The Problem of Evil

[Dave Ellis]

Let us explore in depth your definition of evil. Define evil as an objectively real thing. Can it be done contradiction-free, without positing an absolute principle?

Well, first off morality is based upon our interactions with other people. I'd argue that if you were the only living being on earth, no action you carry out could be judged as moral or immoral.

Getting back to what I said in my earlier post, all actions have consequences. Those consequences will either promote the well being of others, have no effect on the well being of others, or negatively impact the well being of others.

So based on that, I'd say the best definition I can come up with is that evil is when you purposefully carry out an act that negatively impacts the well being of others without a justifiable reason.


To give an example, going along with the predator/prey situation in my previous post, it's not immoral for a predator to kill its prey as long as it's for food. The justification is that the predator has no choice but to do it in order to survive.

On the flip side, if someone kills someone else without a good reason (i.e. the person in question just happens to like killing things), then they have no justifiable reason for their act. We would then call that act immoral or evil since you are unjustifiably harming the well being of others with intent to do so.

Basically what I'm describing is consequential ethicism. You'll have to judge every single individual situation based on its own merits, however in every moral situation there is going to either be objective harm or objective good done to the person in question.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I cannot tell if you (Dave Ellis) believe in an objective moral standard in life or not. You use highly emotionally charged topics (Holocaust) to say God doesn't exist. Yet you turn around and profess some kind of Darwinian morality based on survival?

I didn't argue that god doesn't exist due to the holocaust. I made the argument that if god exists and allowed the holocaust to happen, then he is not the all good, all loving, omnibenevolent god that Christians claim he is.

A god could still exist, however he'd either be an amoral deistic god that pays no attention to what's going on here on earth, or an immoral god who sits back and does nothing while millions are slaughtered when he could have prevented it.

Likewise, my moral basis isn't built around survival, it's built around the objective consequences of a persons actions.

 

[abacabb3]

This answer is particularly repugnant because to every evil action one is simply left saying "It's good that God allowed that to happen!" Examined closely, it's simply an attempt to turn God's non-intervention into a higher good in every single circumstance. I don't see how anyone can call anything evil on this view because, in so far as God allows it by not intervening, it is "good".

To disprove Augustine's argument, you would have to demonstrate that evil does not, eventually, work itself out for good. Without perfect knowledge of the future, you cannot do this.

You need to be aware that Christians do not believe in the absence of evil, or in a god that is totally unaware of its existence and can do nothing about it. Within our worldview, evil is permitted and regulated in order to work out God's redemptive purposes, which we view as good.

You my not view any of the preceding paragraph as "good," but that underscores the weakness of your argument. What is ultimately evil and good is subjective, and unless someone can make themselves the deciding authority on the definitional issue, the whole assertion of God being unjust is meaningless.

 

[abacabb3]

Ok, fair enough... Can you please provide the citations that Augustine used to come up with his ideas? He's making a number of logical leaps, and basing his views off of unsupported claims (i.e. he hasn't established a creator even exists)

Please demonstrate what those logical leaps are.

Further, have you established a creator exists in order to assert that He would not be just, because of the existence of evil? You need to hold each other to equal standards!

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

If an all-powerful God did allow evil, then by definition, he wouldn't be loving.

Why not?

 

[abacabb3]

No it's not. The bacteria is posing a threat to you, and you are defending yourself.

I disagree, your immune system is posing a threat to the bacteria. They are just looking to continue undergoing mitosis and go on with their day.

Ironically, the only thing that would be evil in this scenario would be if the entire process was purposefully created and designed that way by an intelligent mind. If those natural processes evolve by themselves over time, it is amoral. If you purposefully design a system where things have to kill each other to survive, it's immoral. The difference between the two is purposeful intent.

We would agree that healing is a good thing. What if I thought that an existence, without healing, is lacking a good aspect making it less good than it can otherwise be. An intelligent mind that then, with intent, makes a creation entirely lacking the existence of healing then commits a grave injustice

Your whole argument is based upon an anthropocentric view of the universe, or worse, an egocentric view. Because you personally don't like something may I add, for very understandable reasons), you think anything that allows something you don't like must be bad in a moral sense. However, this sort of thinking only holds water if your mind is the measure of existence, which logically, is a stretch to say the least and not compelling argumentation.

