"Solutions" to the Problem of Evil

[sol invictus]

I'd like to make a list of all the solutions to the problem of evil that have been proposed over the years. I'm not a theologian or particularly well read in philosophy, so I'm sure there are many I don't know, and I'm curious to find out what they are. I mainly have the Judeo/Christian tradition in mind, but if this problem has been discussed in other religious traditions it would be interesting to hear about.

To keep this from turning into this into yet another fruitless debate on religion versus atheism, please keep your posts concise and focussed on specific proposed solutions and the objections to them.

To define the problem, here's the most concise statement of the problem of evil I've seen (Epicurus as quoted by Hume):

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent.

Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent.

Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

To summarize; if god is both omnipotent and good, why is there evil in the world?

Proposed solutions:

1) Humans cannot understand the mind of god, so we can't hope for an answer to this question.

Objection: if we can't understand the mind of god, how can we know he's "good"? What would it even mean to ascribe a human trait like goodness to a being we cannot even ask the most basic questions about? If this is the solution, god cannot be said to be "good", and why should we worship such an incomprehensible being?

2) This is the best of all possible worlds (Leibniz, 1710).

Objection: I didn't know crack had been invented already in the early 18th century! Seriously, see 5).

3) God is in a struggle with the devil, and it is the devil that brings evil.

Objection: if god cannot defeat the devil, god is not omnipotent.

4) Free will means that our lives are not predestined; in particular we must be allowed to choose between good and evil so as to determine our virtue and whether we go to heaven or hell.

Objection: if god is truly omnipotent, he must know what we will choose, and then we're back to square one. Also, if the world is simply one giant sorting machine to send good people to heaven and bad people to eternal torment, while making innocents suffer, can the creator of such a monstrous contraption really be considered "good"?

5) There is no evil in the world.

Objection: if you don't think torturing babies and raping children is evil, please don't post in this thread.

6) Good is only good by contrast to evil, and variety makes for a better world than would otherwise be possible (Augustine?).

Objection: see 5) and 2).

More?

[Henners]

A definition of 'evil' might be a necessary prerequisite.

[sol invictus]

A definition of 'evil' might be a necessary prerequisite.

I don't think we need that.

We simply need to agree that evil exists in our world and that good is opposed to evil. See 5) above.

[Henners]

I don't think we need that.

We simply need to agree that evil exists in our world and that good is opposed to evil. See 5) above.

Really.

So if some religious nut half way around the world concludes that you and I are both evil, that means that we are?

Fair enough.

Somebody should pass the word on to the 7/7 and 9/11 victims.

[Zarathustra]

Evil or Good are not concepts that need invoke any sort of higher authority to justify them, rather they are simply sets of behaviors that either promote or disrupt a specific synergistic model, in this case, a society.

On this basis, I must reject the crux of the original question, as both concepts only exist within the confines of the human psyche.
Perhaps the more succinct question that should be asked is:
Which is the best way to promote specific cultural behaviors which will allow the most benefit in a human society?

[Mashuna]

Objection: if god is truly omnipotent, he must know what we will choose, and then we're back to square one. Also, if the world is simply one giant sorting machine to send good people to heaven and bad people to eternal torment, while making innocents suffer, can the creator of such a monstrous contraption really be considered "good"?


There are a number of threads trying to define free will, and a definition of 'truly omnipotent' may well lead this objection off into that area. I believe that there are issues with trying to come up with a coherent definition of omnipotence and/or omniscience.

[Henners]

Is it ever the case that individuals perceive themselves as being evil and choose to conduct themselves in a manner which is evil with the deliberate intention of being evil.

Or is it always someone else who has the luxury of being able to point and condemn.

[Skeptic Guy]

Sorry, you need to define "evil".

Do you mean something supernatural? Like with demons and such? No such thing there so no evil.

Do you mean when bad things happen like cancer? That's not evil, but one of the things that might happen to the human body. Tragic, but hardly evil.

Or do you mean when people do bad things to other people? Is that evil? Or is it something in the brain chemistry that is different than most of us that causes these people to act in socially unacceptable ways? I'm not sure if that is evil or if it is just the way it works.

Let's agree on what evil is.

[Wowbagger]

A definition of 'evil' might be a necessary prerequisite.
I am inclined to think a specific definition is not necessary. Everyone has their own, personal views of what constitutes evil and not, and that is good enough.
For there to be any evil in the world, no matter what your views of it are, how would we resolve the 'problem'?

