The Problem of Evil

[PsychoSarah]

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.

I don't think a deity wrote or had anything to do with any religious text, thus the failures within them do not reflect upon any deity in my view. You can't have different numbers of people in a tomb at the same moment in time, it can't be 1, 2, and 3 people at the same time, it doesn't work. I view that as a fallacy of the biblical authors, and I don't count a deity amongst them.

 

[PsychoSarah]

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.

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.

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.

The claim that god is both omnipotent and completely benevolent is why there is a "problem of evil" to begin with, and that you don't claim it in this thread doesn't mean you don't feel that way or that others don't feel that way, it is extremely relevant. If omnipotence is impossible, then there is no problem of evil, because it is only an issue if a deity is both omnipotent and completely benevolent.

And no, the boulder thing is another, very famous paradox. I don't claim to know anything about any deity beyond what is and isn't logically possible.

The only way the problem of evil can be resolved is if a deity is not both omnipotent and completely benevolent. Claims other people make about deities I don't, I have no logical issue with evil existing because I don't believe any deity which could and would eliminate evil exists. It is a problem religious people face.

 

[abacabb3]

The claim that god is both omnipotent and completely benevolent is why there is a "problem of evil" to begin with

Do you understand that if at any point you have the wrong definition of "benevolence" your whole argument falls apart?

FUrther, there are logical problems with ascribing to the nature of the creator a characteristic gleaned from its creation. This is another point that you have not completely addressed. The only thing I have heard here is that ebcause God is omnipotent that though we cannot usually perfectly understand a creator from a creation, that God is a "special case."

"Special cases" have a much higher burden of proof, not less.

And no, the boulder thing is another, very famous paradox. I don't claim to know anything about any deity beyond what is and isn't logically possible.

You are backtracking, but that's fine.

The only way the problem of evil can be resolved is if a deity is not both omnipotent and completely benevolent.

Not true, because the existence of evil is not necessarily problematic.

 

[abacabb3]

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.

More accurately, it may or may not apply. Until it can be definitively proven one way or the other, we must remain conceptually skeptical about it or we risk massive errors in logic (i.e. like the whole PoE conundrum to begin with.)

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

But, why does something that bothers men affect the whole fabric of existence?

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

I thought that was meant by "high." Either way, being that you honestly don't think you are the highest thing in the universe, I am not sure why a flippant answer to this point bothers you.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

More accurately, it may or may not apply. Until it can be definitively proven one way or the other, we must remain conceptually skeptical about it or we risk massive errors in logic (i.e. like the whole PoE conundrum to begin with.)

There's no question about this. An omnipotent god can create a universe without suffering. There's nothing logically impossible about it (you can easily imagine it yourself), and if it's logically possible, it can be done by an omnipotent being. Any kind of hand-waving that away seems disingenuous to me.

But, why does something that bothers men affect the whole fabric of existence?

I don't see why it would. The elimination of suffering only affects things that can suffer.

I thought that was meant by "high." Either way, being that you honestly don't think you are the highest thing in the universe, I am not sure why a flippant answer to this point bothers you.

But I am the highest being in the universe. Honestly.

 

[durangodawood]

I don't think a deity wrote or had anything to do with any religious text, thus the failures within them do not reflect upon any deity in my view. You can't have different numbers of people in a tomb at the same moment in time, it can't be 1, 2, and 3 people at the same time, it doesn't work. I view that as a fallacy of the biblical authors, and I don't count a deity amongst them.

I completely agree. Its a reporting problem. Not a genuine paradox.

But IF you are a believer in the God of miracles, then the notion of paradox becomes a possible realistic solution to the problem.

 

[abacabb3]

There's no question about this. An omnipotent god can create a universe without suffering. There's nothing logically impossible about it (you can easily imagine it yourself), and if it's logically possible, it can be done by an omnipotent being.

Yes, but an omniscient or omni-beneovlent being might know better.

I don't see why it would. The elimination of suffering only affects things that can suffer.

So, if existence is more well rounded and diverse with the inclusion of suffering, if the universe is not anthropocentric, it may be preferable.

But I am the highest being in the universe. Honestly.

Back then, getting stoned wasn't against the law, it WAS the law.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I completely agree. Its a reporting problem. Not a genuine paradox.

But IF you are a believer in the God of miracles, then the notion of paradox becomes a possible realistic solution to the problem.

Paradox is not solution, do you understand what a paradox is?

 

[abacabb3]

No more takers?

 

[com7fy8]

I pray and trust God about this.

Evil is a reality. And Paul says there is "the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience" (in Ephesians 2:2). So, evil is not only physical things that are not nice. But there is the invisible and nonmaterial spirit of evil. And I personally don't think God brought this into existence. But He can do something about it, get rid of it to a place away from His children . . . where fire can keep it contained and in control.

But why He would "let" someone rape a child . . . I don't get it.

But I do experience He is loving and kind and so better than all that humans and things have ever been for me. So, I do experience there is God. But also, in my own experience, I have found He can keep me emotionally sound and not suffering deeply, while evil and awful people do what they do to me.

"And who is he who will harm you if you become followers of what is good?" (1 Peter 3:13)

His grace almighty can make us strong against any evil, at all > 2 Corinthians 12:9-10, Romans 12:21.

Also . . . while we may be talking about the possibility of a rapist messing with a child, we might also consider how damaging arguing in marriage can be to children. Children can be hurt more deeply by their own parents' bad example, than they might be hurt by a stranger who has not had as much time to effect a child. And if you bring up a child to be weak, then the child can suffer so much more when bad things happen. Even . . . ones can torment themselves with worry when nothing has happened and will not ever happen.

