One of the many religious delusions handed down to us is that things will and should go well for good people and the wicked should meet a miserable end. In reality, this is not always true and many at times, the reverse is so much case. The focus given to the questions "why do good things happen to bad people?" and "why do bad things happen to good people?" rather than the questions "why do good things happen to good people?" & "why do bad things happen to bad people?" is a testament to the sincere observation and acknowledgement, by christians and other religious folks, that the bolded really does happen. More importantly, to some extent, it is a testament to our innate sense of justice and logical conclusion that a "righteous" man backed by a loving all powerful god should be blessed and justice must be unfailingly served on his behalf.

Truth is that success and tragedy are no respecter of one's character and nature (be it good or bad). We are all bounded by laws of nature and cause and effect irrespective of character and nature therefore if the right thing is done, irrespective of your character and nature, you get the right result. If the wrong thing is done, the consequences are reaped regardless of who you are. There is no god that cares and intervene in our lives, you are on your own and you have to learn to do the right thing to get the right results. Luck and tragedies beyond human control also don't not discriminate against the good and wicked and that's because ALL are bounded by the laws of nature & cause and effect. To think life shall be easy because you are kind hearted or/and faithfully religious is a folly that should be discarded.

-Terminal cancer, untimely death, ALS, HIV, assassination, poverty, educational and career misfortune, bereavement, addiction etc. have happened to both good and bad in all age brackets.
-Riches, lottery wins, educational and career fulfilment, good health etc. have happened to both the good and bad.
Take a look at the life of religious people and irreligious people, there is no significant difference. Some religious folks are rich as well as some irreligious folks are rich and within each group, you have good and bad people. Thats because they did the right thing and the right conditions were met. Some religious folks are swimming in poverty as well as some irreligious folks and within each group, you have good and bad people. Man in his natural state is bounded by the laws of nature and cause and effect and becoming religious doesn't eliminate or significantly decreases your odds in life. To succeed and be fortunate, the right things have to be done and the right conditions must be met regardless of your nature and religion. These right things and right conditions remains the same and does not change or become easier if you are religious or/and a good person eg. To pass an exam, you must read, understand and successfully retain and this remains the only path(and it doesn't change) irrespective of your nature and religion.

Hope we have learnt.

Atheists are found of “Epicurus’ riddle”, that is a version of the logical problem of evil, one that no philosopher who specializes in the philosophy of religion thinks is sound. Don’t believe me? Below are a few quotes on the logical problem of evil I compiled from various philosophers who specialize in the philosophy of religion:

“Perhaps the logical problem of evil does not pose such a great challenge to theism. To deal with it, it would suffice to show that an all-powerful, all-knowing and maximally good god might allow some evil for the sake of a greater good.” (Stephen Law, “The evil-god Challenge”, 2010)

“Logical arguments from evil are a dying (dead?) breed. Even an omnipotent and omniscient being might be forced to allow evil for the sake of obtaining some important good. Our knowledge of goods and evils and the logical relations they bear to each other is much too limited to prove that this could not be the case.” (Paul Draper, “The Skeptical Theist”, 176–177, 1996)

“First, it [the problem of evil] can be formulated as a purely deductive argument that attempts to show that there are certain facts about evil in the world that are logically incompatible with the existence of God, and one especially ambitious form of this sort of argument attempts to establish the very strong claim that it is logically impossible for it to be the case both that there is any evil at all, and that God exists (…) It seems very doubtful, however, that the argument is sound. The reason is that the claim that a morally perfect being would want to prevent all evils is not unproblematic.” (Michael Tooley, “Knowledge of God”, 100–101, 2008)

““It used to be held that evil was incompatible with the existence of God: that no possible world contained both God and evil. So far as I am able to tell, this thesis is no longer defended.”

(Peter Van Inwagen, “Philosophical Perspective 5”, 1991)

“It is now acknowledged on (almost) all sides that the logical argument [from evil] is bankrupt.”

(William Alston, “Philosophical Perspective 5”, 1991)



Extract from my library.........

@vaxx

How can we be sure that the evil around us are not natural cause and effect but the workings of a creator for a greater good?
Is their a way we could know what greater good god could be aiming at in a particular tragedy?
Given the awful tragedy that befalls some christians like terminal cancer, untimely death etc. can we ask what is that necessary good god can't achieve without the grievous suffering of his people?

Remember some religious folks suffer these while some don't. The same applies to the irreligious. What is the purpose of the suffering of the irreligious given that their sufferings are similar to that of the religious?
Given that the recovery from and progression of tragedies and mishaps in both groups are similar, can't it be said christians are making a mountain out of a molehole when they think their sufferings are special and serves a purpose?

Martinez19:
@vaxx

How can we be sure that the evil around us are not natural cause and effect but the workings of a creator for a greater good?
Is their a way we could know what greater good god could be aiming at in a particular tragedy?
Given the awful tragedy that befalls some christians like terminal cancer, untimely death etc. can we ask what is that necessary good god can't achieve without the grievous suffering of his people?

Remember some religious folks suffer these while some don't. The same applies to the irreligious. What is the purpose of the suffering of the irreligious given that their sufferings are similar to that of the religious?
Given that the recovery from and progression of tragedies and mishaps in both groups are similar, can't it be said christians are making a mountain out of a molehole when they think their sufferings are special and serves a purpose?

