The Problem of Evil

[poolerboy0077]

But this deity also created an afterlife, thus would not view the brief lifespan as important compared to the eternal afterlife (probably). A neutral entity might simply not care about abstract terms such as good and evil. Some people see an ant hill and squash it, others make an effort not to crush any ants, but the majorly pass by without even glancing at the ants, and this final portion is the neutral one.

That actually makes it worse, because it would make a person's suffering meaningless. Having a child get raped but say to them not to worry because they'll get goodies forever after is obscene.

And "good" and "evil" might be abstractions but they point to real world consequences. A child getting raped or starving because of a drought or drowning because of a tsunami (the latter two of which cannot be resolved by invoking man's free will) is not abstract. This seems more and more like making excuses for a deity because of an unwillingness to ever hold it accountable.

By the way, it's also false he doesn't view this brief lifespan as insignificant, given that he cares so much about whether you accept his existence in this life and is willing to cast people to eternal torment if one fails to do so. He also cares about how WE treat others, but his omission to act is taken as trivial. Hmmm.

 

[PsychoSarah]

That actually makes it worse, because it would make a person's suffering meaningless. Having a child get raped but say to them not to worry because they'll get goodies forever after is obscene.

And "good" and "evil" might be abstractions but they point to real world consequences. A child getting raped or starving because of a drought or drowning because of a tsunami (the latter two of which cannot be resolved by invoking man's free will) is not abstract. This seems more and more like making excuses for a deity because of an unwillingness to ever hold it accountable.

By the way, it's also false he doesn't view this brief lifespan as insignificant, given that he cares so much about whether you accept his existence in this life and is willing to cast people to eternal torment if one fails to do so. He also cares about how WE treat others, but his omission to act is taken as trivial. Hmmm.

You are restricting god to concepts presented by certain religions with that. I don't assume any deity gives a crap about humanity to begin with, I don't even assume the existence of a deity would indicate an afterlife (hence the probably in the earlier post). Why we are here might just be "why not?"

Of course, I don't view any deity as existing likely, but the more specific you get with it, the less likely it becomes.

 

[poolerboy0077]

I don't assume any deity gives a crap about humanity to begin with,

He seems to care enough to create us. Not caring afterward is as cruel and malevolent as a parent abandoning a child, but much much worse.

I don't even assume the existence of a deity would indicate an afterlife (hence the probably in the earlier post). Why we are here might just be "why not?"

Of course, I don't view any deity as existing likely, but the more specific you get with it, the less likely it becomes.

Sure but deism doesn't have the same problem of evil as theism does. That you perhaps have a diluted faith yourself is inconsequential to the topic here. The problem for most theists is they have a conception of an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent God with a creation model that permits harm and suffering to sentient beings.

 

[PsychoSarah]

He seems to care enough to create us. Not caring afterward is as cruel and malevolent as a parent abandoning a child, but much much worse.


Sure but deism doesn't have the same problem of evil as theism does. That you perhaps have a diluted faith yourself is inconsequential to the topic here. The problem for most theists is they have a conception of an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent God with a creation model that permits harm and suffering to sentient beings.

This again no, I do not have diluted faith, I wish I had faith, but i don't. I can just consider concepts without having to believe in them and yet form a rational argument around them.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Why create something? Boredom, I can view that as a legit reason for a deity creating stuff, although I also don't assume that, were a deity to exist, that it necessarily created anything.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I include that under 2).

Oops, missed it. Glad you covered it.

 

[Loudmouth]

More accurately, the question should be asked that an architect designs a house and the house collapses and kills the family, was the architect moral.

If the architect could have made the house so that it wouldn't collapse, the architect would be immoral.

Well, was he? Maybe he was, maybe the family demanded a cutting-edge design that was not properly tested. Or, maybe the family and architect were innocent, and the building contractors cheaped out on something. Maybe, a mistake was made in manufacturing that made a defective beam and it collapsed.

An omniscient and omnipotent architect could build a cutting edge design that would not collapse.

