The Problem of Evil

[abacabb3]

Show me how an entity which is benign would allow its creations to suffer when suffering would be completely unnecessary because that deity could just as easily get what it wants without suffering.

Why do I have to? If we don't have an anthropocentric universe, it's not even important.

But, if we did have an anthropocentric universe, I would say it would be logically impossible to have the true depths of good without the existence of evil for a period of time.

 

[abacabb3]

There exists no "really good". So while my desire is for everyone to have the same qualifications of "good" as I have, I realize that can't be the case. I will say that I have a hard time fathoming someone's definition of "good" that includes the allowance of preventable suffering...

Well, perhaps you have a hard time "fathoming" something, but it does not make that certain something true or false. Because I am not the highest of all possible beings, I cannot provide you a conceptually perfect definition of what is good and what is not. SO, I don't think I or anyone else is qualified enough to make an argument such as the PoE.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Why do I have to? If we don't have an anthropocentric universe, it's not even important.

But, if we did have an anthropocentric universe, I would say it would be logically impossible to have the true depths of good without the existence of evil for a period of time.

Nothing is impossible for an omnipotent deity, it could make it happen. Impossible wouldn't exist for such a being, otherwise it wouldn't be omnipotent. Therefore, you cannot say that god can't be understood without evil, because an omnipotent being could make itself understood without evil. If it were also completely benign, why would it need evil to be understood, for why must something bad exist to understand good?

The whole point is that a being that is both omnipotent and completely benevolent is logically impossible.

Also, the universe not being anthropocentric (centered around humans) doesn't mean that evil would not exist, animals suffer too, if it were anthropocentric then there would be no reason animals would suffer to the extent that they do, because if the point of suffering would be only to teach humans stuff, there would be no point in animals suffering too without the lesson learned.

And since when does it have to center around humanity to be important?

 

[quatona]

Not compelling, there are conceptual issues, namely, the fact we cannot prove He exists.


However, if I were to employ your own faulty logic, God by necessity exists, because you presume God must be evil or incompetent because it exists.

Well, by that logic, because existence exists, then God must exists.

Do you really want to make that claim?

No, I don´t make that claim, I don´t employ the logic you are describing here, and nothing in my previous posts indicates that I would. So don´t make up stuff for me, please. Try to address what I said.

Well, if we contrive properties of made up beings, we still have to address the definitions we use. What is "good" for example. Must it be good for everything that exists, including humans, excluding humans? Can we demonstrate that this is even necessary?

Interestingly, the very Holy Book of those who claim that such a being exist consists to a large degree of statements as to what this being consider good, evil, or benevolent.
If, however, you want to argue from the position that we don´t know what is "good" we must consider the existence of a god irrelevant for any moral/ethical discussion.

I think deep down, the PoE is ignorant emotionalism. People know deep down in their gut, without regard to logic, that there is something profoundly wrong in the universe. Something is wrong. I would agree, and just like you, I cannot prove that my opinion on it is true.

You better avoid superimposing your beliefs on mine. I don´t think there is anything profoundly wrong in the universe. I am merely addressing the concept that an omni creator god exists who at the same time tells us there is something profoundly wrong in the universe.

However, you guys want to claim you have logic on your side when in reality you have a bunch of questionable definitions and premises being flung about.

I would appreciate it if you could manage to address my posts (instead of talking to me as "you guys". Thank you.

1. I don't have to, I am not looking to make a positive claim.

I didn´t say you have to. As far as I am concerned, you don´t have to do anything. It´s just that you claimed you did.

2. I can't prove it, it would be just as baseless as your presumptions.

Could you - just so there´s some flesh to you statements - be so kind and tell me what you exactly you are referring to when talking about "my presumptions"?


[quoteI think people should actually learn some theology to have an opinion on it or simply not care about it.[/quote]
Talking to and about "people" again?

What you say here doesn't make any sense and betrays your ignorance of what Christianity actually teaches.

So, in your theology, Christianity doesn´t teach that humanity is fallen and in need of salvation? Ok, I guess that´s a discussion between you and your fellow Christians.

