The Problem of God (not Evil).

[smog]

If human parents are flawed versions of God the father, and yet we can still justify their willing subjection of their children to evil, how much more so then could we justify God, if he is the perfect parent? I think the analogy does hold up in this case.

Parents have very limited resources. They cannot warp the laws of physics so whenever their children touch a hot stove, a magical heat shield makes sure they don't get burned.

Whatever justifiable evil parents may subject their children to is the result of the lack of control they have over how the world works. In God's case, no justification can be found because he's the one who decides how the world works. If he wanted to, he could make sure that every living being is happy forever - no parents can do that for their children.

 

[quatona]

Can omniscient God, who
Knows the future, find
The omnipotence to
change His future mind?

This is the problem that necessitates the idea that god exists "beyond time/eternally" (whatever that might mean). Of course, this idea creates new inconsistencies with other claims about god.

 

[Symbrinity]

Parents have very limited resources. They cannot warp the laws of physics so whenever their children touch a hot stove, a magical heat shield makes sure they don't get burned.

There are an infinite number of circumstances where parents have the capability to prevent their children from harm and yet choose not to do so, justifiably so. But this isn't the main point anyway.

Whatever justifiable evil parents may subject their children to is the result of the lack of control they have over how the world works. In God's case, no justification can be found because he's the one who decides how the world works. If he wanted to, he could make sure that every living being is happy forever - no parents can do that for their children.

Yes God could prevent humans from exposure to evil...this has already been established in the discussion and no one is disagreeing with this statement (at least I am not). The question is, why does God expose humans to evil? The answer which I am trying to propose, is that if God is firstly, all-knowing, then he must have a reason for doing so which we are not aware of; and, secondly, if God is benevolent, then exposing humans to evil must be part of his benevolent plan. Furthermore, if God is all-knowing, then it would stand that he has a better knowledge of benevolance than we do.

Ultimately, it comes down to that if there is a God who created the universe, he must be omniscient. If he is omniscient, then he must know what benevolence is better than we do. You can't work backwards from the problem of evil, and assume that because evil exists, therefore God doesn't. Heck, what if there was an evil God? May not sound very convincing, but you can't rule out the existence of God based on the fact that you don't like his character. And if you think that his character is contradictory, then I refer you to my above points, about how God's omniscience overrules any objection to his character.

Just my 2 cents. I ain't no theological scholar, although I have read some and I've studied a heck of a lot of lit crit.

 

[us38]

The answer which I am trying to propose, is that if God is firstly, all-knowing, then he must have a reason for doing so which we are not aware of; and, secondly, if God is benevolent, then exposing humans to evil must be part of his benevolent plan.

But evil doesn't need to exist, no matter what god's plan is. The plan can be accomplished without evil. Otherwise, god is not omnipotent.

Furthermore, if God is all-knowing, then it would stand that he has a better knowledge of benevolance than we do.

One needs not to be omniscient to see a logical contradiction, however.

You can't work backwards from the problem of evil, and assume that because evil exists, therefore God doesn't.

We're not. Evil exists, therefore an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent god does not exist. A god could exist with any two of those traits, but not all three.

Heck, what if there was an evil God?

If any god exists, it must be evil, nonomniscient, or nonomnipotent. Else there would be no evil in the world.

May not sound very convincing, but you can't rule out the existence of God based on the fact that you don't like his character.

We're not. We're ruling out the possibility of a god with three specific traits existing.

And if you think that his character is contradictory, then I refer you to my above points, about how God's omniscience overrules any objection to his character.

And the omnipotence overrules the omniscience, in this case.

 

[smog]

Yes God could prevent humans from exposure to evil...this has already been established in the discussion and no one is disagreeing with this statement (at least I am not). The question is, why does God expose humans to evil? The answer which I am trying to propose, is that if God is firstly, all-knowing, then he must have a reason for doing so which we are not aware of;

God might indeed have a reason for doing so, but there is no reason to believe that the intent is benevolent. In fact, perhaps God's intent is to train soldiers for an army to defeat his archnemesis, Satan. It is also possible that despite his omniscience and omnipotence, God isn't actually smart enough to figure out how to prevent evil.

and, secondly, if God is benevolent, then exposing humans to evil must be part of his benevolent plan.

It depends if benevolence is his primary objective. Indeed, perhaps God is benevolent but he really really really enjoys eating cake. In that case, if exposure to evil could make humans cook better food, benevolence would take a backseat.

The problem occurs in the case where God's primary objective - his goal in creating us - is for us to be the happiest possible. That's what benevolence means (if it meant anything else, how you could trust God?). The problem here is that by definition the most benevolent plan possible would be one where everybody is happy. That plan would have no evil in it. If you take plan A and remove evil, then it becomes a better plan.

Furthermore, if God is all-knowing, then it would stand that he has a better knowledge of benevolance than we do.

We humans cannot predict the future, that much is true. In most cases, we cannot tell what the exact consequences of such or such strategy might be. But that doesn't mean we're entirely clueless: it suffices that we think of one, just one possible world which God could make and would be obviously better than ours. If we can describe such a world, then obviously God is either not benevolent (if he was, our world would be at least as good as the best world we can think of)... or he failed.

Alas... I can think of a world that is obviously better than ours. First remember that there's about 6 billion people on this planet. Because of human nature and interactions between individuals, evil will occur, some people will live miserably whereas some others will be very happy. Now imagine that instead of having 6 billion humans, you have 1000 humans scattered all over the planet, and 5,999,999,000 robots which are impossible to tell apart from humans. Well, you could easily have those robots arrange things so the 1000 real humans are all happy: all robo-parents would be loving, all robo-bosses would give awesome jobs to the humans, etc. If a human decides to become a serial killer, no problem, he will kill robots and the robo-police will never catch him. Basically, the whole world would be rigged to make humans happy regardless of their personality. There would be appearance of evil, but no real evil since only robots would ever get hurt.