So again, the burden of proof is on those that would say something created reflects upon the creator. Until this can be demonstrated at all, your whole point is useless.The fact you have to resort to "there was an evil architect, he purposely made a real crappy house, the house killed people, was the architect good?" shows that you don't even understand this point.

Is God omnipotent or not?

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
--Epicurus

 

[Akureyri]

I was having a very good discussion on the problem of evil in the Exploring Christianity forum and I thought I would move part of it here. Please join in on the discussion.

(Italics are my posts, green text the reply to it, plain text my answer to the reply)
Originally Posted by dhh712
I don't see any point of contradiction. God's benevolence doesn't depend on His loving everyone; that would reduce His standards to humanity's standards of benevolence (or one standard of benevolence if some portion of humanity equals benevolence to loving everyone).

If God's benevolence isn't really benevolence, then why call it benevolence?

I trust God is benevolent because that is what the Bible says He is and I have experienced it in my own life. When I say we I do mean Christians (or I should say they should trust that God is benevolent.

However, if God can do anything and knows everything, then by definition & logical deduction, he can't be benevolent in the presence of mass suffering and mass calamity. Why would you trust something to be good when simple logic shows it can't be good?

Sometimes when we are going through times of suffering it is difficult to see His benevolence. That's why it is ultimately based on trust).

A being that isn't benevolent - which describes an all-powerful & all-knowing being - cannot be seen as benevolent.

Do you trust that God is benevolent when he sits there and does nothing to stop a rapist from raping an innocent child? Just how would God be benevolent towards that child by doing nothing to prevent the rape when he's fully capable of preventing the rape?

Though it may appear that way to us, God's benevolence may not be defined in the way that our benevolence is. His love may not be the same (some times) as our what our idea of love is. It may appear He doesn't care. What is actually occurring is the unfolding of His plan, which apparently sometimes involves people being raped.

If God's benevolence is defined by allowing children to needlessly get raped and tortured, then it isn't really benevolence.

If he has some kind of greater plan that requires the children to be raped, then in what way would his omnipotent power to carry out the plan be compromised if he stopped the rape of children?

To answer your question, I don't know the mind and specific details of the plan of God so I can't answer the question for you.

There isn't a plan - at least not a good plan. That's why you don't know the specific details. Any being that allows mass suffering of children when he's perfectly capable of preventing such mass suffering obviously doesn't have goodness in mind.

The question was:
Does God love child rape victims enough to prevent rapists from raping them?

So what would happen to God's plan if he did stop a rapist from raping a child?

Apparently, it was in His plan to stop the rapist; He then had a God-glorifying reason for it to be that way.

So God doesn't carry out his plans. Have you seen God do something so good that it offsets the bad that occurs as a result of not preventing children from getting raped?

All I do know is that whatever happens to a person who has been raped it is has all happened for a greater God-glorifying purpose and that answer usually isn't satisfying, especially to unbelievers.

Why can't God accomplish his greater God-glorifying purpose if he does stop the rape? After all, he's omnipotent, isn't he? Or does stopping the rape cause his omnipotence to go away?

So what you're saying is that God wouldn't be able to accomplish some kind of greater good if he stopped the rapist from raping the child. Do you not realize by saying this, you are asserting that God's omnipotence would be somehow diminished if he were to prevent the child from getting raped. Just how would you know that God's omnipotence would be diminished if he were to stop a rapist from raping a child?

Apparently it wouldn't have been the best way that would have been accomplished. I don't see how His omnipotence would be diminished. All that is diminished is our expectation that His will revolves around our being immeasurably fulfilled in this world by the things we think will fulfill us.

You're saying he needs to allow the child to be raped so he can accomplish some kind of higher purpose. Therefore, if he stops the rape, he can't accomplish his higher purpose. And it then follows that if he stops the rape, he can't be omnipotent, as he is incapable of accomplishing his higher purpose.

Also, the child rape victim could possibly not be someone God loves, there unfortunately is always that chance being how there is biblically-documented evidence that God has not loved every single person He has ever created.

So you're asserting a God that isn't benevolent. I thought you trusted that God is benevolent. Which is it? Or are you a polytheist?

So you're saying God may think the child deserves to be raped. That God doesn't care enough to prevent an assault as heinous as child rape. Is that correct?

