Problem of Evil

[elman]

I think it does follow, unless you wish to argue that there is only one possible (allowable by God) world. If we stipulate that in this world 6 million Jews, et al, died during the Holocaust, then there is a logically possible world in which 7 million Jews, et al, died, and a LPW in which 8 million died, and so forth. If all of those worlds are consistent with the Unknown Purpose Defense for the PoE, then it follows that God has a purpose for any amount of evil/suffering.

But, in your analogy, the parent is God. God can intervene as much as He wants to, and it won't affect my counterargument. In the analogy, the child is humanity, and it is the child's possible interference - perhaps he never tries to stand so he never has the opportunity to fall - that is analogous to humanity's interference with evil/suffering.

QUOTE]
God allowing evil does not mean evil is His will or even that the evil fits His purpose. His purpose could be that we be loving. Allowing us to be unloving is not His will nor does it fit His purpose, but it is necessary that we be able to do the unloving for our loving to have value.

 

[Species8472]

God allowing evil does not mean evil is His will or even that the evil fits His purpose. His purpose could be that we be loving. Allowing us to be unloving is not His will nor does it fit His purpose, but it is necessary that we be able to do the unloving for our loving to have value.

Evil is an imperfect will. The Truth is immutable. It exists with you and without you. Evil seeks the Truth because it seeks Power; but the Power is within you and without you. In Truth their is Power. True Power is the falling in Love with the thought of eternity. To be or not to be.
Evil seeks its' own ends when it seeks the Truth; For the Lord shines the Light upon the good and evil. He is merciful to both, good and evil. To the holy and the unholy. The holy see this to be True.

 

[TeddyKGB]

God allowing evil does not mean evil is His will or even that the evil fits His purpose. His purpose could be that we be loving. Allowing us to be unloving is not His will nor does it fit His purpose, but it is necessary that we be able to do the unloving for our loving to have value.

Again, that is not precisely the Unknown Purpose Defense that was originally offered. In any case, I do not think it follows that God must allow holocausts and genocides and tsunamis in order to allow people to choose to be loving.

 

[Species8472]

Again, that is not precisely the Unknown Purpose Defense that was originally offered. In any case, I do not think it follows that God must allow holocausts and genocides and tsunamis in order to allow people to choose to be loving.

Man allows such evils to occur in the world. Man has an imperfect will and if he ever saw the Truth then he would shake off his wine and repent. If only man would stop being such a man; and become like a small child among the stars then he would realize that he is in Gods' presence, both night and day.
The Spirit,... to attain the spirit is like to experience that which is Whole. It is the acknowledgement--that you are the children of the living-Father or what I like to call the Light.

 

[jubilationtcornpone]

Again, that is not precisely the Unknown Purpose Defense that was originally offered. In any case, I do not think it follows that God must allow holocausts and genocides and tsunamis in order to allow people to choose to be loving.

It's not simply that He allows such things so that people will choose to be loving. Rather, it's that He may allow such things for an ultimate, higher purpose. For example, in a world where people have free will, certain catastrophic events may be necessary in order for certain people to be born -- great humanitarians, for example, or scientists who will find cures to horrible diseases. Who knows?

Additionally, God may allow such tragedies so as to create circumstances in which people will seek Him more fully, and draw closer to Him. If our earthly pleasures were all that mattered, that would be foolish. However, if there is a life beyond the pale, and if our salvations are more important than mere earthly existence, then perhaps God would be justified in allowing these tragedies to occur, knowing that they will drive people to seek Him.

This isn't just idle speculation, BTW. Consider the September 11th terrorist attack. Many died in this great tragedy, but on the Sunday after that event, the churches were flooded with people seeking answers. Admittedly, attendance dropped off in the weeks that followed, but still... It's hardly implausible to suggest that many were reminded of how fragile human life can be, and how we need to seek God's forgiveness.

Also, where are the greatest Christian revivals in the world occurring? Not in the prosperous First World nations, but in the nations that experience the most heart-rending, heartbreaking amount of suffering. I think it's entirely plausible that this suffering has a way of driving people to seek God more fully.

 

[Species8472]

It's not simply that He allows such things so that people will choose to be loving. Rather, it's that He may allow such things for an ultimate, higher purpose. For example, in a world where people have free will, certain catastrophic events may be necessary in order for certain people to be born -- great humanitarians, for example, or scientists who will find cures to horrible diseases. Who knows?

