The Problem of Evil

[abacabb3]

I hear all the time about how we are all gods children. Are you saying that is not the case?

I honestly do not believe that is the case. By faith in Christ, we become God's children.

How does that contradict the law of non contradiction?

I mean no disrespect, but let me define my terms and see if you understand afterwards.

Redemption is a good thing, we all agree. The dictionary defines this as atoning for one's mistake.

So, for redemption to exist, mistakes have to exist. Mistakes are a bad thing.

So, it appears logically necessary for one good thing to exist (redemption), a bad thing necessarily has to exist (mistakes).

You posit that if God's so smart and powerful, He can make redemption exist without evil. Clearly, that's is logically impossible and would require denying the law of non-contradiction.

 

[Eudaimonist]

We are all weak and frail.

That means that I shouldn't pay attention to your views on anything, right?

We are finite beings, but that says absolutely nothing about our ability to make judgments and our responsibility to live by our judgments.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I honestly do not believe that is the case. By faith in Christ, we become God's children.



I mean no disrespect, but let me define my terms and see if you understand afterwards.

Redemption is a good thing, we all agree. The dictionary defines this as atoning for one's mistake.

So, for redemption to exist, mistakes have to exist. Mistakes are a bad thing.

So, it appears logically necessary for one good thing to exist (redemption), a bad thing necessarily has to exist (mistakes).

You posit that if God's so smart and powerful, He can make redemption exist without evil. Clearly, that's is logically impossible and would require denying the law of non-contradiction.

Setting up a situation in which "mistakes" are inevitable by design, and then intervening to fix those mistakes solely for one's own glorification, reflects poorly on one's character.

 

[abacabb3]

Eternal punishment for a finite crime is by definition an unjust act.

I think it is more than fair. Hate crimes are punished more than equivalent crimes that have been committed with non-race related motivations. Is that unfair?

Internally consistent is irrelevant. Fictional stories are internally consistent, that doesn't mean they're true or have any bearing on reality.

Indeed. So, as long as the premise is true, then everything else proceeding from the premise is also true.

I cannot prove to you that everything I believe is true. However, it is not irrational (meaning, it is therefore internally consistent). Being that this is the case, you cannot try to employ a seemingly rational argument (Epicurus' Argument from Evil) and expect me to take it seriously if I can find assumptions are logical inconsistencies within it. It's chief presupposition is that morality is anthropocentric. It's second is that the total non-existence of evil is preferrable to its co-existence with good.

Those are serious presuppositions that have to e proved out for me tot ake the argument seriously.

You can't make something "more perfect" by adding in the opposite of that thing.

Actually, you can. First, a "cute" example: My wife is the opposite of me in a lot of ways. I am better with her than without her.

Now, a more logically consistent example (as marriage is extremely irrational ) I would take is forgiveness. Forgiveness is a very good thing. The greater the wrong, the greater the forgiveness. So, the inverse relationship between the two actually increases the overall greatness.

The matter of debate therefore is an existence that lacks forgiveness is preferable over one that does. How do we make this judgment?

Well, it all comes down to how you want to define your god. Some gods can be disproven as defined, and I think any god deemed to be all powerful, all knowing and morally perfect is one of those gods.

I can define God as omnipotent, omniscient, and all-loving. However, my perspective of what makes Him all-loving is clearly very different from yours.

Perhaps, until it can be demonstrated what he has to say has a bearing on reality at least.

Which he? Augustine, Epiciurus, or both?

 

[abacabb3]

Setting up a situation in which "mistakes" are inevitable by design, and then intervening to fix those mistakes solely for one's own glorification, reflects poorly on one's character.

True, if man is the measure. What if God is the measure? If God is the measure of justice, wouldn't it be unjust to seek an end other than His own glory?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

True, if man is the measure. What if God is the measure? If God is the measure of justice, wouldn't it be unjust to seek an end other than His own glory?

No. The same applies regardless. We would consider it a sign of poor character for a man to set up a situation in such a way, so why does the same not apply to deities, only on a larger scale?

 

[Eudaimonist]

I think it is more than fair. Hate crimes are punished more than equivalent crimes that have been committed with non-race related motivations. Is that unfair?

If hate crimes were punished infinitely more than other crimes, that would be unjust.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[abacabb3]

Why?

Because I am yet to meet a good person, and I bet you are not one either.

You haven't even demonstrated that a "focal point" is necessary.