My own answer: God is either impotent or non-existent. If He exists, then He certainly ain't omnipotent. And if he doesn't, there is no more problem to resolve.

[Skeptic Guy]

But if he is impotent, is he a god? It could describe me too.

And if the concept of "evil" is so subjective, then how you determine that there is evil? One person's evil is another person's good time...or so I've been told.

[Leicontis]

My solution expands on #4 - omnipotence means that God could know everything if He so chose. To say that He must know everything is to say that He is not able to avoid knowing everything, which would be contradictory to the concept of omnipotence. Thus, free will can actually be defined as God not looking ahead to see what happens next, thus permitting freedom of choice.

So, given the assumptions of evil existing in this world, and of a good omnipotent deific being, the only logical solution I can see would be said being intentionally holding back its perception in order to allow the exercise of free will.

[Darth Rotor]

"Solutions" to the Problem of Evil
Some try the seven percent solution, which of course holds evils of its own. ;)

DR

[Marquis de Carabas]

According to the great philosopher Baum, evil is water-soluble.

[Wowbagger]

But if he is impotent, is he a god? It could describe me too. Perhaps not in the strictest of Judeo/Christian sense. But, if there is going to be a God*, there is no reason to limit its properties to such high degrees.

Maybe God, if He exists*, would merely be an entitly more powerful than all other entities, not all-powerful.

Quite frankly, I find the very idea that we have free-will contradicts "omnipotent". If we have the power to do what we want, that means we have some power outside God's control.

(*something I do find rather unlikely, quite frankly, but for the sake of argument I shall not get into that any further.)

And if the concept of "evil" is so subjective, then how you determine that there is evil? One person's evil is another person's good time...or so I've been told. It doesn't matter what you think is evil. If you agree that there is evil, (of any sort), in the world, then you have to account for that, if you are going to believe in an "omni-x3" God.

If you don't think there is any evil in the world**, then that would resolve the problem for you.

(**realistically, is there really anyone like that?)

[bokonon]

And if the concept of "evil" is so subjective, then how you determine that there is evil? One person's evil is another person's good time...or so I've been told.
I don't think being choked to death by glassy splinters of volcanic ash is anyone's idea of a good time, nor is it a consequence of anyone's exercise of free will. If "evil" requires a conscious agent, such events may not qualify as evil, but they're certainly "bad" things which an omniscient and omnipotent being could prevent, if he was good and real enough to do so.

[sol invictus]

My solution expands on #4 - omnipotence means that God could know everything if He so chose. To say that He must know everything is to say that He is not able to avoid knowing everything, which would be contradictory to the concept of omnipotence. Thus, free will can actually be defined as God not looking ahead to see what happens next, thus permitting freedom of choice.


Would such a god be good? One that allows billions of evil people to be born, sin, and suffer eternal torment, when he could stop all that simply by looking ahead (and preventing them from being born)? That sounds like the action of a horribly evil entity to me, not a good and merciful god.

As for your logical contradiction, there are a number of problems like that with the concept of omnipotence. Can god create a weight so heavy he cannot lift it? If yes, he can't do everything, if no, he can't do everything. So omnipotence is problematic in itself. Nonetheless it seems to be central to Christian conception of god.

[Silentknight]

It's typically only certain Christians who assert that God is omniplex. In Jewish beliefs, they are able to admit that Yahweh can be a real jerk when he wants to be. If you limit the definition to just one omni- term, rather than trying to include them all at once, it's possible to avoid a contradiction.
Can god create a weight so heavy he cannot lift it?
The funny thing is that the answer to this question is actually no. In order to lift something, the lifting force must exceed the weight of the object. By definition, infinity cannot be greater than infinity. Granted that infinity can't be less than infinity either, but the creation occurs antecedent to the lifting. :D

[Beerina]

A definition of 'evil' might be a necessary prerequisite.

Including but not limited to: soddomizing your own 8 day old daughter such that her guts hemorrhage and she dies, and, on the way to the hospital, you assault the mother, or kidnapping a 9 year old girl and raping her, then wrapping her in plastic and giving her a teddy bear to comfort her as you bury her alive.

I'll leave it to laywers to gin up a technical definition.