I think it is obvious that such a world would be better than the one we have right now. We'd all be happy. So if God exists and he is truly benevolent... why isn't the world at least that good? I don't question his ability to do even better - I simply point out the obvious fact that he didn't.

Here's another angle to understand my thought experiment: the world I describe would be identical to our current world, with the difference that no humans are miserable - only robots. I'll draw your attention on the fact that the humans that do remain would follow a rigorously identical "spiritual path" to the one they would have followed if the miserable humans were humans and not robots. Look: there are people on this planet who are super happy and in the new world they'd be just as happy because you don't fix what isn't broken. This means that as far as those humans are concerned, there is no difference with what happens right now! Therefore, my plan is really exactly this: take the world, remove unhappiness. It is dead simple. No tradeoffs.

In a nutshell, take all happy people in the world, replace all miserable people by robots and you have a world which is better than ours by logical necessity. Of course you don't really have to "replace" anyone - you just make sure that the only people you will ever allow to be miserable are robots.

Ultimately, it comes down to that if there is a God who created the universe, he must be omniscient. If he is omniscient, then he must know what benevolence is better than we do.

I do not doubt that God has much greater knowledge than we do and that if he wanted to make the best possible world, he could outdo us easily. But ultimately, what's good for us is for us to be happy. If we aren't happy, if we can imagine worlds where we'd be better off, well, I'm sorry, but God did poorly.

Do you think you can cut your own hair as well as a professional hair stylist? I don't think so. But if your stylist messes up your hair, you won't just say "oh well, she knows hair better than I do". You'll notice it and you'll be angry. Well, let me break it to you: we've got a bad haircut. You can't rationalize this.

You can't work backwards from the problem of evil, and assume that because evil exists, therefore God doesn't. Heck, what if there was an evil God? May not sound very convincing, but you can't rule out the existence of God based on the fact that you don't like his character. And if you think that his character is contradictory, then I refer you to my above points, about how God's omniscience overrules any objection to his character.

Well, of course God could be evil. I wouldn't go that far, though. Judging from the world he made, I think he's simply amoral (if I was God, I would probably be amoral as well). But anyway, you're right to say that God's character is independant of his existence.

 

[Symbrinity]

But evil doesn't need to exist, no matter what god's plan is. The plan can be accomplished without evil. Otherwise, god is not omnipotent.

We don't need to exist either...so I'm not certain what your point is. God doesn't need anybody or anything else, but he can do anything he wants. He could use evil like a pawn if he wanted to.


One needs not to be omniscient to see a logical contradiction, however.

Very true...but see my response below to the "haircut" analogy.

We're not. Evil exists, therefore an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent god does not exist. A god could exist with any two of those traits, but not all three.

But you are starting with the problem of evil, aren't you?

God might indeed have a reason for doing so, but there is no reason to believe that the intent is benevolent. In fact, perhaps God's intent is to train soldiers for an army to defeat his archnemesis, Satan. It is also possible that despite his omniscience and omnipotence, God isn't actually smart enough to figure out how to prevent evil.

But if he's omniscient, he must necessarily be smart enough.


It depends if benevolence is his primary objective. Indeed, perhaps God is benevolent but he really really really enjoys eating cake. In that case, if exposure to evil could make humans cook better food, benevolence would take a backseat.

I'm really not sure how to answer this...God is not subject to primal cravings, that we know of. If he made humans bake cakes so that he could eat it, and he is a benevolent God, we would have to assume that cake baking for God is benevolent...but this is nonsense. I'm not trying take you literally, but I don't understand your point.

The problem occurs in the case where God's primary objective - his goal in creating us - is for us to be the happiest possible. That's what benevolence means (if it meant anything else, how you could trust God?). The problem here is that by definition the most benevolent plan possible would be one where everybody is happy. That plan would have no evil in it. If you take plan A and remove evil, then it becomes a better plan.

I think that benevolence definitely means that GOd wants us to be happy. And that is his ultimate plan, if he is benevolent. The means towards this end, however, we apparently do not see eye to eye on with this God.

We humans cannot predict the future, that much is true. In most cases, we cannot tell what the exact consequences of such or such strategy might be. But that doesn't mean we're entirely clueless: it suffices that we think of one, just one possible world which God could make and would be obviously better than ours. If we can describe such a world, then obviously God is either not benevolent (if he was, our world would be at least as good as the best world we can think of)... or he failed.

Unless there was something wrong with this other world which we conjured in our minds which we could never conceive of, but God knew.


Alas... I can think of a world that is obviously better than ours. First remember that there's about 6 billion people on this planet. Because of human nature and interactions between individuals, evil will occur, some people will live miserably whereas some others will be very happy. Now imagine that instead of having 6 billion humans, you have 1000 humans scattered all over the planet, and 5,999,999,000 robots which are impossible to tell apart from humans. Well, you could easily have those robots arrange things so the 1000 real humans are all happy: all robo-parents would be loving, all robo-bosses would give awesome jobs to the humans, etc. If a human decides to become a serial killer, no problem, he will kill robots and the robo-police will never catch him. Basically, the whole world would be rigged to make humans happy regardless of their personality. There would be appearance of evil, but no real evil since only robots would ever get hurt.