One thing I should have clarified is that we deserve nothing less in this world than the eternal wrath of God. It seems that a lot of unbelievers have this idea that they deserve something other than this, like a nice happy life. The fact that some of us (a good percentage most likely) aren't experiencing suffering at all times in our lives is something which we should be exceptionally grateful for.

You're not answering the question.

So you're saying God may think the child deserves to be raped. That God doesn't care enough to prevent an assault as heinous as child rape. Is that correct?

Like I said before, it may seem to us that He doesn't care. What actually is going on is the unfolding of His plan which will result in the greatest good which will be the most God-glorifying of all ways in which it could have unfolded. Most likely we will not ever know how all the suffering in our lives will have been worked into that plan. Hopefully it is one of the things which our Lord will reveal to us when we are with Him eternally.

Have you ever really thought about this? God can't be all-power & all-loving in the presence of mass suffering and mass calamity. Just think about it.

Watch this short video. It will help. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmjFVP6qkiI

I have copied this post at http://www.christianforums.com/t7811212/

 

[abacabb3]

It still needs to be demonstrated how the problem of evil is really a problem, I'm waiting! Don’t get so mad at God over this “huge dilemma” if you cannot simply prove there even is one.

The problem exists because God is supposedly all knowing and all powerful, whereas an architect is not … So if God is willing to prevent evil but unable, then he is not all powerful. If he's able but not willing, then he is malevolent. If he's able and willing, then why do we still have evil (the "problem")? If he's neither able nor willing them why call him God? This dates back to Epicurous.

Again, with the quoting of Epicurus.

First, it needs to be demonstrated if we have an example of anything created that, in of itself, accurately reflects upon the nature and motives of its creator. I am still waiting on this. Without this, Epicurus’ whole assertion rests on an incorrect premise, which is why to me, his dilemma is a non-dilemma. It’s conjured in his imagination.

Further, to address God’s omniscience and omnipotence, you are correct. God is different than the architect that unlike an architect, God perfectly knows the future. So, unlike the architect, God would know the good and bad parts of His creation that will happen in the future.

Herein lies your problem. You need to demonstrate that the bad things that occur don’t serve a purpose. Because you and in fact no man has perfect knowledge of the future, you nor anyone else can ever demonstrate this. So, you assert on a basis of your own unproved faith that there is not a purpose that God seeks to establish through it, which in His higher knowledge is greater with the existence of evil than without.

The burden of proof is on you, and not on me, on this one. I am not arguing philosophically God is good, because then I would need to demonstrate it logically. However, you are arguing that God is bad, but your arguments are illogical and lie upon faulty premises. For you to prove anything, you need to confront my objections put forward here.

If the architect could have made the house so that it wouldn't collapse, the architect would be immoral.

True, if the greatest possible purpose achieved is for the house not to collapse. So, what you need to demonstrate, which you cannot, is needless suffering. Mankind really does not have humility, because if we did, we wouldn’t even be posing Epicurus’ questions for the last 2,000 years. To know if suffering is indeed needless, that requires 1. perfect knowledge of the future and 2. perfect knowledge of what the best possible purpose would be.

The problem of evil presumes an anthropocentric view of the universe (i.e. if something is bad for people, then it means God in His weakness, ignorance, or malevolence failed to meet the purposes behind existence.) This is a terribly false premise, and if one is really an atheist, would reject it outright.

 

[poolerboy0077]

First, it needs to be demonstrated if we have an example of anything created that, in of itself, accurately reflects upon the nature and motives of its creator. I am still waiting on this. Without this, Epicurus’ whole assertion rests on an incorrect premise, which is why to me, his dilemma is a non-dilemma. It’s conjured in his imagination.

What's the "incorrect" premise? By the way, no one needs to give you an example because we are dealing with a special case here. No human's creation is completely 100% their responsibility the way it would be for someone who is both omniscient and omnipotent. Which leads us to your next comment...

Further, to address God’s omniscience and omnipotence, you are correct. God is different than the architect that unlike an architect, God perfectly knows the future. So, unlike the architect, God would know the good and bad parts of His creation that will happen in the future.