Are you asserting that we can go about throwing terms like "evil," "injustice" and "righteousness" around without even reflecting upon what our measure even is? There has to be some sort of definition to what evil is, and evil to whom, for us to speak about it meaningfully.

If God were the focal point, then working towards his injury would be futile anyway, given that he cannot be harmed.

Not if by Him not being glorified as much as He can be is considered "injury."

There is also no grounds for knowing whether he is just then.

True, but this is not a thread on that. I am not here positively asserting that claim.

 

[abacabb3]

If hate crimes were punished infinitely more than other crimes, that would be unjust.

I totally agree. However, is it unjust that the penalty for the crime is different?

 

[abacabb3]

We would consider it a sign of poor character for a man to set up a situation in such a way, so why does the same not apply to deities, only on a larger scale?

Because if a man wants to be treated like God (which many do) he does wrong, because he actually isn't. If God wants to be exalted as God, well, that would be truthful and consistent with His character.

 

[Eudaimonist]

is it unjust that the penalty for the crime is different?

Actually, yes. I don't believe that there should be different penalties for "hate" crimes.

But if you are asking if one crime (not necessarily a hate crime) may legitimately have a finitely larger penalty than another crime, I would agree that this is the case.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dave Ellis]

I understand you feel the way you do.

I think we all, as fallible, finite, human beings make very lousy judges when it comes to us trying to fill God's shoes and critique His actions and plans.

We are all weak and frail. We are here today and gone tomorrow. You could die right now from a brain aneurysm while sitting at your desk.

You cannot even keep your heart beating in your chest if it were to suddenly stop.

We are all weak and frail. Even if we take collectively the knowledge possessed by humans on this planet, we know a mere fraction of what can be known regarding our natural world, let alone the spiritual.

So I just think you make a lousy judge of what God should have done or not have done.

On the contrary, if we as humans can not adequately judge god's moral actions, then we can't justifiably call him good either. This is a two edged sword here, however often times believers like to ignore the second edge of the blade.

Ultimately, God is God all by Himself and does not need your approval or advice on how to run His universe.

Well, speaking as a sentient being, I can see a number of ways your god could improve upon how he chooses to govern the universe. I would argue he could use the advice of a number of good moral people as it would likely lead to improvements.

For example, I think eliminating child cancer would be a good thing for everyone. That would be something any good and moral person would agree upon. That would be some advice your god may want to heed.

You speaking of God the way you do is akin to a child sitting on their father's lap and slapping him in the face. The child would not even be able to slap the father if the father were not holding them and supporting them and allowing them to hit him. Likewise, if it were not for God sustaining you, you would not even be able to muster one breath to praise or criticize.

If the father in question is responsible for designing the child's environment and then raising the child in a world of pain and torment, I'd say the father deserves far worse than a slap in the face.

 

[Dave Ellis]

No, you invaded land that was long inhabited by the forefathers of the bacteria that are in your body. My point in this is to show you that it is a matter of perspective, and so where you place your emphasis will affect the moral judgments one makes.

I did no such thing, I was born here. Therefore I have invaded nothing.

Yes, presuming the universe is anthropocentric is a presupposition.

How many times do I need to tell you that my position is not that the universe is anthropocentric?

Let me spell it out in plain english:

The universe is not anthropocentric.

I repeat: The universe is not anthropocentric.

Again, The universe is not anthropocentric.

And just in case there was any confusion: The universe is NOT anthropocentric.


You are the only one who keeps bringing the universe into this. I have told you repeatedly that has nothing to do with my position. Stop strawmanning me, and counter my actual argument.

Says who?

Says me. I thought that would be fairly obvious since I wrote the post....

Not exactly. As the bacteria discussion shows, the perspective in which you take as to what end God should necessarily serve affects your moral judgments of Him. The fact that I can even, at some level, argue that the bacteria are right and you are wrong shows that your view of morality is clearly anthropocentric.

Except your bacteria example is nonsense, and I doubt you even believe the bacteria example.

That being said, I would agree morality is anthropocentric, however a more correct description would be sentient being centric.... but we'll say anthropocentric to keep it simple.

If we put a webcam inside of your head that magically showed us all the thoughts and ideas that pop up in your mind, the things you have done and the things that you did not do out of fear of retribution, are you going to come out as white as snow?

Of course not. That's not just you or me. That's everyone.

I've already addressed this, you don't need to have a perfect track record in order to be able to make moral judgments.

