The problem of evil

[quatona]

No God created humans with the ability to love or not love.

That´s exactly what I said in paraphrasing your doctrine.

He did not force us to do either.

Was not my claim.
Please reread my post.

 

[JM]

You can only have a problem of evil if you have a moral absolute, if not, what's the problem?

 

[quatona]

You can only have a problem of evil if you have a moral absolute, if not, what's the problem?

The problem here is that you do not seem to understand the nature of a "reductio ad absurdum".

 

[elman]

You can only have a problem of evil if you have a moral absolute, if not, what's the problem?

It is absolutely immoral to torture and murder innocent people.

 

[elman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
No God created humans with the ability to love or not love.

That´s exactly what I said in paraphrasing your doctrine.

Quote:
He did not force us to do either.

Was not my claim.
Please reread my post.

Yes, because god has forced this necessity into existence by creating the the antagonists evil/love.

Creating Humans with the ability to love or not love is not forcing the antogonist evil/love. Humans chose to not love and that brings about the antogonist of evil/love--not forced by God.

 

[JM]

The problem here is that you do not seem to understand the nature of a "reductio ad absurdum".

And who is your final authority or where do you get the idea of "reductio ad absurdum" from? You're making this claim reductio ad absurdum! You're presuppositioning a law of logic you can't account for.

 

[quatona]

Creating Humans with the ability to love or not love is not forcing the antogonist evil/love.

Sure it is. If love necessitates the possibility of evil (as you keep claiming), and if you create the possibility for evil and love you are create this antagonism into existence. God couldn´t create the possibility for one without creating the possibility for the other, so he created this antagonism.

 

[elman]

Sure it is. If love necessitates the possibility of evil (as you keep claiming), and if you create the possibility for evil and love you are create this antagonism into existence. God couldn´t create the possibility for one without creating the possibility for the other, so he created this antagonism.

The possibility for the antagonism, not the antagonism.

 

[FishFace]

It is absolutely immoral to torture and murder innocent people.

What's your evidence for that claim?

 

[dialee16]

^You really need evidence for that?

 

[quatona]

The possibility for the antagonism, not the antagonism.

Antagonism is the concept - i.e. the possibility. There is no such thing as creating a possibility for an antagonism. Love/evil (by your definition) are antagonistic concepts: One cannot be without the other.
God created this antagonism (two conflicting concepts).

 

[dialee16]

My answer to thread:

Because no one is god but god, none of us are perfect, even the angels. But the angels have already learned there lesson; they had to suffer through a revolution cuased by other imperfect angels that are now demons. Humans are highly vulnerable to satins evil, so even less of us will be loyal to god. Most humans will end up completly away from gods love because they rejected him, and will spend eternity in a state of sheer pain becuase god's love does not enter where they will go, hell. God will replace the citizens of heaven he lost when the revolution occured; and humans are learning about suffering on earth so we won't dream of trying to overthrow god in heaven.

 

[phsyxx]

My answer to thread:

Because no one is god but god, none of us are perfect, even the angels. But the angels have already learned there lesson; they had to suffer through a revolution cuased by other imperfect angels that are now demons. Humans are highly vulnerable to satins evil, so even less of us will be loyal to god. Most humans will end up completly away from gods love because they rejected him, and will spend eternity in a state of sheer pain becuase god's love does not enter where they will go, hell.

Satin?
ARGH!!!!
I don't want God to punish me for wearing satin!
My wardrobe's getting a makeover!
BURN THE DEMONIC SATIN!!!!!!!
Wear linen togas, they are the clothes of JESUS!

 

[elman]

Antagonism is the concept - i.e. the possibility. There is no such thing as creating a possibility for an antagonism. Love/evil (by your definition) are antagonistic concepts: One cannot be without the other.
God created this antagonism (two conflicting concepts).