Herein lies your problem. You need to demonstrate that the bad things that occur don’t serve a purpose. Because you and in fact no man has perfect knowledge of the future, you nor anyone else can ever demonstrate this. So, you assert on a basis of your own unproved faith that there is not a purpose that God seeks to establish through it, which in His higher knowledge is greater with the existence of evil than without.

The burden of proof is on you, and not on me, on this one. I am not arguing philosophically God is good, because then I would need to demonstrate it logically. However, you are arguing that God is bad, but your arguments are illogical and lie upon faulty premises. For you to prove anything, you need to confront my objections put forward here.

So I was correct when I said in my last response that this was going to be one of those banal "God is mysterious/who can understand God's will" cop-outs. Well, a few things. If God is truly in total control, in other words is omniscient and omnipotent, then he doesn't need to create us and subsequently have us experience misery. I don't, then, have to show you that I am privy to his plan. Why not? Because it would confine God to his creation as being necessary for us to be created despite his purported omni-benevolence and omnipotence. In other words, this can be answered in pure a priori fashion (through pure reason alone invoking the law of non-contradiction) and need not be done a posteriorily.

It is also rather curious how the Bible attempts (and fails miserably) at tackling the issue of theodicy, like in the Book of Job which deals with the righteous suffering and the answer being that it's there merely to prove a point. No wonder Christian theologians had to come up with the concept of free will as an excuse (something, by the way, that's not derived from the Bible). If we weren't supposed to know exactly why we're to suffer it's odd that we get clumsy attempts at the answer. We should especially be given full disclosure as to why exactly mere non-belief merits eternal torment (without the possibility of parole, ever) if we are indeed given full free will to make a conscious, knowledgeable, un-coerced and fair decision. The persistence of asymmetrical information in such an instance is actually immoral, something which again can be answered through pure reason and need not an empirical answer.

True, if the greatest possible purpose achieved is for the house not to collapse. So, what you need to demonstrate, which you cannot, is needless suffering. Mankind really does not have humility, because if we did, we wouldn’t even be posing Epicurus’ questions for the last 2,000 years. To know if suffering is indeed needless, that requires 1. perfect knowledge of the future and 2. perfect knowledge of what the best possible purpose would be.

So wanting questions from an assumed creator is now hubris? Since when? Since we're obviously not omniscient it would be appropriate to have someone who supposedly is to let us know about it. But I guess we're not being humble when we "dare" question why children get raped or why any good person dies of natural disasters. My goodness. The religious really go all out to cover for immorality don't they!

 

[abacabb3]

What's the "incorrect" premise? By the way, no one needs to give you an example because we are dealing with a special case here. No human's creation is completely 100% their responsibility the way it would be for someone who is both omniscient and omnipotent. Which leads us to your next comment...

The premise of Epicurus' whole argument is that some created gives us good enough knowledge as to ascertain the nature of the creator with some degree of certainty.

You have not demonstrated this.

But, you respond "we have a special case." Based upon what? God's perfect foreknowledge you say. You assert that makes God totally responsible.

I will concede you that, even though I don't have to, because you are yet to pose evidence. So, I reiterate: based upon what foreknowledge of the future of your own do you know that what we have now does not serve a greater purpose?

You cannot prove that because you don't have perfect foreknowledge.

Further, based upon what evidence can you show that we have an anthropocentric universe in which if something is evil to people, that this shows a deficiency in the purposes of this god you speculate about.

Lastly, I return to the beginning. How do you even know God is a special case? We don't have any indication that created things reflect characteristics of their creators. So, without any example of that, it seems to me pure speculation and absolutely baseless.

So I was correct when I said in my last response that this was going to be one of those banal "God is mysterious/who can understand God's will" cop-outs.

Never said nor argued that, I am still waiting for someone to actually prove a logical point instead of assert that baseless assumptions create some sort of metaphysical crisis that does not exist.

Well, a few things. If God is truly in total control, in other words is omniscient and omnipotent, then he doesn't need to create us and subsequently have us experience misery.