 

[abacabb3]

Nothing is impossible for an omnipotent deity, it could make it happen.

So, can He make something black both black and white at the same time so it can be both completely black and completely white?

And since when does it have to center around humanity to be important?

Because human moral evil might not be the correct measure of goodness any more where electrons are locate in the valence rings of an atom has much to do with anything.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Well, perhaps you have a hard time "fathoming" something, but it does not make that certain something true or false. Because I am not the highest of all possible beings, I cannot provide you a conceptually perfect definition of what is good and what is not. SO, I don't think I or anyone else is qualified enough to make an argument such as the PoE.

As a subjectivist, I believe there is no objectively true or false definitions of "good", regardless of who or what is making the definition. There is only what's "good" to the individual. The thing we need to realize is that as human beings, we intersubjectively tend to see preventable suffering as counter to a definition of "good". It doesn't matter if a god has a opposition definition to what we collectively call "good". When we discuss the problem of suffering, it's in terms that we understand. The problem of suffering arose because of this intersubjective view of the qualifications of "good". So we are all qualified to comment on this issue.

What we can objectively say is that if a god can prevent suffering and does not, then this god most desires suffering. And I'm not sure that's a god that I can get behind...

Oh, and I'm the highest of all possible beings, so everyone should probably just listen to me...

 

[abacabb3]

Try to address what I said.

How is the argument of evil anything more than the observation of evil's presence and then crediting it to the nature of the Creator?

Interestingly, the very Holy Book of those who claim that such a being exist consists...

Stop there, answer my question:

"What is "good" for example. Must it be good for everything that exists, including humans, excluding humans? Can we demonstrate that this is even necessary?"

...to a large degree of statements as to what this being consider good, evil, or benevolent.

The Scripture presumes that God defines what is good and evil. But again, unless we can define what is good, you can't discount that notion any more than I can discount yours.

If, however, you want to argue from the position that we don´t know what is "good" we must consider the existence of a god irrelevant for any moral/ethical discussion.

This is where I stand. One caveat, however. "any LOGICAL moral/ethical discussion." I can't logically insert God into these categories.

You better avoid superimposing your beliefs on mine.

You just said you don't have an objective definition of what is "good" now you're backtracking.

I don´t think there is anything profoundly wrong in the universe.

I was speaking in the third person, and wasn't necessarily including you, but if you think everything is the way it should be, that's fine. But, then, that means there is no PoE either.

I didn´t say you have to. As far as I am concerned, you don´t have to do anything. It´s just that you claimed you did.

I'll put this again simply, it's not complicated. The PoE is a positive claim. The burden of proof is always on the one making the positive claim. The detractor of one making the positive claim only has to show that the one making the claim is being illogical or providing incorrect evidence. Do you understand?

Could you - just so there´s some flesh to you statements - be so kind and tell me what you exactly you are referring to when talking about "my presumptions"?

Your definition of "good" and your belief the universe is anthropocentric. Without either presumption, there isn't a PoE.

Talking to and about "people" again?

Okay, you should actually learn theology or not care about it and not talk about it. I don't have opinions on astrophysics because I don't know jack about it.

So, in your theology, Christianity doesn´t teach that humanity is fallen and in need of salvation? Ok, I guess that´s a discussion between you and your fellow Christians.

No, you misunderstand. In Christian theology, the fact that God ordains evil is taken for granted. And it is logically consistent within the Christian worldview to have God ordain evil, but not be evil in of Himself. Again, you don't have to agree with this at all, but to debate Christian theology you must have some understanding of it. I am not here to assert that it is true.

 

[PsychoSarah]

So, can He make something black both black and white at the same time so it can be both completely black and completely white?

Because human moral evil might not be the correct measure of goodness any more where electrons are locate in the valence rings of an atom has much to do with anything.

So to you, suffering isn't evil? Being in pain isn't evil? If there is no basis of what is evil in the eyes of a deity, how are you supposed to know if you sin or not?