Actually I think there can be love without evil. That is God Himself or Itself. The possibilty for evil must exist for there to be love but not actual extence of evil it self. If antogonism is only the concept or possibility then I agree that God created that. There is a weakness in my argument here, which I have not worked out yet and it is in the fact that I believe we are all born capable of loving and unloving and I further believe we will if we live long enough, all be unloving. In other words I believe it is not possible for a mature human to be perfectly free from being unloving as God is. I still don't think God can be blamed for our unloving acts, but I do believe we were created without the ability for perfect love and I see the contradiction and the weakness here and have not yet been able to resolve it to my satisfaction.

 

[quatona]

Actually I think there can be love without evil. That is God Himself or Itself. The possibilty for evil must exist for there to be love but not actual extence of evil it self. If antogonism is only the concept or possibility then I agree that God created that. There is a weakness in my argument here, which I have not worked out yet and it is in the fact that I believe we are all born capable of loving and unloving and I further believe we will if we live long enough, all be unloving. In other words I believe it is not possible for a mature human to be perfectly free from being unloving as God is. I still don't think God can be blamed for our unloving acts, but I do believe we were created without the ability for perfect love and I see the contradiction and the weakness here and have not yet been able to resolve it to my satisfaction.

Hey elman, everything ok? Are you sick or what?

Seriously, this post comes as a relief. Not because I find satisfaction in you admitting a weakness in your argument, but because I was very frustrated and felt I would be forever doomed to fail in communicating what I find a contradiction in your model. So, I am really happy to find my point understood, finally.

 

[elman]

Hey elman, everything ok? Are you sick or what?

Seriously, this post comes as a relief. Not because I find satisfaction in you admitting a weakness in your argument, but because I was very frustrated and felt I would be forever doomed to fail in communicating what I find a contradiction in your model. So, I am really happy to find my point understood, finally.

OK if that was your point I understand and I am feeling pretty good actually.

 

[Tiphereth]

You can only have a problem of evil if you have a moral absolute, if not, what's the problem?

Christianity presumes moral absolutes. Hence, the problem is one of incoherence. The position of the atheist is irrelevant. A determinism could critique the notion of omniscience and free will without being himself a libertarian.

The logical problem of evil strictly concludes that ¬(G & E) wherein G = "God exists" and E = "evil exists." From ¬(G & E), by DeMorgan's Law, we derive, (¬G v ¬E). This then implies that exactly one of the following is true:

(¬G & ¬E)
(¬G & E)
(G & ¬E)

Even if we suppose that atheism implies a lack of morality, the atheism could still hold the first proposition (¬G & ¬E).

However, atheism does not imply a lack of morality. It is a single metaphysical claim. As I said in another forum

Now, as one knows, claims grounded in metaphysics (what is) cannot derive ethics (what ought). Hence, atheism does not imply ethical systems. Hence, atheism cannot imply Social Darwinism, or moral objectivism, or any such system. Atheism only implies one metaphysical claim regarding God's existence. It does not imply any other metaphysical claim (i.e. materialist monism for example), any ethical claims (i.e. cultural relativism), any epistemological claims (i.e. empiricism), or any other philosophical opinion. It implies none of them.
​

And who is your final authority or where do you get the idea of "reductio ad absurdum" from?

The reductio ad absurdum is a function of the law of non-contradiction. The law of non-contradiction itself is self-proving.

You're making this claim reductio ad absurdum! You're presuppositioning a law of logic you can't account for.

How? If it is self-proving, then quite obviously it can be easily accounted for, atheism or not.

 

[NonblackRaven]

I find it curious that atheists put so much emphasis on the Problem of Evil without realizing that it brings another problem to the fore, the "Problem of Good". Why should there be goodness in the universe? What is goodness? Just as evil demands an origin, so does goodness; but there is only silence on that matter.

To focus on "the Problem of Evil" is to accept a naive theology that is not consistent with itself or with the world. Epicurus was simply one of a long line of sophists who embraced that route.