I think it is obvious that such a world would be better than the one we have right now. We'd all be happy. So if God exists and he is truly benevolent... why isn't the world at least that good? I don't question his ability to do even better - I simply point out the obvious fact that he didn't.

I don't think it is obvious at all....Again, I'm not really sure how to respond to this analogy. It had never occurred to me in my wildest dreams that a world with robots would be perfect. So that may be your idea of a perfect world, but it is certainly not mine, nor most people's, I would imagine! And anyway, how would you prevent people from killing each other? Or hating each other? Committing suicide? etc? Anyway, the fact that everybody has their own idea of paradise only supports the idea that our conception of utopia may be way off from God's.


Not that anyone ever said that Earth was utopia - God certainly didn't. ALthough he did originally prepare one for humans at the beginning of the earth, and he has another one prepared, after earth. Additionally, he gave humans a way to deal with evil while they are on earth.


I do not doubt that God has much greater knowledge than we do and that if he wanted to make the best possible world, he could outdo us easily. But ultimately, what's good for us is for us to be happy. If we aren't happy, if we can imagine worlds where we'd be better off, well, I'm sorry, but God did poorly.

Do you think you can cut your own hair as well as a professional hair stylist? I don't think so. But if your stylist messes up your hair, you won't just say "oh well, she knows hair better than I do". You'll notice it and you'll be angry. Well, let me break it to you: we've got a bad haircut. You can't rationalize this.

Let me take a stab at it. It is entirely conceivable that people will complain that professionals do what they think is a shoddy job, but because of their lack of knowledge in the particular field, they do not realize that what the professional has done is actually the best way. Let me think of an example....how about, a teacher, perhaps. A teacher has a certain method of teaching some material, and a student complains that he/she isn't learnign anything, teacher doesn't know what she's doing, etc etc. Turns out the student ends up getting an A on the next test - apparently the teacher's method worked and the student didn't even realize it. Maybe it's not the best example, but you get the idea. I just don't think your haircut analogy holds up, because with a haircut, the finished product is what you see in front of you. In life, however, eternal happiness may only be conceivable at the end of the journey; or, to put it a better way, what we see in front of us may not be all there is. There may be a reason behind this "messed-up haircut."

Well, of course God could be evil. I wouldn't go that far, though. Judging from the world he made, I think he's simply amoral (if I was God, I would probably be amoral as well). But anyway, you're right to say that God's character is independant of his existence.

Thank you. We agree, on this at least!

 

[elman]

The problem occurs in the case where God's primary objective - his goal in creating us - is for us to be the happiest possible. That's what benevolence means (if it meant anything else, how you could trust God?). The problem here is that by definition the most benevolent plan possible would be one where everybody is happy. That plan would have no evil in it. If you take plan A and remove evil, then it becomes a better plan.

If you removed all evil, then you would be removed and so would I. I don't like that plan and I don't see it as better. God's primary objective I think is for us to be loving. If we do that it will bring happiness, but happiness is not the primary objective.

We humans cannot predict the future, that much is true. In most cases, we cannot tell what the exact consequences of such or such strategy might be. But that doesn't mean we're entirely clueless: it suffices that we think of one, just one possible world which God could make and would be obviously better than ours. If we can describe such a world, then obviously God is either not benevolent (if he was, our world would be at least as good as the best world we can think of)... or he failed.

I don't think you can think of a better world.

Alas... I can think of a world that is obviously better than ours. First remember that there's about 6 billion people on this planet. Because of human nature and interactions between individuals, evil will occur, some people will live miserably whereas some others will be very happy. Now imagine that instead of having 6 billion humans, you have 1000 humans scattered all over the planet, and 5,999,999,000 robots which are impossible to tell apart from humans. Well, you could easily have those robots arrange things so the 1000 real humans are all happy: all robo-parents would be loving, all robo-bosses would give awesome jobs to the humans, etc. If a human decides to become a serial killer, no problem, he will kill robots and the robo-police will never catch him. Basically, the whole world would be rigged to make humans happy regardless of their personality. There would be appearance of evil, but no real evil since only robots would ever get hurt.

Nope not better.

I think it is obvious that such a world would be better than the one we have right now. We'd all be happy. So if God exists and he is truly benevolent... why isn't the world at least that good? I don't question his ability to do even better - I simply point out the obvious fact that he didn't.

It is not obvious at all that would be better. It is certainly not obvious that this would result in our being more loving creatures.

Here's another angle to understand my thought experiment: the world I describe would be identical to our current world, with the difference that no humans are miserable - only robots. I'll draw your attention on the fact that the humans that do remain would follow a rigorously identical "spiritual path" to the one they would have followed if the miserable humans were humans and not robots. Look: there are people on this planet who are super happy and in the new world they'd be just as happy because you don't fix what isn't broken. This means that as far as those humans are concerned, there is no difference with what happens right now! Therefore, my plan is really exactly this: take the world, remove unhappiness. It is dead simple. No tradeoffs.

How do you get us following the identical spiritual path if you have removed all pain and suffering? Who would we show love to, since there would be no one in need of anything?

In a nutshell, take all happy people in the world, replace all miserable people by robots and you have a world which is better than ours by logical necessity. Of course you don't really have to "replace" anyone - you just make sure that the only people you will ever allow to be miserable are robots.

So no reason to be loving or concerned because the ones suffering don't matter since they are just robots.

I do not doubt that God has much greater knowledge than we do and that if he wanted to make the best possible world, he could outdo us easily. But ultimately, what's good for us is for us to be happy. If we aren't happy, if we can imagine worlds where we'd be better off, well, I'm sorry, but God did poorly.