No, your god doesn't need to care, nor is there any evidence THAT IF MAN DOES NOT SUFFER THAT THIS SOMEHOW DOES NOT SERVE SOME GREATER PURPOSE FOR SOMEONE OR SOMETHING GREATER THAN MAN. (Sorry about the caps, don't feel like retyping it).

It is also rather curious how the Bible attempts (and fails miserably) at tackling the issue of theodicy...

Before we even need to discuss this, you have to show me that there is an actual problem, which you have not done.

So wanting questions from an assumed creator is now hubris?!

No, it is hubris to think that how man relates to the universe is the primary way of judging whether a deity is evil. I just don't see how our feelings are anymore consequential than a lemming's.

 

[Akureyri]

It still needs to be demonstrated how the problem of evil is really a problem, I'm waiting! Don’t get so mad at God over this “huge dilemma” if you cannot simply prove there even is one.

Are you not even aware how the problem of evil works? Or are you asking that it be demonstrated how it's a problem just as a formality.

Let me know if this doesn't explain how it is a problem, and I can clarify further:

The originator of the logical problem of evil has been cited as the Greek philosopher Epicurus,[10] and this argument may be schematized as follows:
If an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god exists, then evil does not.
There is evil in the world.
Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God does not exist.
This argument is of the form modus tollens, and is logically valid if its premises are true, the conclusion follows of necessity. However, it is unclear precisely how the existence of an all-powerful and perfectly good God guarantees the non-existence of evil. Also, it is unclear whether the first premise is true. To show that it is plausible, subsequent versions tend to expand on this premise, such as this modern example:[2]
God exists.
God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.
An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, then no evil exists.
Evil exists (logical contradiction).

 

[abacabb3]

Guys, put your Epicurus down for a second. Before we even need to explore his logic, we need to just state clearly whether there is anything that is created that conveys the nature of its creator, aside from the fact that a creator has the ability to create it.

 

[abacabb3]

God exists.
God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils. (PRESUMPTION)
An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, then no evil exists.
Evil exists (logical contradiction).

You have a big problem in your logic! Atheists have this problem. They are not big fans of St. Anselm's ontological argument in favor of the existence of God. Yet, you define what an ominpotent, omnipotent, benevolent god is out of thin air and then speculate how this supposed god by necessity must act. As you can see, one carefully place presumption wins the day, by I can say a benevolent God may not want to prevent all evils. In fact, God as revealed in the Bible is clearly not explained this way.

Whatever god you are speculating about, it is not the one I think exists.

But that's okay.l Ultimately, if something cannot be tested empirically, speculating about it does not really prove anything.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You have a big problem in your logic! Atheists have this problem. They are not big fans of St. Anselm's ontological argument in favor of the existence of God. Yet, you define what an ominpotent, omnipotent, benevolent god is out of thin air and then speculate how this supposed god by necessity must act. As you can see, one carefully place presumption wins the day, by I can say a benevolent God may not want to prevent all evils. In fact, God as revealed in the Bible is clearly not explained this way.

Whatever god you are speculating about, it is not the one I think exists.

But that's okay.l Ultimately, if something cannot be tested empirically, speculating about it does not really prove anything.

You don't seem to realize, that the only issue is in perceiving god as both all powerful and all benevolent. A deity could very well exist that has one of these traits and is pretty close to having the other without the contradiction being an issue. You cannot expect a being that is perfect in every way that wants its creation to be perfect or meet certain standards to create things that don't meet its standards.

 

[abacabb3]

You don't seem to realize, that the only issue is in perceiving god as both all powerful and all benevolent. A deity could very well exist that has one of these traits and is pretty close to having the other without the contradiction being an issue. You cannot expect a being that is perfect in every way that wants its creation to be perfect or meet certain standards to create things that don't meet its standards.

Again the logic does not follow, because you are yet to provide an example that an created object reflects the nature of its creator.

Even still, I agree wholly that the God that actually exists is different from the one that is devised by speculation.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Again the logic does not follow, because you are yet to provide an example that an created object reflects the nature of its creator.

Even still, I agree wholly that the God that actually exists is different from the one that is devised by speculation.

