The Problem of Evil

[PsychoSarah]

The universe and earth would not qualify as a perfect creation. There is plenty about the worl that are very unpleasent and some that is very pleasent. With 99% of all life on earth going extinct, the creation has flaws.

Tha academy? I dont follow you.

99.99% of all life on earth I thought? Well, anyways, perfection is an illusion, as it is subjective and subjective opinions have no physical existence, though some objective information can be the basis of those views.

 

[quatona]

I agree atheism when taken to its logical conclusion ends in despair. It ends in nihilism.

Well, it doesn´t - but lets pretend it did. Let´s say, for the sake of the argument, that nihilism would be true if no god existed.

And I do think that most people want there to be an afterlife of some sort.

Well, what most people want isn´t an indication of what there is. Thus, I am missing any relevance whatsover for your following conclusion.

Atheism which usually entails some sort of metaphysical naturalism is just patently absurd and that is why I was arguing that it requires one to believe something so improbable as to be virtually impossible.

Doesn´t follow from anything you have said so far.

 

[quatona]

We all live our lives as if we do have free will, however.

How would one lead his life as if he didn´t have free will?

 

[Resha Caner]

I don't need to personally meet god to believe it exists, I am not that dense. I just need to experience or see something which would be truly unarguably incapable of happening naturally or by human hands. An example I like to use is a book that anyone can read, not matter what language or level of literacy, a single time which, when opened, everyone understands.

It might not have to be so grand as that, but you get the gist.

Good. I think this is the first time an unbeliever has ever said that to me. But your example wouldn't really work. You're depending on a cognitive ability that some might not have. So, God might need to reach each person in a way unique to them. I don't mean each person can believe whatever they want, but that the message may need to meet their learning style.

Still, I get your point. You expect that God should be able to communicate with you in some way - even if it is not a personal meeting. I would agree, and believe He will do that for you. I'm glad you're open to receiving such.

 

[Resha Caner]

How would one lead his life as if he didn´t have free will?

Bump.

 

[brightlights]

Christians aren't the only ones who have to deal with the problem of evil. Atheists have a problem too:

1. The concept of evil presupposes God's existence
2. Atheists deny God's existence
3. Therefore atheists cannot affirm the existence of evil

So an atheist can't even formulate the problem of evil without assuming God's existence. Therefore there isn't yet a problem to speak of.

 

[durangodawood]

Christians aren't the only ones who have to deal with the problem of evil. Atheists have a problem too:

1. The concept of evil presupposes God's existence
2. Atheists deny God's existence
3. Therefore atheists cannot affirm the existence of evil

So an atheist can't even formulate the problem of evil without assuming God's existence. Therefore there isn't yet a problem to speak of.

Atheists can certainly use the traditional "problem of evil" to point out the absurdity of theology.

Also, I didnt know that the concept of evil required a deity. Not sure how you get that.

 

[brightlights]

Atheists can certainly use the traditional "problem of evil" to point out the absurdity of theology.

If by "traditional" you mean the logical problem of evil that's long since been dealt with. Check this out Plantinga's free will defense.

Also, I didnt know that the concept of evil required a deity. Not sure how you get that.

Tell me what evil means without referring to God and you'll see how I get that.

 

[durangodawood]

If by "traditional" you mean the logical problem of evil that's long since been dealt with. Check this out Plantinga's free will defense.



Tell me what evil means without referring to God and you'll see how I get that.

Yeah, personally the problem of evil is not even a problem, theologically. And I'm not even a believer.

As for evil: its whatever subverts morality.

(And, yes, we can have morality without it originating from somewhere "else". Conditions of living right here in the world are ample impetus for humans to develop morality all on their own.)

 

[brightlights]

As for evil: its whatever subverts morality.

(And, yes, we can have morality without it originating from somewhere "else". Conditions of living right here in the world are ample impetus for humans to develop morality all on their own.)

This is more of a dodge than an answer, don't you think? Explain morality without referring to God.

 

[durangodawood]

This is more of a dodge than an answer, don't you think? Explain morality without referring to God.

Not a dodge. Morality is the rules for living in such a way that preserves the species AND makes life satisfying.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Christians aren't the only ones who have to deal with the problem of evil. Atheists have a problem too:

1. The concept of evil presupposes God's existence
2. Atheists deny God's existence
3. Therefore atheists cannot affirm the existence of evil

So an atheist can't even formulate the problem of evil without assuming God's existence. Therefore there isn't yet a problem to speak of.

How would the concept of evil existing presuppose a deity existing? Even what is viewed as evil is subjective; how often do those who commit atrocities truly view themselves as evil?

To say that evil existing presupposes the existence of a deity is like saying that since the concept of magic exists there must be wizards -_-

 

[PsychoSarah]

Good. I think this is the first time an unbeliever has ever said that to me. But your example wouldn't really work. You're depending on a cognitive ability that some might not have. So, God might need to reach each person in a way unique to them. I don't mean each person can believe whatever they want, but that the message may need to meet their learning style.

Still, I get your point. You expect that God should be able to communicate with you in some way - even if it is not a personal meeting. I would agree, and believe He will do that for you. I'm glad you're open to receiving such.

Well, it would be kinda funny if I had to literally see god to believe in its existence when there are plenty of things I don't directly observe that I consider to exist.