You are right about God knowing better than you and you are wrong about the what is good for us is always what makes us happy.

Do you think you can cut your own hair as well as a professional hair stylist? I don't think so. But if your stylist messes up your hair, you won't just say "oh well, she knows hair better than I do". You'll notice it and you'll be angry. Well, let me break it to you: we've got a bad haircut. You can't rationalize this.

Yes I can.

Well, of course God could be evil. I wouldn't go that far, though. Judging from the world he made, I think he's simply amoral (if I was God, I would probably be amoral as well). But anyway, you're right to say that God's character is independant of his existence.

We are in a lot of trouble if God is evil. It is not reasonable that an evil Creator created us with the ability to love others and the knowledge that it was a good thing to do.

 

[smog]

Okay I think I have a lot of precisions to make.

First, my intent is not to describe an utopia or a perfect world. My intent is to describe a better world. That world could still contain evil in it and it could also contain pain and suffering. It only has to contain less of it and that is sufficient to say that God is not perfectly benevolent. In other words, I want to find an upper bound on the suffering required. The concept of upper bound is important: I want to be able to say that if God was benevolent, then he shouldn't do worse than X. This is a lot easier than to say that the best possible world is X, and for the sake of the argument, it is just as good. I repeat: I only need to find a world that is slightly better than this one.

Another thing you (I'm referring to both previous posters) don't seem to fully understand is that the "robots" I am talking about would be impossible to tell apart from real humans. In other words, every human would think the robots are human too. When you evaluate the happiness of everyone, you don't have to count the robots. They just don't count. Only real humans would count. Therefore, you only need to make those humans happy - if there is evil to "absorb", you can shift it to the robot group.

In a nutshell, what I'm saying is that killing, harming, hating are inconsequential if you rig the world so there is no real human you could possibly do that to. You can kill robots, you can harm robots, you can hate robots, who cares?


This said, maybe I went a bit too far in my example. Therefore, I'm going to weaken my made up world. Let's take a single class of people: those people who are born in miserable conditions and have ludicrously low odds of not living miserable lives.

There are such people. We all know it. You may not agree that those people are hopeless. But I'm sure we can agree that you and I are much more likely to be happy than they are. Me, for example: I was born in a good family, with loving parents, good living conditions, the chance to go to university, etc. On the other hand you have people who are beaten up by their parents in their childhood, who were raped, to whom nobody have ever given a chance and never will. Other people have terrible genetic flaws that cripple them for life. Others, in not so distant times (and in not so distant parts of the world), were born slaves with no possibility of ever being anything else but slaves.

I only need you to accept this simple fact: no matter how much you believe they could be saved and regardless of their genes, soul or personality, some people will live miserable lives. This is all about the environment: if I was born a slave, I would not have been as happy as I am now - for sure, the odds of me being happy would have been much lower. Therefore, the only difference between me right now and that slave is luck. Can we at least agree on that? Good.

Now let's imagine that just before conception God gets to decide whether he will give a soul to the resulting baby or not. In other words, God decides whether the baby will be a real human or a robot (a sort of angel?). If in his omniscience he foresees that X will be miserable then *poof* he replaces incoming sperm by robo-sperm and the baby will be a robot. That robot will act exactly as the human would have acted - the only difference is that it won't be unhappy. If he sees that X is in good conditions, then he lets him be a human, he gives him a soul or whatever.

Now get this:

1- No human will be miserable.
2- For all humans who are born in good conditions, this manipulation induces NO CHANGE.

See, this isn't as radical as you would think. Pain and suffering would still exist, because "good conditions" do not suffice to make one totally happy. BUT: those people who are doomed to be unhappy would be spared. They would never exist as humans - they would never be given a soul or a spirit (if you believe in those in the first place).

I'll have you note that for me (and probably you, but I can't assume) who am born in good conditions, this would change absolutely nothing. I would still have the chance to choose to be loving or not. Everything would be the same. The only difference is that God would have enough mercy (decency) to make sure everybody starts on equal footing.

So are you saying that it matters that some people are truly miserable for me or you to have the chance to be happy or loving? I could imagine that it can help for us to be aware of it, but if they just pretend to, isn't that just as good? I can even imagine that some pain is needed and that we can't just be happy all the time, but I think some people are getting more than their fair share of it.

So here is my better world: before conception happens, God foresees if the human will be happy (or loving) or not. If he will not be happy (or loving), then he has mercy and puts a robot instead, and he has this robot behave exactly as the human would have behaved, but without any underlying feelings. On the other hand, if the human will be happy (or loving), he allows a real human to occur. In the end, there will be less humans, but they will all be happy (or loving). Can you tell me where this plan could possibly fail? God is omniscient and omnipotent, so he CAN foresee who will be unhappy, and he CAN prevent that unhappiness from happening without changing anything else. This plan has no loopholes, no tradeoffs and God doesn't have constraints either. And unless you want me to believe that having unhappy (or unloving) people is better than having no people at all, this plan is an improvement over our current world (though if you are happy you could imagine that this is indeed what God is doing).

I think you will want to respond that there may be some unknown aspect of benevolence that I don't quite get. But look! Happy people would live their life EXACTLY AS THEY WOULD BEFORE. I rigged my world for that to be the case! Therefore, whatever aspect I'm missing, I'm not doing anything that could ruin it. All I'm doing is that I replace unhappy (or unloving) people by robots. God has all the power to make them behave exactly as needed for the "unknown aspect of benevolence" to be respected.

Now for some more specific points:

And anyway, how would you prevent people from killing each other? Or hating each other? Committing suicide? etc?