Additionally, God may allow such tragedies so as to create circumstances in which people will seek Him more fully, and draw closer to Him. If our earthly pleasures were all that mattered, that would be foolish. However, if there is a life beyond the pale, and if our salvations are more important than mere earthly existence, then perhaps God would be justified in allowing these tragedies to occur, knowing that they will drive people to seek Him.

This isn't just idle speculation, BTW. Consider the September 11th terrorist attack. Many died in this great tragedy, but on the Sunday after that event, the churches were flooded with people seeking answers. Admittedly, attendance dropped off in the weeks that followed, but still... It's hardly implausible to suggest that many were reminded of how fragile human life can be, and how we need to seek God's forgiveness.

Also, where are the greatest Christian revivals in the world occurring? Not in the prosperous First World nations, but in the nations that experience the most heart-rending, heartbreaking amount of suffering. I think it's entirely plausible that this suffering has a way of driving people to seek God more fully.

 

[TeddyKGB]

It's not simply that He allows such things so that people will choose to be loving. Rather, it's that He may allow such things for an ultimate, higher purpose.

Okay, you should stop there, because when you start speculating about purposes...

For example, in a world where people have free will, certain catastrophic events may be necessary in order for certain people to be born -- great humanitarians, for example, or scientists who will find cures to horrible diseases. Who knows?

I don't know about you, but I am not particularly impressed with a so-called omnipotent God who needs to kill 200,000 Average Joes in order to bring forth one Jonas Salk.

Additionally, God may allow such tragedies so as to create circumstances in which people will seek Him more fully, and draw closer to Him. If our earthly pleasures were all that mattered, that would be foolish. However, if there is a life beyond the pale, and if our salvations are more important than mere earthly existence, then perhaps God would be justified in allowing these tragedies to occur, knowing that they will drive people to seek Him.

Again, it is a pretty sorry God who can't get anyone's attention unless he allows 3,000 to die in flaming, collapsing buildings. What did He do before electronic communications?

This isn't just idle speculation, BTW. Consider the September 11th terrorist attack. Many died in this great tragedy, but on the Sunday after that event, the churches were flooded with people seeking answers. Admittedly, attendance dropped off in the weeks that followed, but still... It's hardly implausible to suggest that many were reminded of how fragile human life can be, and how we need to seek God's forgiveness.

Either that or they were scared witless.

Also, where are the greatest Christian revivals in the world occurring? Not in the prosperous First World nations, but in the nations that experience the most heart-rending, heartbreaking amount of suffering. I think it's entirely plausible that this suffering has a way of driving people to seek God more fully.

Mother Theresa seemed to think so.

 

[jubilationtcornpone]

Okay, you should stop there, because when you start speculating about purposes...

In that case, you shouldn't claim that God can have no ultimate purpose in allowing evil.

I don't know about you, but I am not particularly impressed with a so-called omnipotent God who needs to kill 200,000 Average Joes in order to bring forth one Jonas Salk.

Even if that Jonas Salk ultimately saves 1,000,000 lives? Or even if the death of 200,000 Joes ultimately results in the rise of an evangelist who will save 200,000 souls? Is this not a possibility?

Look, in a world where free will reigns, there are going to be some limitations. The only way to prevent evil is to elminate free will. Like it or not, it's going to happen... and so God may allow some instances of evil to occur so that a great good can ultimately be accomplished.

Again, it is a pretty sorry God who can't get anyone's attention unless he allows 3,000 to die in flaming, collapsing buildings. What did He do before electronic communications?

Mere communication is not the problem. There are millions of people who have already heard the gospel, but whose hearts are hardened to it. It may take nothing short of a personal or nationwide tragedy before those people will start to think about their own mortality.

I agree that can "get [someone's] attention" in other ways. It's not merely a matter of getting their attention, though. Ultimately, it's a matter of striking at the core of their hearts, without violating their free will.

Either that or they were scared witless.

Did I say that none of them were scared witless? Not at all. In fact, it is precisely this fear that may have ultimately driven some people to seek salvation.

Now, I'm not saying that everyone who entered a church after 9/11 sought spiritual salvation. Not at all. However, if some of those people were saved, then that could explain why God would have allowed such a travesty to occur.

 

[Telephone]

Look, in a world where free will reigns, there are going to be some limitations. The only way to prevent evil is to elminate free will.

There is said to be no evil, no sin, no tears in heaven, can we take it then that there is no free will in heaven ?

And if there is no free will in heaven are the residents simply programmed to love god, are they robots ?

