Preventing evil in the world
Peace to the rabbi.
What is the response to the claim that God can prevent evil in the world, and if He does not do so – it is like a person who sees someone suffering and does not help them even though he could easily do so, and therefore “I do not want to serve such a God.”
(In fact, the question is divided into two parts, about the actual failure to prevent evil and the claim that since there is evil, even if there is a God, there is no ‘ideal’ in obeying His words.)
I read that the rabbi says that God created the world with fixed laws and free choice, and therefore diseases, suffering, etc. are a necessary side effect.
But the question still remains, why not create an ideal system? Why let people suffer? That is, it would be possible to allow free choice up to harming a living creature (there would be enough trials left, and free choice would find its place in other things).
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I think the topic needs expansion..
Will you write about this in a trilogy? When are you planning to publish it?
Indeed, it is detailed there. I don't know when and how it will come out. When I finish writing I will think about how to publish it.
The answer is apparently valid with respect to bugs in the natural system. But it does not answer the solutions that humans have found to eradicate diseases and the like. Because the fact that humans were able to develop, for example, antibiotics with their intelligence - this poses a difficulty for the Creator - why couldn't He already create the world alongside oranges and enriched food, all those medicines and improvements that would have saved endless suffering for billions of years to come? And that He is less developed than some inventors and doctors? If they could, this is proof that it does not negate the system of nature.
It's just like asking why he doesn't prevent every bad thing. He decided not to interfere in the world except to set the rules.
I didn't understand the answer. He could only create laws that would give rise to medicines alongside evolutionary development, just as they led to the creation of food and bread for all living things. In this way, he would both save suffering and not interfere. Unless we say that just as life took billions of years to develop in accordance with the system of laws, so too did the technology and medicine that humans developed take a long time for some reason to come into effect - and they are also part of the Creator's master plan. In other words, the answer to my question about why he didn't create medicines and other non-contradictory inclusions is that he created them; through humans. And apparently the laws of nature left no other way.
Who revealed this secret to you? Can you write the formulas for laws that do everything like now but without the evil (no need for medicines, just so there won't be any diseases)?
I don't understand. He also doesn't know how to write the formulas of the current laws, so what? What logical prevention is there in the laws without those diseases? It's not like a falling stone.
It seems to me that the burden of proof is on you, to show that there is a logical contradiction in this, and not on him, to give equations.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