If you base your faith on a religious text, which gives some indication of some basic acts that are considered evil as a foundation of the religion, you can't disregard it. The idea of complete benevolence requires that there be a distinction, that something can be good or bad. If you argue that good and evil are too subjective to distinguish at all, you essentially make complete benevolence impossible, because that subjective of a trait cannot be applied consistently, therefore whether or not said deity was benevolent would be completely arbitrary and meaningless.

There is a nice optical illusion that can make black dots, when lined up flash white, so even a human could do the black and white task you asked for.

Plus, if paradoxes like that exist, such as, can an omnipotent being make a boulder so heavy it can't life it, it makes omnipotence impossible even in beings which are not benevolent, thus completely eliminating it as a possible trait.

 

[abacabb3]

What we can objectively say is that if a god can prevent suffering and does not, then this god most desires suffering. And I'm not sure that's a god that I can get behind...

Again, you you need to prove that the complete absence of suffering is better than the complete lack thereof.

Oh, and I'm the highest of all possible beings, so everyone should probably just listen to me...

At least your actual argument shined through...

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Again, you you need to prove that the complete absence of suffering is better than the complete lack thereof.

Your badly worded sentence aside, let me ask a few people...

... Yeah, everybody I asked said they would be better off without suffering.

That's your "proof". You do realize that's all that's necessary, right?

At least your actual argument shined through...

That's not an argument, that's a statement of fact. Do you perhaps have some sort of rebuttal to this?

 

[abacabb3]

So to you, suffering isn't evil?... There is a nice optical illusion that can make black dots, when lined up flash white, so even a human could do the black and white task you asked for.

Yes, but the illusion is not completely black nor white. I am thinking of my black keyboard right now. Can God make my fully black keyboard both fully black and fully white, so that it will both reflect all electromagnetic radiation is the visual spectrum AND AT THE SAME TIME absorb all wavelengths in the visual electromagnetic spectrum.

Answer the question please: So, can He make something black both black and white at the same time so it can be both completely black and completely white?

Being in pain isn't evil?

Only if the complete absence of pain is at all times better than the existence of pain and the results of it.

If there is no basis of what is evil in the eyes of a deity, how are you supposed to know if you sin or not?

Again, different topic, let's not get distracted. I'm not here arguing ethics.

If you base your faith on a religious text, which gives some indication of some basic acts that are considered evil as a foundation of the religion, you can't disregard it.

And I don't, but we're getting into worldview issues that are not directly relevant to this discussion. My whole view of God is faith based, so I cannot prove it to you. You have to prove to me that our point is actually true or you just have to admit, "You know what, I just don't know if I can prove it, but I believe by faith that..."

The idea of complete benevolence requires that there be a distinction, that something can be good or bad. If you argue that good and evil are too subjective to distinguish at all, you essentially make complete benevolence impossible...

Almost. Benevolence is possible, but we may be radically "misdefining" it.

 

[abacabb3]

Your badly worded sentence aside

Sometimes I have real issues with language, but what in that sentence is incorrectly stated.

Yeah, everybody I asked said they would be better off without suffering.

Don't include me with that. Or my friend who lost his job, ahd a heart attack, and is very thankful that he did. Or tons of real world examples that don't fit in your black and white view of the universe.

That's not an argument, that's a statement of fact. Do you perhaps have some sort of rebuttal to this?

It's a positive assertion on your behalf, you would have to substantiate it with evidence.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Why are you bringing up paradoxes which make omnipotence impossible, when you are the one arguing for the existence of an omnipotent god? Absorbing and reflecting all light completely would be contradictory. All you did is bite your own position in the butt with that one. It is like asking if a square circle can exist. You are defeating yourself for me, I don't even like to bring those paradoxes up because they end intellectual discussions very quickly.

 

[quatona]

How is the argument of evil anything more than the observation of evil's presence and then crediting it to the nature of the Creator?