On a side note, I don't avoid doing immoral acts out of a fear of retribution. If a fear of retribution is what stops you from acting immorally, then I'd argue that you aren't a moral person. A moral person would want to do the right thing and not want to do the wrong thing regardless of reward or retribution.

Your intellect is too limited to understand what absolute perfection is.

Perhaps yours is, I don't know.... but mine isn't. Personally, I'd give you more credit than that though, I'm sure you would easily be able to comprehend absolute perfection.

For example, say we have a being who is called the pinnacle of morality, then he orders his followers to go out and kill a bunch of people because he wants their land, then we can clearly show that being is not an example of moral perfection.

It's not hard to figure out.

Again, it is the issue of perspective. Whose measure are we using to judge morality?

Objective consequences.

Further, Christians, Jews, and Muslims can tell you all different things about what God's will even is. Who says any of them are right?

I'd argue none of them are right.

I cannot convince you of this,

Sure you can, provide evidence for your case.

but logically what you can't seem to wrap your head around is that evil can coexist with the God of any of those religions.

As long as it's a sect that does not believe in an all loving, morally perfect god, then you're correct.

If you are arguing for the mainstream view of an all loving, morally perfect god, then you have an inherent and inescapable contradiction.

You may not like the picture they paint, but that is your perspective. You would actually have to prove that your perspective is so absolutely correct, that it is morally binding to the entire universe.

No I don't, because again, the universe is irrelevant to the issue.

Or, if you want to play that game, we all evoluted out of the same pond of slime, and being that pond slime does not have any real value, if anything happens to it, even if sophisticated evoluted pond slime has the illusion of consciousness, it is morally equivalent to crushing a rock or manipulating any other inaminate object.

Evoluted? I guess that's the US public school system at work for you.... FYI: In English we use the word "evolved".

Anyways, back to the point...

Regardless of where life first formed, may it be a pond of slime, or a clear blue lake, or an ocean, it's irrelevant. We are not single cell organisms living in a pond, we are complex and conscious beings.

The hilarious irony that most Christians miss is that their own theology says god created Adam out of a lump of mud. So, why is a being created from a lump of mud special, while a life form arising from natural processes in a body of water not special? Is there some kind of extra bonus mud-men get in life that make them superior?

Again, it is all perspective, and until you realize that your anthropocentric perspective of morality is what leads you to your moral judgments, I don't know what else I can say.

I'm absolutely flabbergasted.... I've been arguing constantly that my anthropocentric perspective of morality is exactly what leads me to my moral judgments.

How on earth are you attempting to argue that I don't realize that? It's the very basis of my argument. Try reading next time and you might understand what people are actually saying to you.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I honestly do not believe that is the case. By faith in Christ, we become God's children.

Ok, fair enough... that's more of a theological issue though. Some Christians would agree with you, some would not. As I don't believe there is a god, obviously I don't believe we are gods children under any circumstance

I mean no disrespect, but let me define my terms and see if you understand afterwards.

No disrespect taken

Redemption is a good thing, we all agree. The dictionary defines this as atoning for one's mistake.

OK, I'm with you so far.

So, for redemption to exist, mistakes have to exist. Mistakes are a bad thing.

Agreed

So, it appears logically necessary for one good thing to exist (redemption), a bad thing necessarily has to exist (mistakes).

Also agreed

You posit that if God's so smart and powerful, He can make redemption exist without evil. Clearly, that's is logically impossible and would require denying the law of non-contradiction.

Ah, except you're moving the goal posts here.

First you're talking about bad things, but in your last paragraph all of a sudden you're talking about evil.

Bad things do not necessarily equate to evil. For example, if I make a lunch date with someone and show up 15 minutes late, I'd call that a bad thing, but I wouldn't call it evil.

If I am at somebody elses house and accidentally drop a glass of water, which breaks the glass and creates a mess, that's also a bad thing... but it's not evil.

Both of those actions could also demand some kind of redemption. For the first example I could offer a gift of some kind to the person who was left there waiting. For the second example, I could clean up my mess and buy the person a new glass.

So we can demonstrate that you can have bad things, and redemption/atonement for those bad things without the need for evil.

If I can figure it out on an internet forum, why does your god appear to struggle with the concept? There is no contradiction.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I think it is more than fair. Hate crimes are punished more than equivalent crimes that have been committed with non-race related motivations. Is that unfair?

You're talking apples and oranges. The punishment for hate crimes is still a finite punishment for a finite crime. It may be more serious than a similar non-hate crime, but that's irrelevant. It's the same principle why you have a more serious sentence for murder than you do for petty theft.