[Darth Rotor]

Including but not limited to: soddomizing your own 8 day old daughter such that her guts hemorrhage and she dies, and, on the way to the hospital, you assault the mother, or kidnapping a 9 year old girl and raping her, then wrapping her in plastic and giving her a teddy bear to comfort her as you bury her alive.
Sounds like evil to me.

(The old pornography definition seems to be at work here: "I know it when I see it." :cool: )

DR

[Beerina]

It's typically only certain Christians who assert that God is omniplex. In Jewish beliefs, they are able to admit that Yahweh can be a real jerk when he wants to be. If you limit the definition to just one omni- term, rather than trying to include them all at once, it's possible to avoid a contradiction.

True, part of the point of Job was God isn't even bound by his own rules of how we should behave ethically.

But if God isn't good...whence the ethical imperative to worship him?

Remember this is all in a long-term historical context of one culture saying, "My god can do X", and the next saying, "Mine is better as he can do Y as well." This process continues until a god is omnipotent and omniscient. But wait! There's one god better. One that's omnibenevolent as well.

But wait! Doesn't that contradict both the world you see around you, and the behavior of this god as described in your very own Old Testament?

"Yes, on the surface. But it really doesn't." Why? "It's a mystery, yeah, that's the ticket!"

[Hyver]

How to deal with the problem of evil

1. Demand a definition of omnipotence.

1a. If the definition of omnipotence permits god to operate outside the bounds of logic you are done. Under such a definition god is immune to logical contradictions and as such is immune to the problem of evil. (god simply wills that there be evil and also wills that he remain perfectly good. done and done)

1b. if the definition of omnipotence does not permit god to operate outside the bounds of logic then proceed to 2

2. Assert that the three statements (God is perfectly good, God is omni-x, Evil exists) do not form a contradiction under our new definition of omnipotence without the addition of some other premise (such as a god of this nature not would not create evil, or something like this)
3. deny the premise inserted in 2.

I don't like to defend religion any more than anyone else here, but I don't think that the problem of evil is a very useful tool in trying to prove the non-existence of god. It is, however, very useful in showing the absurdity of hell as christians generally perceive it (god made people knowing full well that essentially all of them would spend eternity being tortured, sounds like a real good god to me.)

[Henners]

Including but not limited to: soddomizing your own 8 day old daughter such that her guts hemorrhage and she dies, and, on the way to the hospital, you assault the mother, or kidnapping a 9 year old girl and raping her, then wrapping her in plastic and giving her a teddy bear to comfort her as you bury her alive.

I'll leave it to laywers to gin up a technical definition.

Those are not definitions, but an examples.

The plural of "example" is not "definition".

[Henners]

Including but not limited to: soddomizing your own 8 day old daughter such that her guts hemorrhage and she dies, and, on the way to the hospital, you assault the mother, or kidnapping a 9 year old girl and raping her, then wrapping her in plastic and giving her a teddy bear to comfort her as you bury her alive.

I'll leave it to laywers to gin up a technical definition.

Those are examples, not a definition.

If you want to define something by compiling an exhaustive list of every possible example, you will be at it for a very long time, and will get it wrong into the bargain.

The plural of "example" is not "definition".

[plumjam]

A good definition of evil, IMO:

http://www.avatarmeherbaba.org/erics/goodevil.html

[danielk]

Personally, I would go for the explanation that both good and evil are necessary in the sense that they are opposite faces of the same coin. Without evil you wouldn't know the difference between the two. It isn't an argument I have heard theists use, but it would make the most sense to me. There are caveats, though. Incidentally, I've written a lengthy blog reply (http://leavingeden.wordpress.com/2007/09/07/john-piper/#comment-238) over at Leaving Eden on the subject, if anyone is interested in reading my brain dumps. :)

[Beerina]

Those are examples, not a definition.

If you want to define something by compiling an exhaustive list of every possible example, you will be at it for a very long time, and will get it wrong into the bargain.

The plural of "example" is not "definition".

WHOOSH!

[Beerina]

Personally, I would go for the explanation that both good and evil are necessary in the sense that they are opposite faces of the same coin. Without evil you wouldn't know the difference between the two. It isn't an argument I have heard theists use, but it would make the most sense to me. There are caveats, though. Incidentally, I've written a lengthy blog reply (http://leavingeden.wordpress.com/2007/09/07/john-piper/#comment-238) over at Leaving Eden on the subject, if anyone is interested in reading my brain dumps. :)

That may be the case (I don't think so, but for the sake of argument let's say it is.) That's fine. But do we really need pain to be so damned painful? Do we need babies dying by having their guts ripped open by some savage's cock?