If a child is brought up selfish, including by not learning how to love any and all people (Matthew 5:46), then the child is prepared to suffer deeply, even about nothing. This is what we need to deal with! and not get decoyed with judging God who is the only One who can bring us up really right

 

[Loudmouth]

I can also say that if a god creates a world without suffering, then none of its inhabitants would be able to desire it.

Are you saying that Hell is more desirable than Heaven?

 

[Loudmouth]

No more takers?

Are you still excusing God from allowing children to die painful deaths?

 

[abacabb3]

Are you still excusing God from allowing children to die painful deaths?

You still ascribe to an anthropocentric view of the universe, it seems...Is it logically necessary that an all-powerful God must be anthropocentric?

 

[abacabb3]

So, evil is not only physical things that are not nice. But there is the invisible and nonmaterial spirit of evil. And I personally don't think God brought this into existence. But He can do something about it, get rid of it to a place away from His children . . . where fire can keep it contained and in control.

So, if God did not bring it into existence...how did it get here?

Is He not omniscient and evil was a mistake in His creation?

Is He not all powerful and cannot complete stop it yet?

These are not solid Christian teachings.

 

[Loudmouth]

You still ascribe to an anthropocentric view of the universe, it seems.

Nope, just a moral one. I find it hard to believe that I would have to lecture supposedly morally superior christians that allowing children to suffer pain and death is immoral.

..Is it logically necessary that an all-powerful God must be anthropocentric?

An all powerful God could commit immoral acts against humans, which would make God immoral.

 

[Loudmouth]

So, if God did not bring it into existence...how did it get here?

Is He not omniscient and evil was a mistake in His creation?

Is He not all powerful and cannot complete stop it yet?

These are not solid Christian teachings.

Would a moral person allow a child to walk right past them onto a busy street and be struck by a car, all the while doing nothing?

 

[Chany]

You still ascribe to an anthropocentric view of the universe, it seems...Is it logically necessary that an all-powerful God must be anthropocentric?

Strawman.

I was going to deal with this in my response, but since it's convenient:

I am not assuming a anthrocentric view of the universe. I am saying that the being must love everything of a category equally to be considered omnibenevolent. I am saying that the being must love all conscious creatures equally in to be considered omnibenevolent. If it only loved some it would not be omnibenevolent; if it loved no conscious beings, it wouldn't even love itself, much less us and still not be omnibenevolent.

So, it's not just conscious humans. It's anything conscious. Now, there are specific categories within catergories, and that is why I can say there are different highest well-beings for conscious beings. However, there are still baselines.

For example, a tiger has different needs that a elephant. They need different foods, different social needs, and various other needs the other does not share. However, there is still a baseline both need as animals. They may need different food, but they still require sustenance, etc.

 

[abacabb3]

Would a moral person allow a child to walk right past them onto a busy street and be struck by a car, all the while doing nothing?

Shhh, I am helping argue your point, don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

 

[abacabb3]

Nope, just a moral one. I find it hard to believe that I would have to lecture supposedly morally superior christians that allowing children to suffer pain and death is immoral.

Again, what is morality? To humans, obviously it centers around concepts of humanity. For lions, it revolves around lions. No one thinks its immoral when a lion takes down a gazelle.

So, you can appeal to emotionalism all you want, but your position is illogical and unsubstantiated. Unless the universe is anthropocentric, humanity cannot be demanded of God. And humanity cannot be demanded of God, we cannot judge Him morally fby such standards.

An all powerful God could commit immoral acts against humans, which would make God immoral.

Again, if you have the wrong center of the universe, you have everything wrong.

 

[abacabb3]

Strawman.

Most overused word in online debate history. Watch a real debate and debaters are very careful to use the term, because usually it amounts to a non-argument. That aside...

I am not assuming a anthrocentric view of the universe. I am saying that the being must love everything of a category equally to be considered omnibenevolent.

I actually think this is a good argument. To be omni-benevolent, it would seem, the being would have to be loving to every single things.

However, if we have an universe with meat eaters and herbivores, it seems to me to defy the laws of non-contradiction that an omni-benevolent being would deprive one animal so it would starve, but protect the other animal so it is not eaten. You might argue, well, get rid of eating meat. Well, have you every eaten meat? It tastes great.

So, now we get into obvious subjective stuff. Is it better that I can enjoy meat but animals suffer, or vice versa?

This is when our inability to actually know what is best prevents us from asserting that we could actually do better if we were all powerful. AN omnsicent being's omnibenevolence cannot look like how we think it would look. That would stand to reason.

So, though you say you are not, you obviously are approaching the problem with man as the center (i.e. perhaps it would be better if God never made carnivores than we can enjoy the taste of meat, this seems to me a human-ethical viewpoint). So, unless you presume humanity and human ethics as moral standards, and then judge a higher being to them, I don't see how you come to your definition of omnibenevolence.

Now my final paragraph here might indeed be a strawman, simply because I am presuming your position. However, let's be honest, what can we objectively say would be better if it didn't exist at all for all of history? Omnibenevolence cannot possibly mean every single thing is good if it in the process negates good things (mercy, meat eating, the movie Twister, etc.) THese things cannot exist apart from the existence of evil.

If it only loved some it would not be omnibenevolent; if it loved no conscious beings, it wouldn't even love itself, much less us and still not be omnibenevolent.

I disagree with the premise, because we already know of acts of love that result from the existence of evil (i.e. forgiveness), so how could a being be omnibenevolent if there are acts of benevolence it will never act upon?

So, I can't tell you this necessitates evil, but I can confidently tell you that we cannot determine that it definitely necessitates the lack of evil either.