If you rig the world so it is impossible to kill, harm or hate anyone, you don't have to prevent any of that. For example, if all humans around you are robots (you would not know this), does it matter if you're loving?

Anyway, the fact that everybody has their own idea of paradise only supports the idea that our conception of utopia may be way off from God's.

So, if six billion people each have their own idea of paradise, then make six billion paradises. One for each human. Wouldn't that be awesome?

A teacher has a certain method of teaching some material, and a student complains that he/she isn't learnign anything, teacher doesn't know what she's doing, etc etc. Turns out the student ends up getting an A on the next test - apparently the teacher's method worked and the student didn't even realize it. Maybe it's not the best example, but you get the idea.

But ask the student how he thinks the teacher should have taught him the material. He may say: "well, he could just have beamed it into my brain". Of course, that would have been better than what the teacher did. Instantaneous preparation for the same result. Obviously, the teacher can't do that. He can't just make knowledge appear instantly in the boy's head.

But... God could! God is om-ni-po-tent. He has no constraints. It is hard to solve a problem when you have constraints. It would be hard for me to build a castle because I have to make the architecture sound, I have to buy material, I have to place the rocks, etc. Those are my constraints. But if I had no constraints. Psh! I'd just will it into existence. Constraintless problems are easy to solve. Easy, easy, easy, easy!

If you removed all evil, then you would be removed and so would I. I don't like that plan and I don't see it as better. God's primary objective I think is for us to be loving. If we do that it will bring happiness, but happiness is not the primary objective.

I don't see why being loving should be the primary objective. Think about it: is it better that we are all loving but miserable, or all unloving but happy? Granted, neither scenario is plausible, but I'm pretty sure most people would pick the second. A happy world would probably be loving, and vice versa, but I think the primary goal is happiness.

This said, if you disagree, that's fine. I can easily give you a plan where everybody chooses to be loving. And yes, they would freely choose to be loving, isn't that extraordinary? You hardly realize how easy it is, when you have the powers of a God, to have your cake and eat it too.

How do you get us following the identical spiritual path if you have removed all pain and suffering? Who would we show love to, since there would be no one in need of anything?

You know, there could be people that just pretend to need stuff. Evil in the world could just be a decoy, it doesn't need to really exist. Maybe we need to feel some pain to be loving. Alright. But some people get way more than their share of that. If all the pain in the world was balanced, maybe I'd concede the point, but it's not the case. The life conditions of some people are nothing short of unfair and the least of things would be for everyone to have equal opportunity from the get-go.

So no reason to be loving or concerned because the ones suffering don't matter since they are just robots.

But you don't know that! You think they are real humans just like you! You don't know it doesn't matter! When you make a computer program, you do simulations before you test it for real, because if there's a bug the consequences could be catastrophical. The same applies: if the Earth is a training ground to allow us to choose to be loving, whenever somebody is unloving, it hurts real people and that is catastrophical. That is why it only makes sense to populate it with robots instead. That way, if somebody is unloving, he didn't truly harm people and we can safely "discard" him (we can correct the bug) because we know that when we put him with real people he'll mess everything up. Then in the afterlife I guess all real humans who are loving are put together. I'd say it's the divine version of testing, quarantine, damage control, or "don't put all your eggs in the same basket".

We are in a lot of trouble if God is evil. It is not reasonable that an evil Creator created us with the ability to love others and the knowledge that it was a good thing to do.

Perhaps you need to be able to love to really feel the sting of evil? If there was nothing but evil in the world, perhaps we'd just get used to it. Anyway, I think that saying God is good or evil is a stretch, if he exists I don't think he cares.

 

[elman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elman
If you removed all evil, then you would be removed and so would I. I don't like that plan and I don't see it as better. God's primary objective I think is for us to be loving. If we do that it will bring happiness, but happiness is not the primary objective.

I don't see why being loving should be the primary objective.

Because He created us with that ability and the knowledge that it is good for us to do that.

Think about it: is it better that we are all loving but miserable, or all unloving but happy?

Being loving results in happiness and not being miserable. It is probably the only way to happiness.

Granted, neither scenario is plausible, but I'm pretty sure most people would pick the second. A happy world would probably be loving, and vice versa, but I think the primary goal is happiness.

If it is you better be loving or you won't achieve your goal.

This said, if you disagree, that's fine. I can easily give you a plan where everybody chooses to be loving. And yes, they would freely choose to be loving, isn't that extraordinary?

If it is a choice that means some will not chose to be loving.

You hardly realize how easy it is, when you have the powers of a God, to have your cake and eat it too.

I don't think you understand what I am talkilng about when I say love others. I am talking about helping people in need. You are talking about a world in which need would not exist. There would be no one to love.


Quote:
How do you get us following the identical spiritual path if you have removed all pain and suffering? Who would we show love to, since there would be no one in need of anything?

You know, there could be people that just pretend to need stuff.

This not immaginable to me. A world in which we are fooled into thinking we are loving.

Evil in the world could just be a decoy, it doesn't need to really exist.

The potential for evil must exist for love to exist.

Maybe we need to feel some pain to be loving. Alright. But some people get way more than their share of that. If all the pain in the world was balanced, maybe I'd concede the point, but it's not the case.

This life is not fair. I tell my eight year old grandson, get over it. Learn to live with it.

The life conditions of some people are nothing short of unfair and the least of things would be for everyone to have equal opportunity from the get-go.

It would be better to get about helping them rather than wishing their problems would go away.


Quote:
So no reason to be loving or concerned because the ones suffering don't matter since they are just robots.

But you don't know that!

I like have a Creator I can trust, that does not lie to me.