Answer: No, we don't. Therfore god is not, at least, simultaneously perfectly good and fully competent.

[danielk]

That may be the case (I don't think so, but for the sake of argument let's say it is.) That's fine. But do we really need pain to be so damned painful? Do we need babies dying by having their guts ripped open by some savage's cock?

Answer: No, we don't. Therfore god is not, at least, simultaneously perfectly good and fully competent.
I think as soon as you allow the coin faces argument, the actual scale is pretty much arbitrary. If the greatest evil we ever experienced were a slap in the face, it would just be that: the greatest evil act we ever experienced.

[Furi]

A good solution to the Evil God idea, is to disband religions that promote their entities as a force for good/evil, that way evil acts can be blamed on the person who committed the act, and not gods, religions, pixies (the vicious evil :talk034:) etc. with no big ceiling cat to absolve them or to lay blame on, evil people would be recognised for what they are.

[Beerina]

I think as soon as you allow the coin faces argument, the actual scale is pretty much arbitrary. If the greatest evil we ever experienced were a slap in the face, it would just be that: the greatest evil act we ever experienced.

The pain of having your body ripped open is absolutely bad on a real, absolute scale. That people could get slapped, or that people could, in theory, experience even worse pain than that doesn't make it not bad.

I could conceive of whinebags complaining in a universe where a slap was the worst it got. I can also conceive of people in a worse universe saying we have it easy. And we do -- this is better than that. But that doesn't mean it's acceptable.

And I would further submit that a universe with slaps would be unethical of a place to put someone without their permission, too, even though the absolute unpleasantness may be rather mild.

[danielk]

The pain of having your body ripped open is absolutely bad on a real, absolute scale. That people could get slapped, or that people could, in theory, experience even worse pain than that doesn't make it not bad.
But as I view it, the idea that good and evil are opposite poles on a scale means that it is simply not meaningful to speak of "good" when there is no "evil". It's like the difference between ground potential and +12V in a circuit. The poles are simply not meaningful on their own; what matters is the difference in potential between them. This reasoning even matches one aspect of biblical legend: eating the apple gave humans knowledge of good and evil.

However, the same line of thought also leads me to the conclusion that it is meaningless to speak of eternal life. I suppose that's why I haven't heard many theists use the argument. :)

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Actually, I am working on a Buddhist response to the problem of evil. First of all, I view it more as the problem of unjust suffering. Nirvana is the other side of Samsara. And dukkha is one of the four marks of existance. Really, god doesn't want us to suffer, he wants us to become enlightened. Liberation and suffering are both our own reactions to the world.

(Though you really can't mix in too many Buddhist principles, becuase they contradict Christianity when it comes to the afterlife, gods, souls, etc.)

[V23]

Here's an idea.

God doesn't want to interfere because in order to do so on a grand scale, it would effect a design that he is trying to cause.

What if God has realized in his grand intelligence that unless his creation experiences complete freewill, unhindered by anything more than philosophical aspects of morality, they will not grow to become like him, eventually?

Perhaps, in God's mind, the true evil is not letting mankind find it's own way . . .

[Skeptic Guy]

Perhaps not in the strictest of Judeo/Christian sense. But, if there is going to be a God*, there is no reason to limit its properties to such high degrees.

Maybe God, if He exists*, would merely be an entitly more powerful than all other entities, not all-powerful.

Quite frankly, I find the very idea that we have free-will contradicts "omnipotent". If we have the power to do what we want, that means we have some power outside God's control.

(*something I do find rather unlikely, quite frankly, but for the sake of argument I shall not get into that any further.)

It doesn't matter what you think is evil. If you agree that there is evil, (of any sort), in the world, then you have to account for that, if you are going to believe in an "omni-x3" God.

If you don't think there is any evil in the world**, then that would resolve the problem for you.

(**realistically, is there really anyone like that?)