If heaven has no evil, why not the earth ?



And also if there is something that cannot be achieved by god, something beyond his capabilities (that is: to create an enviroment with free will and without evil) then can we call him omnipotent ?

 

[morningstar2651]

My time on various Christian forums, which has been considerable, has done more than anything to move me away from what I now believe to be the deeply immoral practice of religion.

The majority of gods creations, according to Christianity are bound for hell, they plainly have not been given 'ample' chance. If we understand 'ample' to mean 'enough or more than enough' or 'plentiful' then either one of two things have occurred, either these creatures have been poorly designed (and knowingly so, in the light of gods omniscience) or 'ample' chance is not offered to everyone.

These ideas have been refuted because they are nonsense, they are simply not true, Zeus, Ganesh, Yhwh, all myth, all nonsense, they may, as you say, have some value as tools to understand the world, but they are poor tools that will only lead to a poor understanding of the world.

Why draw the line at the triune god ?

Indeed I am, I understand that this is not the view held by all people of a religious bent.

What makes you believe the stories in the bible are in any way true ?

Faith (in the context we are discussing here) normally includes some sort of belief in a god or gods and the supernatural, If this were absent it would be next to impossible to distinguish religious faith from atheism. If on the other hand you define religious faith as any kind of philosophical structure then you would be right to say my 'faith' is the same as a Christians 'faith' and I need a lot of 'faith' to believe the universe is the result of a quantum fluctuation but such poor definitions soon become meaningless and do not help clear the cloudy waters of the issue.

Faith in the religious context implies strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

Reason, the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic, requires proof or proofs to be viable, otherwise it is simply faith.

Religious faith and reason are not compatible.

How do you define religious faith? I am religious. I have faith. I do not believe in the supernatural. I am a skeptic. I can tell the difference between modus ponens and affirming the consequent. I don't believe in doctrine because my religion tells me to - I am a member of my religion because the doctrine matches the beliefs I held before converting. I contradict your claim that reason and faith cannot coexist.

Is mythology meant to be taken literally? If it isn't, must it then be nonsense? Isn't that a false dichotomy?

Your views are strongly anti-theist. However, you base your judgements of all theists on one religion.

 

[Species8472]

Everything that is was or is going to be, has already been. God and his angels are the harvesters of this world; and to assume that he kills 200,000 people out of necessary evil is a great injustice done to God. Why assume that 200,000 people have gone to hell?
Maybe, just maybe, God was doing a little harvesting and 200,000 people have just entered eternity, in heavenly bliss. What sin is commited on Gods' part if this is True. Maybe he was just gathering his wheat.
We all have this concept that death is the end of a sinner. My belief is that God saves sinners first, out of his infinite Love for his creation. His servants have to work hard to tend the crop; therefore they receive the greater damnation because God expects much of them...Look!

Matthew 21:
"28": But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard.
"29": He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went.
"30": And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not.
"31": Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.
"32": For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.
"33": Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:
"34": And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.
"35": And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.
"36": Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.
"37": But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.
"38": But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.
"39": And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.
"40": When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?
"41": They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.

 

[jubilationtcornpone]

There is said to be no evil, no sin, no tears in heaven, can we take it then that there is no free will in heaven ?

Obviously, it's not as simple as that. After all, the angels were in heaven, and some of them did sin. Some of them rebelled.

I'll admit that I don't know all the answers. It could be that the people who enter into heaven, having been refined by God, will no longer sin once they're in the direct presence of the Lord. They most certainly have free will, as evidenced by the fact that they sinned on earth, but upon entering God's direct presence, they lose all desire for sin.

If heaven has no evil, why not the earth ?

Because we have direct, empirical, unassailable evidence that people on earth DO sin. It is a direct consequence of their free will. Now, if you can suggest a way of eliminating evil on earth without robbing people of their free will, then please get started on this grandiose plan right away.

 

[jubilationtcornpone]

And also if there is something that cannot be achieved by god, something beyond his capabilities (that is: to create an enviroment with free will and without evil) then can we call him omnipotent ?

With all due respect, your statement assumes a kindergarden-level definition of omnipotence. I do not know a single philosopher or theologian who defines omnipotence as "the abililty to do anything whatsoever."

Rather, God is omnipotent because He can do anything that is (a) logically consistent and (b) consistent with His own character. Can God create a round square or a married bachelor? Certainly not! Such concepts are self-contradictory. They are nothing more than words that were arbitrarily juxtaposed. Used together, they are meaningless.