 

[PsychoSarah]

This is more of a dodge than an answer, don't you think? Explain morality without referring to God.

Oh certainly, in fact it might be easier to explain it without such a reference.

Morality is a subjective concept of what one views as acceptable and benign behavior; violations of this concept being viewed as wrong or immoral.

 

[brightlights]

Oh certainly, in fact it might be easier to explain it without such a reference.

Morality is a subjective concept of what one views as acceptable and benign behavior; violations of this concept being viewed as wrong or immoral.

Assuming that "evil" is whatever violates this definition of morality, plug this into the problem of evil and you'll see that there is no problem at all. Your problem goes something like this:

1. An omnibenevolent God would not violate my subjective notion of what's acceptable.
2. An all powerful God could prevent any violations of my subjective notion of what's acceptable
3. My subjective notions are violated all the time
4. Therefore and all powerful, omnibenevolent God does not exist

This argument is valid but it's not sound. I would ask you to demonstrate premises 1 and 2. Why are your subjective notions so sacred that God wouldn't violate them?

 

[brightlights]

Atheists have an easy cure for the rabbit hole that Christians try to lead them down with the vague word "evil". They take out "evil" and insert "animal suffering".

Animals suffer.

Period.

The fact that animals suffer negates the concept of an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-benevolent, all-present, and uncreated Creator of Everything.

So, right off the bat, that God can't possibly exist.

The maniacal God found in the Old Testament is more probable than the God listed above, as long as the OT God is proposed as not being any of those things mentioned above.

Plug this into the problem of evil and the problem will disappear.

Your problem is:

1. A good God would not allow animals to suffer
2. A powerful God could prevent animal suffering
3. Animals suffer
4. Therefore the good and powerful God does not exist

Again, valid but not sound. Why does animal suffering negate the goodness of God? You would have to say something like: "because animal suffering is evil!" But now you're back at square one. If "animal suffering" and "evil" are synonymous then the problem dissolves. But if they're not synonymous -- if animal suffering is evaluated as evil -- then what does evil mean?

 

[brightlights]

Not a dodge. Morality is the rules for living in such a way that preserves the species AND makes life satisfying.

Plug this one into the problem of evil and you'll find here, too, that the problem dissolves.

1. A good God must be committed to the survival and happiness of the human species.
2. A powerful God could bring about circumstances that make for survival and happiness for the human species
3. Our species suffers and is unhappy
4. Therefore a good and powerful God does not exist.

This is pretty anthro-centric. Why should the God of the universe be committed to the survival and happiness of one little species on planet earth?

 

[brightlights]

Because, if you were suffering, and I had the power to make it stop with little effort on my part, I would simply do so. If I had the power to prevent any further suffering, I would prevent it. I mean that from the bottom of my heart.

Ok so now you've introduced a moral norm: do so unto others as you would have others do unto you. Am I right? So evil is what violates this moral norm. It's much more complicated than animal suffering.

Christians like to confuse things in an attempt to avoid the obvious conclusion that is staring them in the face.

I'll ignore the ad hominem.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Assuming that "evil" is whatever violates this definition of morality, plug this into the problem of evil and you'll see that there is no problem at all. Your problem goes something like this:

1. An omnibenevolent God would not violate my subjective notion of what's acceptable.
2. An all powerful God could prevent any violations of my subjective notion of what's acceptable
3. My subjective notions are violated all the time
4. Therefore and all powerful, omnibenevolent God does not exist

This argument is valid but it's not sound. I would ask you to demonstrate premises 1 and 2. Why are your subjective notions so sacred that God wouldn't violate them?

You would be incorrect in how I reason a god unlikely to exist. There is evil in the world, correct? Were god to be 100% benevolent and thus likely find murder and rape to be distasteful, god would not like its existence. Then, in addition, if god is capable of anything, it would logically make a world in which such suffering wouldn't have to exist for people to exercise free will. An all powerful god could find a solution without suffering, and a 100% benevolent god would have significant motivation to do so. Since clearly some form of "evil" exists in this world (religion, particularly Christianity, often suggests a corrupt world), and a god that is both 100% benevolent and all powerful would never have to make a compromise and make a world with evil in it, it stands to reason that should a deity exist! it couldn't possibly be both 100% benevolent and all powerful (though it could be one or the other).

 

[brightlights]

You would be incorrect in how I reason a god unlikely to exist. There is evil in the world, correct? Were god to be 100% benevolent and thus likely find murder and rape to be distasteful, god would not like its existence. Then, in addition, if god is capable of anything, it would logically make a world in which such suffering wouldn't have to exist for people to exercise free will. An all powerful god could find a solution without suffering, and a 100% benevolent god would have significant motivation to do so. Since clearly some form of "evil" exists in this world (religion, particularly Christianity, often suggests a corrupt world), and a god that is both 100% benevolent and all powerful would never have to make a compromise and make a world with evil in it, it stands to reason that should a deity exist! it couldn't possibly be both 100% benevolent and all powerful (though it could be one or the other).

Yes I am familiar with the logical problem of evil. But, again, that's been pretty well put to bed. Check out Plantinga's Free Will Defense.

I'm addressing your problem. If you claim that Christian faith is logically inconsistent that's one thing (and it's been demonstrated in the above to be a false claim.) But if you would like to affirm the existence of evil in any authoritative way and still deny God's existence then you yourself are being logically inconsistent.