Some think that evil is an actual force. We call that substantial evil.
Some think it is merely when something is lacking in a good thing, so it is not what it should be. We call that parasitic evil - it depends on good and twists it but is nothing in its own right.
Evil is just shorthand. An evil is in fact a collection of many evils. And if substantial evil exists maybe the merely parasitic version exists too.
We do not know what we are talking about enough to boldly say that evil leads to good.
That is true of evil in general.
It is also true of every particular case where evil is active.
Human nature is too keen on the placebo feeling that comes from thinking that evil in general will change to good and bring it about.
And also it seeks that feeling in individual evil events.
Bias is a concern there. Human nature is looking for a way to go into denial at least to some extent. Any form of denial may have good results short-term but is the way to disaster. The harm will come far down the road but it will come. That gives it cover for it is hard to link it with say some evil that happened years before.
Denial is allowing lies and errors to come in. It is a lie. And you can't lie to yourself alone. It will affect others. People know that once lies appear, they come to let something in. And you don't know what evil you are letting in.
Faith that says, "Good will come from this evil", is implicitly saying this is a good and healthy and true position. It is going too far. It could be wishful thinking. Nobody can know that it will.
Moreover, just because good follows evil, it does not mean the evil led to it. Evils compete with each other so it can look like evil makes some good possible. People want the evils that suit them. It does not mean they agree with every evil. Think of this example. The Church says Satan is the prince of evil, the person who best shows what evil is like. It says that Satan luring you into the alleged sin of homosexuality does not mean he will not mock you for it in Hell. He could be a gay-basher. If evil were a person it would be like him. The way evils oppose other evils and overcome is misleading. It is why we think evils lead to good. We live in a world where evils keeping rising up so rather than evils leading to good they lead to a treadmill were good and evil fight all the time and there is no end.
If you are evil, part of it is telling yourself that you are aiming for good. This happens too easily in a world where evils war against evils and win.
We are talking here about evil as in unreal and substantial evil. Evil can be a bit too general as a concept. That is a problem with short-hand words in general. Take the word marriage. It sums up something that cannot really be summed up very well. There is a vagueness there. I am saying that we tend to see marriage as a thing and do not see how many things it actually involves. We look at the painting as an image and forget how much colour and design went into it.
No two evils are the same. Calling something an antibiotic does not mean that all antibiotics are the same. Substantial evil is not necessarily one force parcelled out. It can be a host of independent and even competitive evils! Each evil deserves its own specific definition. Evil is just a term to make it simple.
Many who debate about God and evil tend to think of evil that leads to good. It helps them say that God may allow evil for a good purpose. But these are trimming back how complicated evil actually is to sustain this hope. They see it too much the way they want to or are tricked into.
Evil that leads to good? But that is only our perception of some evil not all. We tend to just lazily assume that all the evil will lead to good even if it does not look that way. Religion says that evil is not a substantial thing but a lack of good or a good that is twisted so there is nothing there in a sense. It is easier to imagine that evil is just that, in that sense not real, if you wear blinkers and make too many assumptions about what you do not know. Religion takes advantage of that overreach. God belief is parasitic on it.
The word evil needs unpacking. It will mean several different things every time. Thus every evil is just a summary of evils. If substantial and also parasitic evil happens, then every collection of evil is a mixture of both.
Then there is suffering which randomly strikes people. Suffering is really a summary word for sufferings. The randomness is "suffering" in itself. To say it is not really random for God is sovereign is cruelty. Why? Because if your suffering is unfair and needless and random you need to see that and to be told that to give you even that tiny chance of lessening it. No diagnosis no help.
Suffering too would be evil as in substantial and as in parasitic assuming both can happen.
So we should not want God to exist. God belief is evil whether evil means substantial evil or non-substantial.
Also, we cannot make ourselves want something and yet we have wants that draw us to do harm. That makes God the creator of temptation. Religion may call that testing. That is splitting hairs. God is still telling you with a feeling, "Go and hit John."
Again we should not want God to be real.
Because evil feels like a mistake, religion argues that sin is trying to get something good the wrong way and it is about the good goal. Imagine if personal evil, the evil that people do, is not substantial evil then suffering might be substantial evil. The personal evil is parasitic on the real evil of suffering. Using personal evil as an argument for ALL evil, including suffering, being in some way unreal then would be evil. It would be like trying to prevent a diagnosis of real evil. It would be helping real evil thrive.
Religion says that all personal evil is suffering in a sense or opening yourself to it for evil is damaging. It says the evil person who feels happy and joyful while doing damage does not see the suffering and the inner pain. It is hard to see this doctrine as anything more than vindictive wishful thinking The lived experience of bad people says they had fun while being villains. You risk dehumanising if you say they are liars or insane.
If personal evil is unreal it is as good as real if suffering is substantial evil. It makes no real difference if you confuse the real and the unreal. The two are married and are thus inseparable for they come in pairs.
Or you could say that it is likely that as personal unreal evil brings in the substantial evil of suffering that it is because it is substantial evil itself.
You cannot maintain the position that personal evil maybe arises from the substantial evil of suffering in you and causes substantial evil of suffering and then say personal evil is DEFINITELY in some way unreal.
Only an evil person would define all evil as in some sense unreal and being a good thing in the wrong place and time for they are talking about how they see evil in themselves. If you have something you perceive as substantially evil inside you, you will want to downplay it. To make out the force within you and that is part of you is not a force but a mere vapour, a good in the wrong place and wrong time is a cover. It assists you in feeling you are not as bad as you are. You will draw others in so that they think you are better than you are as well.
The horrific truth is that that you can only describe evil according to how you experience it. It is entirely an experience matter. So if you say you sense that evil is a substance in you, no religion or Jesus or anybody has the right to tell you differently.
We conclude that there is a lot of deception, hypocrisy and incoherence around the subject of evil. Human nature is not about respecting you as much as it wants you to think.
Human nature may treat evil as substantial. Or as a mere lack of good.
It cannot be proven that if evil exists that it is one of these. It could be one or the other or some evils could be substantial and others not.
The problem is not the amount of evil or the style of evil but what evil is.
Human nature however worries about the amount not the principle.
It worries about evil that does not suit it. It is not against evil but against the evil it does not like.
To fear one evil and not others is being open to the other evils. This is true if they are mere lacks. All agree that evil can grow no matter what it is for we see that. But it is especially true if evil is substantial evil, a power or force. Evil energy will have the power to grow like a fungus. And it will. What would you expect it to do?