In the same way, God cannot logically force human beings to freely repent and follow him. Either they do so freely, or they are coerced. That is simply the nature of logic, and it does not make God any less omnipotent.

 

[Species8472]

Obviously, it's not as simple as that. After all, the angels were in heaven, and some of them did sin. Some of them rebelled.

I'll admit that I don't know all the answers. It could be that the people who enter into heaven, having been refined by God, will no longer sin once they're in the direct presence of the Lord. They most certainly have free will, as evidenced by the fact that they sinned on earth, but upon entering God's direct presence, they lose all desire for sin.


Because we have direct, empirical, unassailable evidence that people on earth DO sin. It is a direct consequence of their free will. Now, if you can suggest a way of eliminating evil on earth without robbing people of their free will, then please get started on this grandiose plan right away.

What is free will worth when it is imperfect? An imperfect will is not free but, rather, slave to sin. Many people just see what is in the world and think that is it; but it's not as simple as that--because Truth lies beneath the surface of lies. A will that is corruptible to surface matter is not free but bound to its' own mentality.

 

[Telephone]

How do you define religious faith?

The strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

I am religious. I have faith. I do not believe in the supernatural. I am a skeptic. I can tell the difference between modus ponens and affirming the consequent. I don't believe in doctrine because my religion tells me to - I am a member of my religion because the doctrine matches the beliefs I held before converting. I contradict your claim that reason and faith cannot coexist.

I hold paganism as more of a philosophical view rather than a true faith as it lacks the supernatural.

Is mythology meant to be taken literally? If it isn't, must it then be nonsense? Isn't that a false dichotomy?

No I agree than mythology is not meant to be taken on face value, but the fact remains that often is. I see no dichotomy in calling what is not true nonsense.

Your views are strongly anti-theist. However, you base your judgements of all theists on one religion.

No this is incorrect, I base my judgements of each religion on each religion, my comments here are, as you correctly suspect, aimed at those of the Christian faith who take a more literal approach to the bible.

If you see me comment on some of the more grotesque claims of the Islamic religion please don't think I am applying them to yourself.

 

[Telephone]

There is said to be no evil, no sin, no tears in heaven, can we take it then that there is no free will in heaven ?

Obviously, it's not as simple as that. After all, the angels were in heaven, and some of them did sin. Some of them rebelled.

Why ?

You say those in heaven will no longer sin once they're in the direct presence of the Lord.

The how did the angels sin ?

Genuinely confused here.

I'll admit that I don't know all the answers. It could be that the people who enter into heaven, having been refined by God, will no longer sin once they're in the direct presence of the Lord. They most certainly have free will, as evidenced by the fact that they sinned on earth, but upon entering God's direct presence, they lose all desire for sin.

Ok, (we will for the moment skip over the problem of the sinning angels) here you say that we can have free will and no evil, why then can we not have this on earth ?

If heaven has no evil, why not the earth

Because we have direct, empirical, unassailable evidence that people on earth DO sin.

This is like asking why grass is green and receiving the 'answer' "grass is green because we have direct evidence that it is green"

You fail to answer my question.

It is a direct consequence of their free will.

And yet god allows free will in heaven and heaven is free of sin/evil ?

Now, if you can suggest a way of eliminating evil on earth without robbing people of their free will, then please get started on this grandiose plan right away.

Of course you understand that my answer will have to be hypothetical due to my lack of omnipotence and omniscience but here goes.

God using his omnipotence can make it so, just like he does in heaven.

Any problem with that answer ?

 

[jubilationtcornpone]

Why ?

You say those in heaven will no longer sin once they're in the direct presence of the Lord.

The how did the angels sin ?

Genuinely confused here.

I did not say that ANYONE in the direct presence of God would no longer sin. Rather, I said that those who had already been refined (e.g. through repentance and subsequent spiritual transformation) would no longer sin. This would explain why some angels chose to rebel against God, and others did not.

Ok, (we will for the moment skip over the problem of the sinning angels) here you say that we can have free will and no evil, why then can we not have this on earth ?

Possibly because on Earth, we do not experience God's presence in the same direct way that we would in heaven.

I don't pretend to have all the answers; however, the point remains that we DO sin on Earth. That much is abundantly obvious. As for why we would not sin in heaven, that is certainly a difficult question. Merely being a difficult question does not make it a contradiction, though... and so far, nobody has conclusively demonstrated that such a contradiction exists.