My point dealt with eternal punishment for a finite crime, which is inherently unjust.

Indeed. So, as long as the premise is true, then everything else proceeding from the premise is also true.

Agreed

I cannot prove to you that everything I believe is true. However, it is not irrational (meaning, it is therefore internally consistent).

Well, even there I'd have to disagree. If you positively believe things that you can't demonstrate to be true, that is irrational. Even if your belief is internally consistent, that doesn't make it a rational belief.

Being that this is the case, you cannot try to employ a seemingly rational argument (Epicurus' Argument from Evil) and expect me to take it seriously if I can find assumptions are logical inconsistencies within it. It's chief presupposition is that morality is anthropocentric. It's second is that the total non-existence of evil is preferrable to its co-existence with good.

Whereas I disagree that those are presuppositions. Those are positions that can be backed up with reason.

What are the logical inconsistencies you speak of though?

Those are serious presuppositions that have to e proved out for me tot ake the argument seriously.

Sure, and I can do that:

1) Morality is anthropocentric: First off, as I stated in a previous post "sentient being-centric" would be a better label. By sentient being, I could be referring to various types of animals, or intelligent aliens, or whatever... I'll use the word anthropocentric or human to simplify things, but keep in mind any sentient being could be substituted in its place.

First off, we can demonstrate that moral actions, moral judgments, moral consequences, etc have a major and direct impact on humans and human society. Therefore, humans clearly play a role in morality.

From this point of the argument, we can tentatively say that morality is anthropocentric. To move beyond that and show that morality is not anthropocentric, we would then need to show something else non-human that plays a direct role in moral actions, judgments, etc.

Inanimate objects can not possess morality since they have no intent, and can not make conscious decisions, actions or judgments. All inanimate objects are therefore amoral in and of themselves. Therefore, "the universe" doesn't matter when it comes to morality, it is amoral.

In order to consider the universe as a whole relevant to the discussion, you'd have to show how the universe acts as a moral agent of some sort. I'm not aware of any examples of that.


2: The non-existence of evil is preferable to its co-existence with good:

This one isn't that difficult. Evil is the antithesis of good, and good is the antithesis of evil.

If your goal is a perfectly pure example of anything, you can not achieve a purer form of something by adding it's antithesis into the mix. If your goal is perfectly pure white sheets, you can't make it more pure by adding black dye.

If your goal is a perfectly working operating system, you can't make it better by adding bugs.

If your goal is perfectly pure water, you can't make it more pure by adding salt.

Likewise, if your goal is perfect goodness, you can't make it more good by adding evil.

Actually, you can. First, a "cute" example: My wife is the opposite of me in a lot of ways. I am better with her than without her.

Right, but if you were perfect, then her opposite nature of yours could not improve you. The only reason she can improve you is because you are not perfect.

Likewise, if something is purely/perfectly good, you can not improve it by adding evil. By definition, any evil you add will dilute it's pureness or spoil its perfection.

Now, a more logically consistent example (as marriage is extremely irrational ) I would take is forgiveness. Forgiveness is a very good thing. The greater the wrong, the greater the forgiveness. So, the inverse relationship between the two actually increases the overall greatness.

The matter of debate therefore is an existence that lacks forgiveness is preferable over one that does. How do we make this judgment?

As I mentioned in a previous post, you don't need evil in order to run into situations that require a level of forgiveness. Showing up late for a lunch date, or being clumsy and breaking someone's glass are acts that require a level of forgiveness, but aren't evil.

As for serious crimes, or genuine examples of evil, I'd say the world would be a better place without that. A world where you forgive the person who murdered your kid is not as good as a world where your kid didn't get murdered at all. A world where a woman forgives her rapist is not as good as a world in which she hadn't been raped in the first place, etc.


A great example, and one that should conclusively prove my point is as follows:

Heaven is a place which is commonly defined as being perfectly good. There is a complete absence of evil and sin in heaven.

Based upon your argument, heaven could then be improved by allowing Satan in the door to spread around some evil.

If you don't agree that the inclusion of evil would make heaven a better place, then you are forced into admitting a place of perfect goodness is a place that lacks all evil.

I can define God as omnipotent, omniscient, and all-loving. However, my perspective of what makes Him all-loving is clearly very different from yours.

Apparently.

Which he? Augustine, Epiciurus, or both?

I was referring to Augustine

 

[Dave Ellis]

Because I am yet to meet a good person, and I bet you are not one either.