I believe there is "evil", but only in the sense that there are mental disorders and behaviors that could be described as "evil". But the minute you start tying that to a god it takes on a supernatural aspect, IMO. There are evil people in the world that do horrific things (such as in Beerina's post) but they are evil because they are deranged or mentally ill, no? There has to be something in the chemical or biological make-up of that individual that causes him to want to do the things he does.

I don't think being choked to death by glassy splinters of volcanic ash is anyone's idea of a good time, nor is it a consequence of anyone's exercise of free will. If "evil" requires a conscious agent, such events may not qualify as evil, but they're certainly "bad" things which an omniscient and omnipotent being could prevent, if he was good and real enough to do so.

I don't think that you could describe an inanimate object like a volcano or volcanic ash as "evil". Those things are part of the natural world and are neither "evil" or "good". They just "are", but could be described as "bad" and as such, a benevolent god should prevent. The OP seems to try to justify the concept of "evil" with the existence of a god, which, IMO, is futile.

Here's an idea.

God doesn't want to interfere because in order to do so on a grand scale, it would effect a design that he is trying to cause.

What if God has realized in his grand intelligence that unless his creation experiences complete freewill, unhindered by anything more than philosophical aspects of morality, they will not grow to become like him, eventually?

Perhaps, in God's mind, the true evil is not letting mankind find it's own way . . .

Sort of like the "Prime Directive". I believe that would only make sense in Star Trek.

[V23]

Sort of like the "Prime Directive". I believe that would only make sense in Star Trek.

Something like that. But think about it. The one thing that the Epicurus argument does not adress is, WHY?

What if there is a SPECIFIC reason that God wouldn't interfere. It might be as simple as God has decided that if mankind is going to learn, it can only do so without his/her interference. I think that maybe God has figured out that if HE/SHE gives mandates to mankind vs. letting them figure it out on their own, they aren't ever going to EVOLVE.

Look at it as a parent knowing that while, yes, you need to interfere occasionally, to make sure your child doesn't end up killing themselves, the worst possible mistake you can make is doing everything for them.

And when you do interfere, (I am a parent and I have come to realize this), you need to use a bit of a soft touch. Never let them know it wasn't their idea to not do something. Convince them they were all on their own. (They aren't, just dont let them know it).

Just an idea . . .

[PAC]

Can god create a weight so heavy he cannot lift it?

Message to sol invictus. When quoting George Carlin at least give him credit for his words.

[blobru]

[Theodicy 11.2-b/q-sol'n]

"The Problem of Evil Solved!"

With only a few minor tweaks to orthodox theology.
Call it BLISM. Tenets:

God allows evil as proof He doesn't exist.

This is because He doesn't want us to believe in Him.

He created us to ask questions like "Why is there Evil?" and "How can we fight this evil?"

He worried if we believed in Him, we would get lazy and pray for Him to fight evil for us, and never learn to fight it on our own.

Above all else, God wants us to trust ourselves, grow up, and not worship Him.

God hates faith.

Heaven is for people who don't believe in it.

Believers go to whatever hell they believed non-believers would go to... (a.k.a. Just Deserts! -- an uproarious realitygameshow on HVNtv).

Victims of evil are forgiven the sin of belief (subject to internal review).

Deists? -- cubicle and abacus to help God with the papyruswork.

Agnostics? -- summer in heaven, winter in hell.

Blist commandments 0 - ∞: "Do not believe in Me."

(Too bad. I believe I could.) :dio:

Blist thought for today: Every religious text is true if you insert "not" in the middle of every sentence.

[V23]

[QUOTE=blobru;3258153][Theodicy 11.2-b/q-sol'n]

Blist commandments 0 - ∞: "Do not believe in Me."

(Too bad. I believe I could.) :dio:

We are moving into the relm of invisable dragons in the garage aren't we?

[Robin]

Essentially there are two problems of evil, the problem of human evil and the problem of natural evil.

Human evil is most commonly answered by pointing out that it is not God doing, it, merely God allowing free will and without free will we would not be fully human. Of course there is a lot more to be said about this one.

The second is natural evil, for example why does God allow a little child to suffer from cancer when he could presumably prevent it.

The general answer is that there is some reason why this must be so, but we are unable to understand it, rather like a doctor administering the suffering of chemotherapy to a child, who may not understand that this suffering is preventing a greater evil. Again this reasoning leads to problems.

These have all been debated to death here and elsewhere in the past.