You think they are real humans just like you! You don't know it doesn't matter! When you make a computer program, you do simulations before you test it for real, because if there's a bug the consequences could be catastrophical. The same applies: if the Earth is a training ground to allow us to choose to be loving, whenever somebody is unloving, it hurts real people and that is catastrophical. That is why it only makes sense to populate it with robots instead. That way, if somebody is unloving, he didn't truly harm people and we can safely "discard" him (we can correct the bug) because we know that when we put him with real people he'll mess everything up.

Maybe that is what we have now.

Then in the afterlife I guess all real humans who are loving are put together. I'd say it's the divine version of testing, quarantine, damage control, or "don't put all your eggs in the same basket".

If God has done that it would go a long way to explaining all the suffering in this world, as only fooling us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elman
We are in a lot of trouble if God is evil. It is not reasonable that an evil Creator created us with the ability to love others and the knowledge that it was a good thing to do.

Perhaps you need to be able to love to really feel the sting of evil? If there was nothing but evil in the world, perhaps we'd just get used to it.

I don't see getting use to hell.

Anyway, I think that saying God is good or evil is a stretch, if he exists I don't think he cares

If He does not care, why did He create us and why with a knowledge of what it is to be loving and the ability to be loving and know it is good. It is not reasonable an evil Creator would do that.

 

[smog]

Being loving results in happiness and not being miserable. It is probably the only way to happiness.

I think there are other options, but fair enough. In that case, I see happiness as the goal and being loving as the means to attain that objective. Basically, if I ask myself "what if being loving didn't make people happy", well, I don't like that. But when I ask myself "what if everybody could be happy but not loving", I don't see a problem. This means, to me at least, that happiness is the true objective. Perhaps being loving is the only way to achieve happiness, but let's not conflate the goal with the means.

If it is a choice that means some will not chose to be loving.

But God is omniscient. That means he knows, in advance, that person X will not choose to be loving. This means that while A and B are having sex, which would eventually result in the conception of X, God knows X won't choose to be loving. What if God decided that no, after all, he's not going to allow X to exist? He could pre-empt conception.

If God decides to pre-empt all unloving people from even being born, then only people who would choose to be loving will remain. Therefore, there will only be loving people and they will all have chosen to be so.

This is all a consequence of God being omniscient. If he knows in advance the choices people will make, he can filter out everyone who makes the "wrong" choices, before they do them.

I don't think you understand what I am talkilng about when I say love others. I am talking about helping people in need. You are talking about a world in which need would not exist. There would be no one to love.

Need only needs (heh) to appear to exist.

This not immaginable to me. A world in which we are fooled into thinking we are loving.

If you give a dollar to a bum on the street and it turns out later that he was rich, or that he choked on his dollar, or that he was in fact a robot, was your action any less loving? It's the thought that counts. Sure, you were deceived, but you were loving nonetheless. If, later on, God places you in a world with real humans, you will be loving to them.

This life is not fair. I tell my eight year old grandson, get over it. Learn to live with it.

Don't you think it's a problem? Don't you think, sometimes, that somebody up there isn't doing his job properly? Suffering is one thing, unfairness is another.

It would be better to get about helping them rather than wishing their problems would go away.

But why doesn't God get about helping people? He could do much more than we could ever hope to do.

I like have a Creator I can trust, that does not lie to me.

Well, maybe he does lie to you. Or maybe he doesn't. After all, perhaps in paradise all real humans will be together, and it is important for God to be sure that you are loving. Therefore, it truly matters that you are loving to those robots, to show to God that you are worthy of his paradise.

Maybe that is what we have now.

Yeah I ask myself the question sometimes.

If God has done that it would go a long way to explaining all the suffering in this world, as only fooling us.

Fooling is a strong word. I'd rather say he is testing or evaluating us.

I don't see getting use to hell.

I do, and that's why hell doesn't scare me, regardless of if it exists or not (I do think it is a completely ridiculous idea). Perhaps it depends on the individual.

If He does not care, why did He create us and why with a knowledge of what it is to be loving and the ability to be loving and know it is good. It is not reasonable an evil Creator would do that.

A God who does not care is not an evil Creator. It could be a God who enjoys love stories, but also watching wars. Perhaps he does not care about good or evil, only about "beauty", the beauty of a young woman, the beauty of a painting, the beauty of nature, the beauty of men marching to war, the beauty of a perfect crime. I would be that kind of God. I'd watch the show.

Maybe God is neither omniscient nor omnipotent, too. We can't rule out that possibility.

 

[elman]

Originally Posted by elman
Being loving results in happiness and not being miserable. It is probably the only way to happiness.

I think there are other options, but fair enough. In that case, I see happiness as the goal and being loving as the means to attain that objective. Basically, if I ask myself "what if being loving didn't make people happy", well, I don't like that. But when I ask myself "what if everybody could be happy but not loving", I don't see a problem.

I see a problem. It won't work that way.

This means, to me at least, that happiness is the true objective. Perhaps being loving is the only way to achieve happiness, but let's not conflate the goal with the means.

No the goal is to love. One of the consequences of achieving that goal is happiness.

Quote:
If it is a choice that means some will not chose to be loving.

But God is omniscient. That means he knows, in advance, that person X will not choose to be loving. This means that while A and B are having sex, which would eventually result in the conception of X, God knows X won't choose to be loving. What if God decided that no, after all, he's not going to allow X to exist? He could pre-empt conception.

And He would preempt X living and making choices and He would elimanate all the opportunities X provides for others to be loving and to see the consequences of being unloving.