Because we have direct, empirical, unassailable evidence that people on earth DO sin.

This is like asking why grass is green and receiving the 'answer' "grass is green because we have direct evidence that it is green"

Not quite. When employing logic, we must start from the empirical evidence, and then craft our conclusions accordingly. The empirical evidence says that people on Earth do sin, and that this is the direct result of free will. This alone suggests that one cannot completely eliminate evil ON EARTH without eliminating evil as well.

And yet god allows free will in heaven and heaven is free of sin/evil ?

Again, because the conditions in heaven are different from those on Earth. Evil will ultimately be eradicated, but that will happen in eternity.

Of course you understand that my answer will have to be hypothetical due to my lack of omnipotence and omniscience but here goes.

God using his omnipotence can make it so, just like he does in heaven.

Any problem with that answer ?

In fact, yes. As I explained earlier, omnipotence is not the ability to do ANYTHING. It does not include the ability to do things that are logically self-contradictory, nor does it include the ability to do what contradict's God's character.

That is why God cannot simply wave his mighty hand and eliminate evil. God would not simply eliminate evil on Earth because this would require forcing people -- people with free will -- to follow Him. God cannot logically force people to freely follow His path.

 

[TeddyKGB]

With all due respect, your statement assumes a kindergarden-level definition of omnipotence. I do not know a single philosopher or theologian who defines omnipotence as "the abililty to do anything whatsoever."

Rather, God is omnipotent because He can do anything that is (a) logically consistent and (b) consistent with His own character. Can God create a round square or a married bachelor? Certainly not! Such concepts are self-contradictory. They are nothing more than words that were arbitrarily juxtaposed. Used together, they are meaningless.

Condition (b) makes your argument vulnerable to the McEar problem.

 

[jubilationtcornpone]

Condition (b) makes your argument vulnerable to the McEar problem.

Not at all. The "McEar problem" is just a trivial and childish attempt to dismiss a rational discussion of omnipotence. (In fact, given your earlier postings, I'd bet dollars to donuts that you just went around the 'net, looking for ways to work around the conditions of omnipotence that I described earlier.)

For the sake of the unfamiliar, the McEar problem posits that if we had a being named McEar who could do everything except (according to his basic nature) scratch his own ear, then that person would be omnipotent. Its proponents claim that this is a ridiculous scenario, and that it therefore casts aspersions on the aforementioned requirements of omnipotence (e.g. that an omnipotent being can only do what is logically possible, and that he cannot violate his own nature).

However, even a dilettante can see how childish the McEar objection is. The ability to scratch one's ear is merely a physical limitation. It is not a quality of one's fundamental nature--that is, the very core of one's being or character. The ability to scratch one's ear is nowhere in the same category as one's omnibenevolence, for example, or one's sense of justice.

Moreover, even if we accept that the McEar problem leads to a rather ludicruous example of omnipotence, this does not logically imply that every hypothetical omnipotent being would be similarly ridiculous. And given the abundance of other philosophical pointers toward the Judeo-Christian God (the Kalam cosmological argument, for example, or the paths of Aquinas), we have no reason to accept that the McEar problem poses any serious difficulty to an omnipotent God.

In fact, one can see signs of such logical sloppiness in the article that I cited. In this article, a McEar proponent attacked the claim "that to do anything logically possible is a sufficient guarantor of the attribute of divine omnipotence." However, I claim not such thing; rather, I say that omnipotence does not require the ability to do what is logically impossible. See the difference? In fact, condition (b) ("God cannot contradict his own nature") shows that the ability to do everything logically possible is NOT the only criterion for omnipotence. (This same author later snuck that condition in circumspectly, when he talked about McEar's "nature"... but by doing so, he violated his condtion that the ability to do anything logically possible is a sufficient guarantor of omnipotence.)

Besides, are you saying that God CAN contradict his own nature? That God can sin, for example? Every modern philosopher and theologian that I know would disagree. They acknowledge that God's omnipotence does not require him to violate his fundamental nature.


But for the sake of argument, let us ignore condition (b). Condition (a) still remains -- namely, that God can only do what is logically consistent. Ergo, God cannot force people to freely obey Him -- and this is one reason why evil and suffering continue to exist.

 

[Jamza]

To me, the origins of evil is the more difficult matter; I can see why an omnipotent God could not eliminate all evil, but in a way I'm not sure why God would allow a situation with the potential of degenerating into evil.