It is all fun but quite pointless, since the so-called problem of evil is not usually the reason atheists do not believe in God. It is more commonly the absence of evidence for the existence of God that leads to atheism.

[vIQleS]

But as I view it, the idea that good and evil are opposite poles on a scale means that it is simply not meaningful to speak of "good" when there is no "evil". It's like the difference between ground potential and +12V in a circuit. The poles are simply not meaningful on their own; what matters is the difference in potential between them. This reasoning even matches one aspect of biblical legend: eating the apple gave humans knowledge of good and evil.

However, the same line of thought also leads me to the conclusion that it is meaningless to speak of eternal life. I suppose that's why I haven't heard many theists use the argument. :)

This is pretty much the argument i used to use when i was a xian. There can be no good if there is no evil to compare it with.

Therefor: evil serves a purpose - god allows evil to exist because it fits his overall plan - the precise nature of which we are not able to comprehend. This way God can still be defined as good (or possibly above morality) even if he allows evil to happen.

The next conclusion i drew was this:



God doesn't want to interfere because in order to do so on a grand scale, it would effect a design that he is trying to cause.

What if God has realized in his grand intelligence that unless his creation experiences complete freewill, unhindered by anything more than philosophical aspects of morality, they will not grow to become like him, eventually?

Perhaps, in God's mind, the true evil is not letting mankind find it's own way . . .

Basically that god dosen't intervene in the affairs of mortals, that he set things in motion and then stepped back. This lead me eventually to the conclusion that if god does exist he might as well not - because what the hell use is he?... This enabled me to accept the possiblity that there is no god, and listen to the arguments presented...

So there might be something to your theory that this is a bad argument for theists to make... :-D

[boloboffin]

My solution expands on #4 - omnipotence means that God could know everything if He so chose. To say that He must know everything is to say that He is not able to avoid knowing everything, which would be contradictory to the concept of omnipotence. Thus, free will can actually be defined as God not looking ahead to see what happens next, thus permitting freedom of choice.

So, given the assumptions of evil existing in this world, and of a good omnipotent deific being, the only logical solution I can see would be said being intentionally holding back its perception in order to allow the exercise of free will.

Another problem here: If God is hindering foreknowledge to allow free will, then God is willfully blind to the best possible course of action in any given situation. God could be mistaken and could be leading people into greater harm as a result. God is open to the charge not only of being unable to prevent evil but possibly to be producing even more than if God had kept omniscience.

Such a being is not worthy of being worshipped as God.

[sol invictus]

Can god create a weight so heavy he cannot lift it?

Message to sol invictus. When quoting George Carlin at least give him credit for his words.

I can only assume you're a comedian...

Essentially there are two problems of evil, the problem of human evil and the problem of natural evil.

Human evil is most commonly answered by pointing out that it is not God doing, it, merely God allowing free will and without free will we would not be fully human. Of course there is a lot more to be said about this one.

But it is god that created people, so god is the cause. Anyway, this is #4 (existence of free will implies evil must be allowed).

The second is natural evil, for example why does God allow a little child to suffer from cancer when he could presumably prevent it.

The general answer is that there is some reason why this must be so, but we are unable to understand it, rather like a doctor administering the suffering of chemotherapy to a child, who may not understand that this suffering is preventing a greater evil. Again this reasoning leads to problems.

This seems to be a combination of best of all possible worlds (#2) with cannot understand the mind of god (#1).

I'm surprised no one has yet come up with any solutions that weren't on my list - did I really hit all of them? Surely 2,000 years of Christian theology has done better than that?

[V23]

Another problem here: If God is hindering foreknowledge to allow free will, then God is willfully blind to the best possible course of action in any given situation. God could be mistaken and could be leading people into greater harm as a result. God is open to the charge not only of being unable to prevent evil but possibly to be producing even more than if God had kept omniscience.

Such a being is not worthy of being worshipped as God.

Again, I think that we are missing specific intent. There maybe a very good reason to either stay out of mortal affairs, or perhaps nudge only when needed and leaving no trace of his/her help.

Basically that god dosen't intervene in the affairs of mortals, that he set things in motion and then stepped back. This lead me eventually to the conclusion that if god does exist he might as well not - because what the hell use is he?... This enabled me to accept the possiblity that there is no god, and listen to the arguments presented...