If God decides to pre-empt all unloving people from even being born, then only people who would choose to be loving will remain. Therefore, there will only be loving people and they will all have chosen to be so.

That may be how the next llife is, not this one.

This is all a consequence of God being omniscient. If he knows in advance the choices people will make, he can filter out everyone who makes the "wrong" choices, before they do them.

Yes it is still open for debate that this would result in a mature loving person.


Quote:
I don't think you understand what I am talkilng about when I say love others. I am talking about helping people in need. You are talking about a world in which need would not exist. There would be no one to love.

Need only needs (heh) to appear to exist.

I don't vote for a Creator that fools us.

Quote:
This not immaginable to me. A world in which we are fooled into thinking we are loving.

If you give a dollar to a bum on the street and it turns out later that he was rich, or that he choked on his dollar, or that he was in fact a robot, was your action any less loving? It's the thought that counts. Sure, you were deceived, but you were loving nonetheless. If, later on, God places you in a world with real humans, you will be loving to them.

It would be a better idea to buy the bum a hamburger than give him money.

Quote:
This life is not fair. I tell my eight year old grandson, get over it. Learn to live with it.

Don't you think it's a problem?

Yes it is a problem that we need to learng to deal with in order to mature.

Don't you think, sometimes, that somebody up there isn't doing his job properly? Suffering is one thing, unfairness is another.

Yes. I hope for better in the next world.


Quote:
It would be better to get about helping them rather than wishing their problems would go away.

But why doesn't God get about helping people? He could do much more than we could ever hope to do.

He has got about helping. He created you and gave you the ability to help.


Quote:
I like having a Creator I can trust, that does not lie to me.

Well, maybe he does lie to you. Or maybe he doesn't. After all, perhaps in paradise all real humans will be together, and it is important for God to be sure that you are loving. Therefore, it truly matters that you are loving to those robots, to show to God that you are worthy of his paradise.

Perhaps. I vote for reality and not fake though.


Quote:
Maybe that is what we have now.

Yeah I ask myself the question sometimes.


Quote:
If God has done that it would go a long way to explaining all the suffering in this world, as only fooling us.

Fooling is a strong word. I'd rather say he is testing or evaluating us.

I think He is testing and evaluating us, but I don't think He is deceiving us.


Quote:
I don't see getting use to hell.

I do, and that's why hell doesn't scare me, regardless of if it exists or not (I do think it is a completely ridiculous idea). Perhaps it depends on the individual.

I agree. I don't think there is a hell, other that what we experience in this life and the non existence that may follow this life we fail to be loving to others.

Quote:
If He does not care, why did He create us and why with a knowledge of what it is to be loving and the ability to be loving and know it is good. It is not reasonable an evil Creator would do that.

A God who does not care is not an evil Creator. It could be a God who enjoys love stories, but also watching wars. Perhaps he does not care about good or evil, only about "beauty", the beauty of a young woman, the beauty of a painting, the beauty of nature, the beauty of men marching to war, the beauty of a perfect crime. I would be that kind of God. I'd watch the show.

Sounds like an evil Creator to me.

Maybe God is neither omniscient nor omnipotent, too. We can't rule out that possibility.

True.

 

[Symbrinity]

Smog - re: robotic world

If no one knew the half of the population were actually robots, then how would we know that evil didn't exist? We could still be having this debate right now. What is the difference between real evil and the illusion of evil if we have no means of discerning the difference?

 

[The-Doctor]

THis is a tricky one.

God is like a parent no matter what his children do he will always love them. Much of the evil in this world is down to mankind (the child). If He intervened as the parent everytime something happened that was bad to the child wouldnt that child say "Hey dad can't I be allowed to make my own choices and learn from my own mistakes?"

God loves us no matter what we do but allows us to make our own mistakes. If He constantly intervened how do we learn how do we show that we are worthy to be in His presence when we die?

 

[us38]

THis is a tricky one.

And yet, we've already been over it.

God loves us no matter what we do but allows us to make our own mistakes. If He constantly intervened how do we learn how do we show that we are worthy to be in His presence when we die?

God can magic knowledge into people's head. Parents can't. Thus the analogy is horrible.

 

[Verv]

To be short:

God does take action.

He punishes evil. He rewards good.

What is the catch?

Not in this life.

However, the general worthlessness of this life in compared to our immortal soul is a recurring theme in the Bible, consistent from early Jewish theology to now.

In Ecclesiastes everything, even being a rich, powerful ruler, is said to be 'all vanities amongst vanities,' and to really have nothing. 'Everything turns to dust.'

Christ notes that your riches will rot on Earth, so why build up riches on Earth when you can build up riches in Heaven?

Christ laid down His life in complete certainty of where He was going. It is not hard for him to give up His existence. He knows the futility of it, and due to complete certainty in God & Heaven, dies.

(Christ had no qualms that a murderer was set free and He crucified in his place; why would He? This life is nothing compared to the one He knew was waiting)

You do not see the results of your works on Earth...

Would you say that the Saints were not paid back for their good?

Did the Martyrs die for nothing, thinking of how wretched an existence it was because they were to be executed and tortured... No, not at all. They died anticipating the gates of Heaven.

Christian doctrine is that God metes out justice after death. The pain and torment of Earth is a crucible we pass through to become as Gold and to know the value of Heaven.

 

[phsyxx]

Yeah.......

so getting back to the problem of God...

People that have disagreed with the initial statement have gone on to say things along the lines of "how are we to know the properties of God?"

Well...I am putting forward this query in the context of Christianity, and would appreciate it (if you want to talk of a deity, or creator or something, please specify) if you could see the problems that arise DUE TO CHRISTIAN BELIEFS.