I find that rather puzzling... I run into good people all the time, and I consider myself a good person as well.

 

[abacabb3]

Actually, yes. I don't believe that there should be different penalties for "hate" crimes.

Fair enough. Do you think that there are circumstances in which the penalty for a crime should change due to the person that was wronged? I.E. should punching the President be penalized equally as punching a drunk trucker in a bar? Should stealing $10,000 from a lower middle class single mom be punished as badly as stealing the same from a billionaire?

I just want your serious answers to these questions. Not everyone is in favor of punishing hate crimes as Federal offenses, though no one would ever win an election running with that in their platform.

 

[abacabb3]

I did no such thing, I was born here. Therefore I have invaded nothing.

So was the bacteria, you put yourself in the way.

Let me spell it out in plain english: The universe is not anthropocentric.

Okay, I agree, but why is morality anthropocentric in your view?

Says me.

What makes you an infallible authority on the subject?

Except your bacteria example is nonsense, and I doubt you even believe the bacteria example.

Of course I don't.

That being said, I would agree morality is anthropocentric...

Well, though I believe such a view is better than it being bacterialcentric, if your morality is anthropocentric, how do you know that is an accurate gauge to judge God morally?

I've already addressed this, you don't need to have a perfect track record in order to be able to make moral judgments.

This is not an answer to the point I was making. I believe, if my memory serves me right, I was responding to your assertion most people are essentially morally good. Clearly, that is wrong, as all people, if every secret thing was known about them, would be considered morally bad.

Now being morally bad does not make one intellectually incapable of understanding what perfect morality is. But, being human does. We're just not smart enough, we don't know where it all leads.

Nonetheless, being that all people are morally repugnant, I would say that there is no suffering that we do not deserve as a just consequence for our actions, thoughts, and etc.

On a side note, I don't avoid doing immoral acts out of a fear of retribution.

Being that you probably would not be comfortable talking about the worst things you have ever done or thought about, I can't really talk about this subject on a personal level with you. I would just say that though fear of retaliation or consequences does not always weigh into the decision process at least consciously, subconciously it has to be quite profound being that we all think of some pretty screwed up stuff and never act upon it.

Perhaps yours is, I don't know.... but mine isn't.

The finite cannot understand infinite perfection. We can understand the notion, but not the entirety of the concept.

Sure you can, provide evidence for your case.

First, I am a misologist so I honestly do not think I can actually demonstrate to you the absolute truth about anything. However, when it pertains to the Christian faith, I don't think there is anything anyone can say or do to convince anyone. Jesus Himself said that there are those that do not believe because they cannot "hear" what He says. No man can be a Christian apart from a miracle from God that gives them the ability to "hear" real truth.

Evoluted? I guess that's the US public school system at work for you.... FYI: In English we use the word "evolved".

You got me there, no one pays me to proofread this.

Regardless of where life first formed, may it be a pond of slime, or a clear blue lake, or an ocean, it's irrelevant. We are not single cell organisms living in a pond, we are complex and conscious beings.

If you came from mud, your consciousness is an illusion created by an ultimately arbitrary process of neurons firing off that is completely devoid of meaning.

You need to seriously realize if your focal point of morality is anthropocentric, this in of itself is arbitrary which is why I reject the argument from evil.

 

[Eudaimonist]

should punching the President be penalized equally as punching a drunk trucker in a bar?

No, there is supposed to be equality under the law. What you are describing here sounds like treating Presidents like royalty, with special privileges.

Should stealing $10,000 from a lower middle class single mom be punished as badly as stealing the same from a billionaire?

Yes, no question.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[abacabb3]

First you're talking about bad things, but in your last paragraph all of a sudden you're talking about evil. Bad things do not necessarily equate to evil. For example, if I make a lunch date with someone and show up 15 minutes late, I'd call that a bad thing, but I wouldn't call it evil.

So, bad things are not evil? If they are, I think I just demonstrated my point that evil can exist for the sake of greater good.

And while being purposely late for lunch for 15 minutes is a minor evil, is it so implausible to think of way worse things that require significant redemption, which can be accurately classified as "evil"?

I don't think I moved the goal posts at all, I think you have by differentiating between bad and evil. Try reading the dictionary definition for "bad." In your anthropocentric moral worldview, the world will be better if nothing bad existed. Imagine no broken glasses, no mistakes, no need to get people gifts because of mistakes...

I am arguing otherwise. Differentiating between "bad" and "evil" is semantics in this case.