So there might be something to your theory that this is a bad argument for theists to make... :-D

Thats why i mentioned the invisable dragon in my garage. But again, the point I was trying to make is that an omnipresent god, who had a reason to not interfere directly, would certainally have the ability to do things and leave no trace.

[bruto]

Here's an idea.

God doesn't want to interfere because in order to do so on a grand scale, it would effect a design that he is trying to cause.

What if God has realized in his grand intelligence that unless his creation experiences complete freewill, unhindered by anything more than philosophical aspects of morality, they will not grow to become like him, eventually?

Perhaps, in God's mind, the true evil is not letting mankind find it's own way . . .

For that to make sense, some assumptions would appear to be required:

first, that that goal (mankind growing to be like God) has some virtue or goodness to it, that justifies the process. Looked at as a whole, it seems pretty circular and pointless. I'm quite willing to accept that the entire universe is pointless without attributing that to God's act of self-gratification.

Second, that despite his essential non-involvement in the affairs of the world, evil in the world is defined by what God thinks, rather than what happens in the context of the world. Why should we consider the unstated, unknown plan of an inaccessible God to be relevant to our affairs?

Third, that he could not have accomplished the goal in any better way (i.e. that this really is the best of all possible worlds.

[V23]

For that to make sense, some assumptions would appear to be required:

first, that that goal (mankind growing to be like God) has some virtue or goodness to it, that justifies the process. Looked at as a whole, it seems pretty circular and pointless. I'm quite willing to accept that the entire universe is pointless without attributing that to God's act of self-gratification.

Second, that despite his essential non-involvement in the affairs of the world, evil in the world is defined by what God thinks, rather than what happens in the context of the world. Why should we consider the unstated, unknown plan of an inaccessible God to be relevant to our affairs?

Third, that he could not have accomplished the goal in any better way (i.e. that this really is the best of all possible worlds.

As to your first point. I don't see why we have to drag morality into it. The reason could be something as simple as procreation.

Second, again, morality need not apply here either. I submitt that the God I am describing had either no hand in whatever biblical/religious texts that you might mention, or very little. In my minds eye, the idea of his creation becoming something totally diffrent but still valid might be exactly what he/she/it wants.

And to your third point. I dont see any possible way to create a free thinking sentient being that is just like it's creator unless you do exactly what I am mentioning. Simply put, anything else would be a robot following the orders and parameters that you set for it.

Lets suppose that you are a computer programer working on AI, "Artifical Inteligence". Now let me ask you a question. Which would be better, a construct that you have programed and written code for that mimics life and intelligence, or a construct that forces a highly adaptable system to program it's self, write its own code, and by trail and error become truly sentient?

[Robin]

But it is god that created people, so god is the cause. Anyway, this is #4 (existence of free will implies evil must be allowed).
Not quite, you cast this as some sort of sorting algorithm for determining ultimate destination. This argument says that free will is a good in it's own right, so God might be ultimately responsible for the evil that comes about due to free will, but would be more evil if he did not allow free will at all.
This seems to be a combination of best of all possible worlds (#2) with cannot understand the mind of god (#1).
Again, not quite, this argument does not say it is the best of all possible worlds, it says that this was the world God created for a specific reason, that reason we do not yet know.

And also does not say that we cannot understand the reason, it says we do not understand the reasons. The idea is that on reaching paradise the scales will drop away from our eyes and we will understand why it all had to be.
I'm surprised no one has yet come up with any solutions that weren't on my list - did I really hit all of them? Surely 2,000 years of Christian theology has done better than that?
Christian theology has done a little better than your list suggests, you have a rather cartoony straw-man version of those arguments.

[boloboffin]

Again, I think that we are missing specific intent. There maybe a very good reason to either stay out of mortal affairs, or perhaps nudge only when needed and leaving no trace of his/her help.

I was responding to a specific argument. Nevertheless, God can intend the best in everything, but if God doesn't know the final result of actions on earth, God could be wrong.

There may be a very good reason why God only stays out or nudges. There may be very evil reasons why God does the same. The state of affairs on earth gives me no reason to give God the benefit of the doubt.

[V23]

point taken . . . I see your view.

But please keep in mind that I might see the world's affairs diffrently . . .

[sol invictus]

Not quite, you cast this as some sort of sorting algorithm for determining ultimate destination. This argument says that free will is a good in it's own right, so God might be ultimately responsible for the evil that comes about due to free will, but would be more evil if he did not allow free will at all.