I respect how you view the existence or qualities people have a tendency to assign deities. But of course, I can show you many examples of how creations reflect certain properties of their creators, although in some if the cases, multiple traits can be inferred.

Say we have an early watch design in our possession that uses running water dripping through it. Because of the use of water, we can infer that who designed it didn't live in an area where water was scarce (otherwise, they wouldn't create a clock that relied upon a steady water supply to work). If the clock has decorative metal bits and is well made, it is safe to assume that the one who physically put it together had skill with metal (though, the person who made the clock and the one who designed it might not be the same person).

Likewise, if the clock breaks easily or as it so happens that even though the person who designed it to use water didn't have water readily available, one can infer that they were either lazy or careless.

 

[abacabb3]

I respect how you view the existence or qualities people have a tendency to assign deities.

I am not sure what you mean by this.

But of course, I can show you many examples of how creations reflect certain properties of their creators, although in some if the cases, multiple traits can be inferred.

Say we have an early watch design in our possession that uses running water dripping through it. Because of the use of water, we can infer that who designed it didn't live in an area where water was scarce (otherwise, they wouldn't create a clock that relied upon a steady water supply to work).

Bad assumption. Go to Arizona. They have fountains everywhere and water shortages to go with them. Yet, in NY where water is plentiful, no fountains anywhere aside from inside a mall every so often.

If the clock has decorative metal bits and is well made, it is safe to assume that the one who physically put it together had skill with metal (though, the person who made the clock and the one who designed it might not be the same person).

Maybe not. The watch could have been put together using an automated process. Or, if we ascribe to the theory of evolution, it is not impossible though very unlikely that an earthquake happened in a watch parts warehouse and a watch randomly got jumbled together and just happened to work. So, I don't think your conclusion here is inescable either.

Likewise, if the clock breaks easily or as it so happens that even though the person who designed it to use water didn't have water readily available, one can infer that they were either lazy or careless.

If it breaks easily, there could have been an issue of metallurgy. Or the wearer was careless, or had incorrect expectations concerning how long a good watch should last.

If it runs off water, even in the middle of the desert, perhaps you don't understand that some people like really impractical stuff, and the watch was made to suit that audience.


Lastly, if a contractor makes a watch factory and there are watches in it, does it make him a watch? So, if a god makes a creation with evil in it, does that make him evil?


Big logical problems all around!

 

[poolerboy0077]

What's the "incorrect" premise? By the way, no one needs to give you an example because we are dealing with a special case here. No human's creation is completely 100% their responsibility the way it would be for someone who is both omniscient and omnipotent. Which leads us to your next comment...

The premise of Epicurus' whole argument is that some created gives us good enough knowledge as to ascertain the nature of the creator with some degree of certainty.

You have not demonstrated this.

But, you respond "we have a special case." Based upon what? God's perfect foreknowledge you say. You assert that makes God totally responsible.

I will concede you that, even though I don't have to, because you are yet to pose evidence. So, I reiterate: based upon what foreknowledge of the future of your own do you know that what we have now does not serve a greater purpose?

You cannot prove that because you don't have perfect foreknowledge.

Further, based upon what evidence can you show that we have an anthropocentric universe in which if something is evil to people, that this shows a deficiency in the purposes of this god you speculate about.

Lastly, I return to the beginning. How do you even know God is a special case? We don't have any indication that created things reflect characteristics of their creators. So, without any example of that, it seems to me pure speculation and absolutely baseless.

You keep coming back to your tired, stubborn response that I or others here need to provide you with evidence. We do not.

Why not? Because as my last response indicated, I can do so through pure reason. And no, not having perfect knowledge is not a limitation for me to do this.

Bachelors are by definition unmarried. If you were to ask me to provide you with evidence for this you would be asking an irrelevancy. I don't need to go out into the world interviewing or investigating all bachelors in the world. Nor would I have to have knowledge of all bachelors (i.e., omniscience) because I can merely use pure reason (rationalism) to arrive at the conclusion that bachelors are unmarried. Mathematicians call this Proof by Contradiction. If we assume that God exists (which I have here, since in reality I don't believe in one but merely doing so purely for the sake of this discussion) and that he has certain characteristics (omniscience, omnipotence, omni-benevolence) and that this world has suffering of a scope and scale that would embarrass the most ambitious psychopath, and even assume this ridiculous idea that there is a dichotomy of heaven and hell which are eternal and of which mere non-belief can land you to the latter, these suffice for me to use pure reason to infer specific points and problems. I'm using what's on the table and the rules of reason. There's no need for empiricism.