Remember this is not my perspective but some of the well kwown philosopher of the felid ""religion"". I just post it here to validate that the claims of atheist on evil does not pose a serious challenge to the religious folks.


My perspective on evil is somehow different from the philosopher view. .... But in anyway it agree with them.

Good and bad are anthroprocentric position. And nothing more to it.

vaxx:
Atheists are found of “Epicurus’ riddle”, that is a version of the logical problem of evil, one that no philosopher who specializes in the philosophy of religion thinks is sound. Don’t believe me? Below are a few quotes on the logical problem of evil I compiled from various philosophers who specialize in the philosophy of religion:

“Perhaps the logical problem of evil does not pose such a great challenge to theism. To deal with it, it would suffice to show that an all-powerful, all-knowing and maximally good god might allow some evil for the sake of a greater good.” (Stephen Law, “The evil-god Challenge”, 2010)

“Logical arguments from evil are a dying (dead?) breed. Even an omnipotent and omniscient being might be forced to allow evil for the sake of obtaining some important good. Our knowledge of goods and evils and the logical relations they bear to each other is much too limited to prove that this could not be the case.” (Paul Draper, “The Skeptical Theist”, 176–177, 1996)

“First, it [the problem of evil] can be formulated as a purely deductive argument that attempts to show that there are certain facts about evil in the world that are logically incompatible with the existence of God, and one especially ambitious form of this sort of argument attempts to establish the very strong claim that it is logically impossible for it to be the case both that there is any evil at all, and that God exists (…) It seems very doubtful, however, that the argument is sound. The reason is that the claim that a morally perfect being would want to prevent all evils is not unproblematic.” (Michael Tooley, “Knowledge of God”, 100–101, 2008)

““It used to be held that evil was incompatible with the existence of God: that no possible world contained both God and evil. So far as I am able to tell, this thesis is no longer defended.”

(Peter Van Inwagen, “Philosophical Perspective 5”, 1991)

“It is now acknowledged on (almost) all sides that the logical argument [from evil] is bankrupt.”

(William Alston, “Philosophical Perspective 5”, 1991)



Extract from my library.........

And the sense you've made here is?

dalaman:


And the sense you've made here is?

it is a not a challenge to religious folks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVgZqnsytJI

vaxx:
it is a not a challenge to religious folks.

I fail to see how. The opinions and submissions of the people you stated are empty in my opinion.

dalaman:


I fail to see how. The opinions and submissions of the people you stated are empty in my opinion.

ok sir.

dalaman:


I fail to see how. The opinions and submissions of the people you stated are empty in my opinion.

Very empty. I just stopped replying him.

Martinez19:
Very empty. I just stopped replying him.

Seriously.

vaxx:
Remember this is not my perspective but some of the well kwown philosopher of the felid ""religion"". I just post it here to validate that the claims of atheist on evil does not pose a serious challenge to the religious folks.

It does regardless of those quotes

I don't see how getting quotes from certain people is a good argument or am I missing something? I could also gather quotes from atheist philosophers and notable atheists whose quotes go the opposite way

hopefulLandlord:


It does regardless of those quotes

I don't see how getting quotes from certain people is a good argument or am I missing something? I could also gather quotes from atheist philosophers and notable atheists whose quotes go the opposite way

I am surprised you ask this question. Quoting people ( especially an authority)is a clever way to put up a valid point in an academic discipline. Every researcher do it. In fact to make your work robust , it must have been accepted among a good number of researcher.

With regard to the quotes, I quoted, they are authority in the discipline . The philosopher study the philosophy of religion which make them an expert and authority on the subject.


It is like when you write “X is true” or “X study says Y”, you’re making a claim of fact. So it is kind of claims of fact in research paper that is commonly agreed-upon knowledge, therefore I cited quote of those who agree with the fact I am claiming.

A quote is a text that points to the author of a work from whom you have gathered information that you’ve included in a report.


So if you think they are atheist philosopher who study religion as a discipline who disagree with the riddle, go ahead and quote and let's reader juxtapose who is making more valid point.


I am surprise you ask this question once again.

People are judged good or bad based on subjective views. Some are judged good by moral conducts, some by physical appearances.

Happenings are judged good or bad based on subjective views too. Happenings that claim lives are mostly judged bad, while the ones that elevate, promote and add positively to the state of well being of an individual are mostly judged good.

Natural disasters are mostly judged bad, but there is no law that connects the occurences of natural disasters to an aftermath of evildoing. Therefore natural disasters can kill anyone, irrespective of his or her moral conducts.

Cancer, which is mostly seen as something bad, can happen to someone who is well regarded as good, because the cells of the body do not consider the moral status of anyone before getting infected or affected.

A good guy could have his house burnt down by fire. Being morally good doesn't in any way prevent physical occurences from taking place.

Biology, physics, chemistry, psychology and many other LOGIES and STRIES should be well studied to explain why things happen the way they do.

If you are good, you are only good for your own good and if you are bad, you are bad for your own 'good". It doesn't attract external goodies or baddies to you, except the goodies or baddies that goes directly along with your actions. Any other external goodies or baddies you encounter are just one of such things that every human being must face while in this harsh world.