...in a bacteriacentric universe it would actually be an injustice for them to attack us unprovoked. It would not be immoral for us to defend ourselves.

You got it all wrong. The bacteria were here first. We got in the way and are clearly the aggressors.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

To disprove Augustine's argument, you would have to demonstrate that evil does not, eventually, work itself out for good. Without perfect knowledge of the future, you cannot do this.

I can, however, point to the consequences of this line of thought; namely, that every evil becomes 'good.'

You need to be aware that Christians do not believe in the absence of evil, or in a god that is totally unaware of its existence and can do nothing about it. Within our worldview, evil is permitted and regulated in order to work out God's redemptive purposes, which we view as good.

Then how can you can call anything evil? If someone is raped, and God does nothing to stop it, then it is 'good' because, within your worldview, it is "permitted and regulated in order to work out God's redemptive purposes." On such a view, nothing is evil.

 

[abacabb3]

Why not?

Because, unless God is a Coca-Cola swilling Santa Claus, he's all unrighteous and stuff.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

if simple things of earth cannot be understood, how is it even conceivable to understand things that are spirit !?

duh, remmeber antoine bechamp?? forgotten by the world, proved that bacteria don't cause you or me or anyone else harm. everything tested and retested and tested around the world --- everyone and anyone could test test test and it was too simple !!!! everyone anywhere could prove it true ! (but , someone else came along, with a higher profit margin....


guess which way the profitmongers went !??! and so antoine bechamp was forgotten.... and the greedy monsters won. (over all today)

 

[abacabb3]

I can, however, point to the consequences of this line of thought; namely, that every evil becomes 'good.'

Which is not a problem unless the premises to the argument can be disproven which you still have not done.

Then how can you can call anything evil? If someone is raped, and God does nothing to stop it, then it is 'good' because, within your worldview, it is "permitted and regulated in order to work out God's redemptive purposes."

Because evil is still real, just the sum of the parts would not be evil, according to our worldview. For example, I closed my business for a bunch of personal reasons. It was a traumatic experience. I have become a better, more patient and loving man as a result of it. So, the events leading up to closing the business were evil, but the end result was good. Without perfect knowledge of the future, it is impossible for man to disprove that all evil for all time does not have this result. Of course, this is a far cry from Christians proving out their worldview. However, the worldview though not empirically proven is not in of itself illogical, even though atheists like to assert that it is so without evidence.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Which is not a problem unless the premises to the argument can be disproven which you still have not done.

No, it is a problem for you because it means you cannot call anything 'evil'. You can only say that it is good that it happened because it serves God's redemptive purposes. In what way does it serve his redemptive purposes? That you cannot tell us.

Because evil is still real, just the sum of the parts would not be evil, according to our worldview. For example, I closed my business for a bunch of personal reasons. It was a traumatic experience. I have become a better, more patient and loving man as a result of it. So, the events leading up to closing the business were evil, but the end result was good. Without perfect knowledge of the future, it is impossible for man to disprove that all evil for all time does not have this result. Of course, this is a far cry from Christians proving out their worldview. However, the worldview though not empirically proven is not in of itself illogical, even though atheists like to assert that it is so without evidence.

There is a striking difference between the situation you describe and the situation we are actually talking about - a God who is capable of intervening to prevent evil but who refuses to do so. Your argument can be distilled into a single point: "God works in mysterious ways." How satisfying an answer is that?

 

[abacabb3]

No, it is a problem for you because it means you cannot call anything 'evil'.

Rabbit trail alert. You still have not actually confronted the premises of the argument. If the assertions I am making are so fallacious, why can't you muster up a decent counter argument to any of the my premises?

In what way does it serve his redemptive purposes? That you cannot tell us.

I can give you a reason, which is logical though I cannot demonstrate that it is empirically true: Evil serves God's redemptive purposes because people who did not need redemption would not need to be redeemed. Redemption gives opportunity to God to exercise both His mercy upon the redeemed and His just judgment on those who, as a result of their own wickedness, are not given the same grace and so are punished.