You're also pointing out a premise that I've never made. I didn't say created things imply qualities of their creator. I said that given that we've assumed the creator has certain characteristics that these characteristics are incompatible with the other assumptions as well as facts of this world that we've accepted for this discussion. So when you ask, "How do you even know God is a special case?" the question expresses pure confusion on your part because that is what we've assumed to begin with: that he has special characteristics no one else has (omniscience, omnipotence, omni-benevolence). This is why classically theologians, who have actually recognized that this is indeed a problem (for believers), have to modify their conception of God and take away certain qualities, like saying that he isn't fully powerful, etc.

So I was correct when I said in my last response that this was going to be one of those banal "God is mysterious/who can understand God's will" cop-outs.

Never said nor argued that

You just said because we do not have perfect knowledge that we don't understand all of God's will and therefore this is a limitation that diffuses the problem. As I said earlier, this expresses pure confusion on your part. I also do not have perfect knowledge of all bachelors. Nor do I need to have it in order to draw specific conclusions.

Well, a few things. If God is truly in total control, in other words is omniscient and omnipotent, then he doesn't need to create us and subsequently have us experience misery.

No, your god doesn't need to care, nor is there any evidence THAT IF MAN DOES NOT SUFFER THAT THIS SOMEHOW DOES NOT SERVE SOME GREATER PURPOSE FOR SOMEONE OR SOMETHING GREATER THAN MAN. (Sorry about the caps, don't feel like retyping it).

You type in call caps because you do not understand what my specific objections have been. God indeed needs to care if we are assuming omni-benevolence. Already you are making my point. Again, in assuming any of these absolute characteristics all we need to show is other phenomena that contradict it. The existence of suffering in the world is enough to show this because if indeed you are correct that there is knowledge we are not privy to based on our limited knowledge, that God has an ulterior motive or some goal in mind of which suffering was the mere byproduct thereof, you are conceding (albeit, unbeknownst to you) that he is not omnipotent. If here were omnipotent he could create a state of affairs in which he gets at whatever goal we don't know about without our existence. He doesn't need to create us and our attendant suffering because saying so makes him a slave to his creation and thus is not omnipotent.

So wanting questions from an assumed creator is now hubris?!

No, it is hubris to think that how man relates to the universe is the primary way of judging whether a deity is evil. I just don't see how our feelings are anymore consequential than a lemming's.

Not that it's the primary way, it's the only way we have! After all, you're drawing hardline conclusions yourself without having perfect knowledge either. We need not have perfect knowledge to use the rules of logic such as the Law of Non-contradiction and subsequently Proof by Contradiction (as in proof of its converse) to show the clumsiness by believers of cobbling together these assumptions.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I am not sure what you mean by this.





Bad assumption. Go to Arizona. They have fountains everywhere and water shortages to go with them. Yet, in NY where water is plentiful, no fountains anywhere aside from inside a mall every so often.



Maybe not. The watch could have been put together using an automated process. Or, if we ascribe to the theory of evolution, it is not impossible though very unlikely that an earthquake happened in a watch parts warehouse and a watch randomly got jumbled together and just happened to work. So, I don't think your conclusion here is inescable either.



If it breaks easily, there could have been an issue of metallurgy. Or the wearer was careless, or had incorrect expectations concerning how long a good watch should last.

If it runs off water, even in the middle of the desert, perhaps you don't understand that some people like really impractical stuff, and the watch was made to suit that audience.


Lastly, if a contractor makes a watch factory and there are watches in it, does it make him a watch? So, if a god makes a creation with evil in it, does that make him evil?


Big logical problems all around!

My example was based on a real early watch design that was made hundreds of years ago in Europe. Automated process cannot be assumed, and you can actually look at metal objects and tell how they are made.