click to expand...
Hmmm... the way you've explained here makes it sound like a personal being like the Christian God, except your God is more generic. If so, that would take away the advantage depending on how personal this being gets.

I contrast this with your other explanations that equate God with just being reality, w/ reality encompassing both personal and impersonal. I'm fine adding awareness into the mix because I think it goes beyond the brain, and I also can see it having an impersonal aspect.
 
AgnosticBoy said:
William said:
I wouldn’t describe what I’m saying as ‘impersonal.’ It is personal - being itself, source itself - intelligent, purposeful, and relational. The difference from Christianity is that I don’t locate this in a single Person God mediated through church, holy book, and preachers. My view doesn’t depend on institutional channels. The ground of being is direct and universal, accessible through reality itself. That’s why I say no one tradition has monopoly rights on it.
Click to expand...
Hmmm... the way you've explained here makes it sound like a personal being like the Christian God, except your God is more generic. If so, that would take away the advantage depending on how personal this being gets.
Click to expand...
I am surprised at your surprise. What do you think the UICDS is, if not real time interaction with The Source? (aka "God" et al)
AgnosticBoy said:
I contrast this with your other explanations that equate God with just being reality, w/ reality encompassing both personal and impersonal. I'm fine adding awareness into the mix because I think it goes beyond the brain, and I also can see it having an impersonal aspect.
Click to expand...
You are free to elaborate... :)
 
William said:
AgnosticBoy said:
I contrast this with your other explanations that equate God with just being reality, w/ reality encompassing both personal and impersonal. I'm fine adding awareness into the mix because I think it goes beyond the brain, and I also can see it having an impersonal aspect.
Click to expand...
You are free to elaborate... :)
Click to expand...
Regarding brain and consciousness:
- Nothing about the brain tells us why and how consciousness exists. We only know that brain states correlate with conscious states, which could just as easily mean that the brain is just a medium (could be one of many) for consciousness to express itself. Damage the brain, you limit how consciousness expresses itself through brain.
- Various out-of-body experiences indicate that consciousness can exist beyond brain and body.
Too bad Clownboat isn't here to dismiss the evidence.😄

Regarding the impersonal aspects:
- Assuming panpsychism is true, I suppose a consciousness that exist in inanimate objects would be impersonal. Even the internet, although intelligent in that it knows a lot of things, is not personal in my view. It doesn't interact in a purposeful way.
- I also think that if awareness can exist in a vacuum, which is something some people reach through meditation, the silence - the void, the nothingness, then that can also be impersonal, imo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

AgnosticBoy
Does having sex make you married to the person? "The two will become one flesh"
Replies
2
Views
301
Christianity (section 1)
Alter2Ego
Alter2Ego
AgnosticBoy
Does Christianity say that all other religions are false?
Replies
5
Views
964
Christianity (section 1)
Alter2Ego
Alter2Ego
AgnosticBoy
Does Romans 1:26-27 speak against homosexuality?
Replies
2
Views
1K
Christianity (section 1)
AgnosticBoy
AgnosticBoy
AgnosticBoy
Does the Bible say that the unborn are human?
Replies
47
Views
11K
Christianity (section 1)
AgnosticBoy
AgnosticBoy
AgnosticBoy
Papal Infallibility.. Does Scripture justify this view?
Replies
22
Views
5K
Christianity (section 1)
Chapabel
C
Top Bottom
Back