There is a striking difference between the situation you describe and the situation we are actually talking about - a God who is capable of intervening to prevent evil but who refuses to do so.

To use the same situation, if God would have intervened and saved the business, I would have never matured as a man. By negating the evil, you lose the good. What you cannot ultimately demonstrate that this is not true in all situations. Granted, neither can I demonstrate that it is true. However, I do not have to because I am not the one here making any arguments that the existence of evil makes God evil. The burden of proof is on the one making the assertion. All I need to do is expose your premises as faulty.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Rabbit trail alert. You still have not actually confronted the premises of the argument. If the assertions I am making are so fallacious, why can't you muster up a decent counter argument to any of the my premises?

I have given you my objection already. If you intend on addressing it then don't evade it.

I can give you a reason, which is logical though I cannot demonstrate that it is empirically true: Evil serves God's redemptive purposes because people who did not need redemption would not need to be redeemed. Redemption gives opportunity to God to exercise both His mercy upon the redeemed and His just judgment on those who, as a result of their own wickedness, are not given the same grace and so are punished.

So God permits all manner of evil just so that he can appear merciful and just? That sounds rather narcissistic. What would you say about the character of someone who lights fires only so that they can put them out and play the hero? Would you call a doctor a "life saver" if she waits until you are at the point of near death before finally intervening to save you?

To use the same situation, if God would have intervened and saved the business, I would have never matured as a man. By negating the evil, you lose the good. What you cannot ultimately demonstrate that this is not true in all situations. Granted, neither can I demonstrate that it is true. However, I do not have to because I am not the one here making any arguments that the existence of evil makes God evil. The burden of proof is on the one making the assertion. All I need to do is expose your premises as faulty.

Again, this simply boils down to "God works in mysterious ways."

 

[Dave Ellis]

To disprove Augustine's argument, you would have to demonstrate that evil does not, eventually, work itself out for good. Without perfect knowledge of the future, you cannot do this.

That's shifting the burden of proof. Augustine's opinions haven't been proven with anything substantive at all, we therefore have no reason to accept them on face value.

You need to be aware that Christians do not believe in the absence of evil, or in a god that is totally unaware of its existence and can do nothing about it. Within our worldview, evil is permitted and regulated in order to work out God's redemptive purposes, which we view as good.

An all powerful creator god would have the ability to design his universe (or his redemptive purposes) with, or without the need for evil. Since he chose to include evil when he didn't have to, that means he is not perfectly good.

You my not view any of the preceding paragraph as "good," but that underscores the weakness of your argument. What is ultimately evil and good is subjective, and unless someone can make themselves the deciding authority on the definitional issue, the whole assertion of God being unjust is meaningless.

How do you justify your claim?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Please demonstrate what those logical leaps are.

Further, have you established a creator exists in order to assert that He would not be just, because of the existence of evil? You need to hold each other to equal standards!

I gave an example of a leap he's taking... for example, he's telling us all about what the creator wants, when he hasn't even established the creator being in question even exists.

As for your second paragraph, it makes no sense at all. What are you even trying to ask?

 

[Dave Ellis]

I disagree, your immune system is posing a threat to the bacteria. They are just looking to continue undergoing mitosis and go on with their day.

The bacteria "chose" (for lack of a better word) to invade your body, your body is on the defensive against harmful bacteria.

It's no different than if someone decided to invade your house. If you injure or kill the criminal in the interests of self defence, you are not committing an immoral act. The criminal shouldn't have been there in the first place.

We would agree that healing is a good thing. What if I thought that an existence, without healing, is lacking a good aspect making it less good than it can otherwise be. An intelligent mind that then, with intent, makes a creation entirely lacking the existence of healing then commits a grave injustice

Ok

Your whole argument is based upon an anthropocentric view of the universe, or worse, an egocentric view. Because you personally don't like something may I add, for very understandable reasons), you think anything that allows something you don't like must be bad in a moral sense. However, this sort of thinking only holds water if your mind is the measure of existence, which logically, is a stretch to say the least and not compelling argumentation.