If Christian grounds are assumed in order to pose the problem, Christian grounds, that is, the Scriptures explain evil's purpose in the world. "All things work together for good to those who love God and are called." Solving the problem of evil is a matter of adopting the correct starting point. With the Bible as our axiomatic starting point, the existence of evil is not a significant problem at all. In fact, the existence of evil is far more problematic in the unbeliever's worldview. Sin and evil therefore exist for good reasons: God has decreed them as part of His eternal plan, and they work not only for His own glory, but also for the good of his people. With this Biblical premise in mind, it is easy to answer anti-theists, such as David Hume, who argue that the pervasiveness of evil in the world militates against the existence of the Christian God.

 

[Tiphereth]

I find it curious that atheists put so much emphasis on the Problem of Evil without realizing that it brings another problem to the fore, the "Problem of Good". Why should there be goodness in the universe? What is goodness? Just as evil demands an origin, so does goodness; but there is only silence on that matter.

Goodness and evil derive from events relative to sentient beings. These events can be the result of free agents (moral evil) or events that are the result of nature (natural evil).

To focus on "the Problem of Evil" is to accept a naive theology that is not consistent with itself or with the world. Epicurus was simply one of a long line of sophists who embraced that route.

In what sense?

If Christian grounds are assumed in order to pose the problem, Christian grounds, that is, the Scriptures explain evil's purpose in the world. "All things work together for good to those who love God and are called." Solving the problem of evil is a matter of adopting the correct starting point. With the Bible as our axiomatic starting point, the existence of evil is not a significant problem at all. In fact, the existence of evil is far more problematic in the unbeliever's worldview. Sin and evil therefore exist for good reasons: God has decreed them as part of His eternal plan, and they work not only for His own glory, but also for the good of his people.

This might disarm the general logical problem of evil (there is a version of LPoE that attempts to show the impossibility of any morally significant reason), however, there are a few problems with this with regards to the evidential problem of evil.

First, can you show the plausibility of the suggested scenario? You must admit that it is quite ad hoc and a complex explanation. Secondly, how does God declaring them part of His eternal plan imply that it is a good thing? And in what sense does it work for His glory or benefit the people? The third concerns whether or not gratuitous evils were really necessary. For example, the Holocaust. Was that really necessary in God's eternal plan? The problem is one of plausibility and I do not see an adequate defense here.

With this Biblical premise in mind, it is easy to answer anti-theists, such as David Hume, who argue that the pervasiveness of evil in the world militates against the existence of the Christian God.

I disagree. You have to show the plausibility of that scenario compared to that there is not an all-good God.

 

[TeddyKGB]

I find it curious that atheists put so much emphasis on the Problem of Evil without realizing that it brings another problem to the fore, the "Problem of Good". Why should there be goodness in the universe? What is goodness? Just as evil demands an origin, so does goodness; but there is only silence on that matter.

To focus on "the Problem of Evil" is to accept a naive theology that is not consistent with itself or with the world. Epicurus was simply one of a long line of sophists who embraced that route.

For all of your philosophy name-dropping, you don't seem to understand the Problem of Evil. It arises from the tenets of Christianity that hold God is all-good and desires only good things. It is, in philosophical parlance, an instance of reductio ad absurdum. No concomitant "Problem of Good" arises because the PoE is not an argument about a godless world, and because God is not said to be the slightest bit evil.

If Christian grounds are assumed in order to pose the problem, Christian grounds, that is, the Scriptures explain evil's purpose in the world. "All things work together for good to those who love God and are called." Solving the problem of evil is a matter of adopting the correct starting point. With the Bible as our axiomatic starting point, the existence of evil is not a significant problem at all. In fact, the existence of evil is far more problematic in the unbeliever's worldview. Sin and evil therefore exist for good reasons: God has decreed them as part of His eternal plan, and they work not only for His own glory, but also for the good of his people. With this Biblical premise in mind, it is easy to answer anti-theists, such as David Hume, who argue that the pervasiveness of evil in the world militates against the existence of the Christian God.

Yes, there are established defenses against the actual Problem of Evil, all of which suck to some degree.