We're not talking Islam here, because quite simply put, the answer would be "It is the will of Allah". Straight-forward and simple, but if you want to question why evil exists in the world and try to reconcile it with a series of various theodicies - please don't tag your thoughts with the word "GOD", because that implies you are talking about and applying the properties of Christian belief about the creator.

Thanks.

 

[phsyxx]

To be short:

God does take action.

He punishes evil. He rewards good.

What is the catch?

Not in this life.

However, the general worthlessness of this life in compared to our immortal soul is a recurring theme in the Bible, consistent from early Jewish theology to now.

In Ecclesiastes everything, even being a rich, powerful ruler, is said to be 'all vanities amongst vanities,' and to really have nothing. 'Everything turns to dust.'

Christ notes that your riches will rot on Earth, so why build up riches on Earth when you can build up riches in Heaven?

Christ laid down His life in complete certainty of where He was going. It is not hard for him to give up His existence. He knows the futility of it, and due to complete certainty in God & Heaven, dies.

(Christ had no qualms that a murderer was set free and He crucified in his place; why would He? This life is nothing compared to the one He knew was waiting)

You do not see the results of your works on Earth...

Would you say that the Saints were not paid back for their good?

Did the Martyrs die for nothing, thinking of how wretched an existence it was because they were to be executed and tortured... No, not at all. They died anticipating the gates of Heaven.

Christian doctrine is that God metes out justice after death. The pain and torment of Earth is a crucible we pass through to become as Gold and to know the value of Heaven.

Please, as great as that is........

we've digressed an extremely long way, and I would rather people address the problem of GOD not EVIL.

If God is outside of time - then surely he's already acted, as time does not occur, so - like a book, you are the words writing themselves out - but GOD is the author, and already has a finished copy.

He can put his finger on every page, one of which you are on (maybe more), but you cannot see the other pages.

So if God chooses to intervene - surely it would have already happened, because an all-knowing and all-powerful God knows what is going to happen, and therefore can make the best possible present - ala his omnipotence.



What also bugs me is the Christian mentality of a reward system.
Do Good - go to heaven
Do Bad - go to hell.

The reward you receive as a consequence of your actions should therefore surely be proportionate.

But it's not.
It's eternal.
But if GOD exists OUTSIDE of time, then this idea of eternity cannot apply to Heaven.

So what is Heaven and Hell?
An instant?
A total perception of pleasure/pure bliss or pure pain/suffering.


And why does an all-loving God send his own creation, mastered by his own hand - to a place to suffer?

Isn't that a little bit odd?

 

[Martin^^]

The existence of evil is necessary for us to have free will, in the moral sense. If evil did not exist, there would be no way for us to choose good, thereby developing as moral beings.
Without free will, we would indeed be robots.
In order to give us free will, God has to sacrifice omnipotence, in the sense that he gives us power to control some things which occur in the universe. Such a God could still be all-powerful, since he would have ultimate control but choose not to exercise it.
The evil in the world exists as a result of human choices.

 

[phsyxx]

The existence of evil is necessary for us to have free will, in the moral sense. If evil did not exist, there would be no way for us to choose good, thereby developing as moral beings.
Without free will, we would indeed be robots.
In order to give us free will, God has to sacrifice omnipotence, in the sense that he gives us power to control some things which occur in the universe. Such a God could still be all-powerful, since he would have ultimate control but choose not to exercise it.
The evil in the world exists as a result of human choices.

"such a God could still be all-powerful...but choose not to exercise it."


That would imply that God is not benevolent as Christianity claims.


PLUS-
you believe somewhere in you that you have free will.
Well, ok, I decided not to be conceived, not to be born, not ever to eat or go to the toilet, nor to drink or breathe.


I give up on these, but act my free will out in the world about me.

Choosing between the words "OK" and "cancel" is not free choice, it is not free will.
All you can do is choose between options already present.
For example, FLYING is not an option present. Therefore I cannot choose it. Therefore I am not free.


An all-powerful God could only ever be all-powerful if all beings actions' were determined.
Einstein: "God does not play dice".

The point is, Chrisitianity and it's belief-system is at odds with the state of the world, and long-winded illogical arguments have to made using spuriously abstract concepts such as "atonement" and "afterlife"(s) to defend the beliefs in the face of contradictory evidence.

The problem of the deity of Christianity.
That is the problem of GOD.

 

[phsyxx]

The existence of evil is necessary for us to have free will, in the moral sense.

I'll respond more directly to your post now -

Tell me - in a world where there is more than one individual, is there a way both of these creatures can attain complete contentment when there are only enough resources and space to sustain one of them?

What is evil here?
The choice of one to kill the other?
The choice of one to have more?
To dominate? To cause the other one to suffer?
The selfishness of either when they cannot co-operate perfectly?



Or is it that the land in which they live is not perfect?
I'm sorry - although I myself do not accept this taking for granted the concept of "evil" as a solid and definite existence - I find it hard , if we accept it exists - that it comes from anywhere but God.

"God gives us freedom"

Ok - let me define freedom for you, incase it's been warped somewhat in an attempt to reconcile the problem of Evil.

Freedom: unrestricted, unconfined or unfettered.

This can be applied to the will of the individual.

EXAMPLE: I am free. I have freewill, ordained by God. Therefore I am free, unconfined, unrestricted, able to fly.


No. I'm afraid that isn't happening. God won't stop gravity to make sure you land safely on Canaan's side. You'll go smack into the water when you jump from the bridge. And anyway -- it doesn't matter, you can fly anyway!!!