Of course morality is anthropocentric, the only things that matter in regards to morality are actions, intent and consequences. Where there are no living beings, there is no morality.

However, you're strawmanning my argument, I never said anything in regards to what I personally like or don't like. In fact, I clearly stated that morality is based on objective consequences of actions. My subjective opinions about those objective facts can be wrong, therefore morality is not rooted in my subjective opinion. The goal is to match up my subjective opinion with objective reality as best as possible.

You got it all wrong. The bacteria were here first. We got in the way and are clearly the aggressors.

If I acquire a bacterial infection, that means bacteria have invaded a part of my body. By necessity that means my body must have existed prior to the bacteria invading it, which renders your statement moot.

 

[abacabb3]

I have given you my objection already. If you intend on addressing it then don't evade it.

You avoided actually answering to the logic in my initial post, until you confront it I don't even know what your objection is.

So God permits all manner of evil just so that he can appear merciful and just? That sounds rather narcissistic.

Pretty much. But, if we live in a Theocentric universe (which is not a given, but a plausible possibility) then it was would be unjust not to work towards the greatest possible good of the Deity.

What would you say about the character of someone who lights fires only so that they can put them out and play the hero?

You just changed the focal point of the universe from God to man. So, unless you can demonstrate that we live in an anthropocentric unvierse I really do not need to address those concerns.

Again, this simply boils down to "God works in mysterious ways."

What's so mysterious, I even told you how the story ended...

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You avoided actually answering to the logic in my initial post, until you confront it I don't even know what your objection is.

Then you should re-read my posts.

Pretty much.

And you don't see anything wrong with that? You see nothing wrong with God permitting all manner of evil solely so that he can appear merciful and just? (Incidentally, doing so has the opposite effect anyway).

But, if we live in a Theocentric universe (which is not a given, but a plausible possibility) then it was would be unjust not to work towards the greatest possible good of the Deity.

Why? And how do you know what the greatest possible good of the deity is in order to work towards it?

You just changed the focal point of the universe from God to man. So, unless you can demonstrate that we live in an anthropocentric unvierse I really do not need to address those concerns.

Can you demonstrate that we live in a theocentric universe?

 

[talquin]

There is ignorance, which is a lack of knowledge. Ignorant people do ignorant things. All action is accounted for, and thus there is a cause behind all phenomenon.

Again, evil is a perceived quality within the mind which is conditioned by the illusion of duality. Evil is not a substance, it is not a truth unto itself. All things are ultimately good, but those whose vision is conditional and relativistic, and who cannot see the eternal, will always have some sort of dogma about the world, categorizing it into limited and static conceptions of "good" and "evil".

So a rapist violently raping a child is good. A typhoon slamming into the Philippines and killing tens of thousands of innocent people is good. Millions of children under the age of 5 dying due to diseases is good. You sure have a twisted idea of what "good" is.

Instead of saying all things are good, why not say "good" is a word used to define all things - regardless of whether or not humans find them "good" in the classic sense of "good".

We can play around with words and their supposed meanings all day long. But that doesn't change the fact that things like genocide, the holocaust, rapes & molesting of children, famines, destructive tsunamis, destructive earthquakes and destructive tornadoes do occur. And an all-loving & all-powerful god can't exist in the presence of such things.

 

[abacabb3]

That's shifting the burden of proof.

You say there is a problem of evil, personally I am a conceptual skeptic about the issue philosophically. The one who makes the positive truth claim has the burden, not the one who denies that there is even an issue.

Augustine's opinions haven't been proven with anything substantive at all, we therefore have no reason to accept them on face value.

Well, nothing in this whole discussion is substantive, it is all based upon a subjective notion of what evil even is. That's why I think Augustine's arguments are so fitting. If evil, under any circumstance, can lead to greater good, it defangs the one who wishes to argue that the existence of evil is necessarily bad.

An all powerful creator god would have the ability to design his universe (or his redemptive purposes) with, or without the need for evil.

How do you know that? Redemption is impossible without the existence of something evil that made something need redemption.