For starters, it´s the observation that a certain theology posits that God calls certain things "evil", that God - in creating stuff - isn´t under any given conditions (but actually creates those conditions) and that God created those very things that he tells us are "evil".

"What is "good" for example. Must it be good for everything that exists, including humans, excluding humans?

Yes, I guess that´s what omnibenevolence would mean.

Can we demonstrate that this is even necessary?"

Well, I was under the impression that Christianity was circled around the idea of good and evil. If, however, it´s true that Christianity can´t contribute anything to the moral discussion, oh well....

The Scripture presumes that God defines what is good and evil. But again, unless we can define what is good, you can't discount that notion any more than I can discount yours.

Ok, so you can´t conclusively define what´s good and evil, in Christianity. I´ll keep that in mind.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Don't include me with that. Or my friend who lost his job, ahd a heart attack, and is very thankful that he did. Or tons of real world examples that don't fit in your black and white view of the universe.

I guess I have no problem amending my statement to say that a god that could prevent suffering but does not, for those that do not want it, can't be "good" according to the qualifications that we intersubjectively tend to hold.

I can also say that if a god creates a world without suffering, then none of its inhabitants would be able to desire it. This would have the effects of alleviating the potential suffering for those that would not wish it, and removing the pain of not receiving it for those that would wish it, due to ignorance.

So in the end, you've helped me be more specific in my argument, but you've done nothing to dismiss it.

It's a positive assertion on your behalf, you would have to substantiate it with evidence.

I fulfill all the qualifications of the word "highest" in the argument.

 

[durangodawood]

Nothing is impossible for an omnipotent deity, it could make it happen.

You were arguing with me in another thread that certain things are impossible for God, like reconciling certain biblical inconsistencies regarding the number of people in the tomb.

 

[abacabb3]

Why are you bringing up paradoxes which make omnipotence impossible, when you are the one arguing for the existence of an omnipotent god?

I am not making that claim in this thread. WOuld you want me to actually explain what I believe? Then I can point you there, but it is separate from the PoE.

Absorbing and reflecting all light completely would be contradictory.

Yes, it would go against the laws of nature. I think it is possible (can't confirm or deny this) that the greatest possible good requires some level of evil for some period of time. We already know of good things, such as forgiveness, that can only exist with the existence of evil, so we cannot dismiss the possibility outright.

So, I am not convinced that the complete absence of evil is preferable.

You are defeating yourself for me, I don't even like to bring those paradoxes up because they end intellectual discussions very quickly.

Um, you're the one saying an omni-potent being can make something so heavy He can't pick it up, I'm pointing out the flaws in your own logic.

 

[abacabb3]

You were arguing with me in another thread that certain things are impossible for God, like reconciling certain biblical inconsistencies regarding the number of people in the tomb.

Sarah is a little confused on this point, we have two different answers in the space of hours.

 

[abacabb3]

I guess I have no problem amending my statement to say that a god that could prevent suffering but does not, for those that do not want it, can't be "good" according to the qualifications that we intersubjectively tend to hold.

Okay, but those who don't want it, how do we know that they really know what is best, or that it is not better that they suffer so someone else should benefit?

I can also say that if a god creates a world without suffering, then none of its inhabitants would be able to desire it. This would have the effects of alleviating the potential suffering for those that would not wish it, and removing the pain of not receiving it for those that would wish it, due to ignorance.

I am not understanding this anthropocentirc argument, why are the opinions of individuals binding on the entire nature of existence?

I fulfill all the qualifications of the word "highest" in the argument.

I'm sure there are others that are even more stoned.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Okay, but those who don't want it, how do we know that they really know what is best, or that it is not better that they suffer so someone else should benefit?

Define "best" in your first sentence. And since an omnipotent god could cause a benefit for one without suffering for another, your situation doesn't apply.

I am not understanding this anthropocentirc argument, why are the opinions of individuals binding on the entire nature of existence?

Because the problem of suffering is anthropocentric in nature. It's pretty clear.

I'm sure there are others that are even more stoned.

I'll take your flippant answer as an indication that you don't really have an argument refuting my status.