Yes, OK. That sounds like Augustine's argument, as far as I can recall what it was (I read City of God ages ago). But for that to work, we would need to believe that the exercise of free will is somehow an enormous good, so good it overwhelms the suffering of all those poor children and justifies all the evil in the world.

Not an unattractive idea, but not one that sounds much like standard Christian dogma. And what is the logic behind it? Why believe that and not something else?

Again, not quite, this argument does not say it is the best of all possible worlds, it says that this was the world God created for a specific reason, that reason we do not yet know.

Fine, so it's pure #1. If we cannot or do not understand this, then we cannot say with any conviction that god is good. In fact we can argue much more convincingly that god is evil.

Christian theology has done a little better than your list suggests, you have a rather cartoony straw-man version of those arguments.

OK, probably. Can you explain a little further how it has done better?

[Henners]

OK.

We seem to have got this far without a definition, so this is my suggestion.

There is no such thing as "evil". There is "poeple". Some people are damaged in one way or another and that damage affects their behaviour.

One of the reasons for the damage is that some people are abnormal = not normal = stuck in the tail end of the normal distribution curve.

God doesn't come into it because (a) He is not responsible for people and (b) All the evidence suggests that he is a figment of human imaginations.

[m_huber]

Answer to the problem of evil: God enjoys evil.

We're all part of God's ant-farm.

[blobru]

[Theodicy 11.2-b/q-sol'n]

Blist commandments 0 - ∞: "Do not believe in Me."

(Too bad. I believe I could.) :dio:

We are moving into the relm of invisable dragons in the garage aren't we?

Moving into... :confused: wasn't Sagan's point whenever we talk about religion, we are already there?

But as apologetic, clearly Blism has more power: solves the problem of evil and counters Pascal's Wager in one fell swoop (let's see the invisible dragon in the garage do that!) The only problem with Blism is the temptation to believe in it and thereby break all its commandments.

[sol invictus]

5) There is no evil in the world.

Objection: if you don't think torturing babies and raping children is evil, please don't post in this thread.


There is no such thing as "evil".

Please.

[Henners]

Please.

Suppose an individual who has behaved in a way that you categorise as evil can be shown to have a curable mental illness.

Where did the "evil" come from.

There is no evil. There is just people.

[bruto]

As to your first point. I don't see why we have to drag morality into it. The reason could be something as simple as procreation.

Second, again, morality need not apply here either. I submitt that the God I am describing had either no hand in whatever biblical/religious texts that you might mention, or very little. In my minds eye, the idea of his creation becoming something totally diffrent but still valid might be exactly what he/she/it wants.How can you not drag morality into a discussion of evil? I may have been wrong in assuming that the premise of this God is that he's "good" as God is generally defined to be, and that your argument was addressed to the basic question of how a "good" god can allow evil? If not, what is the discussion really about? But good or bad, why should we care what God's plan is, or what he wants? If, as you suggest, the holy texts are spurious, and we have actually no idea what God wants, why should we bother to guess?

And to your third point. I dont see any possible way to create a free thinking sentient being that is just like it's creator unless you do exactly what I am mentioning. Simply put, anything else would be a robot following the orders and parameters that you set for it.I agree on that, but again, you're the one who suggested the plan was for mankind to "grow to be like him." If that's the whole of the plan, it seems pretty self-indulgent. Actually it's hard to think of a really good motive for divine creation, isn't it?

Lets suppose that you are a computer programer working on AI, "Artifical Inteligence". Now let me ask you a question. Which would be better, a construct that you have programed and written code for that mimics life and intelligence, or a construct that forces a highly adaptable system to program it's self, write its own code, and by trail and error become truly sentient?Better for whom? It might well be more of a success to achieve real sentience, but not necessarily more useful, depending on the purpose of the experiment, and not necessarily more "good," depending on the planned use and fate of the entity that is becoming sentient. And let's imagine for the moment that you are a programmer's construct, on the way to becoming fully sentient, programming yourself without intervention. What is the relevance to you of the programmer's intent?

[sol invictus]

Suppose an individual who has behaved in a way that you categorise as evil can be shown to have a curable mental illness.


First of all, it should be blindingly obvious that it is not the case that everyone that commits evil acts has a curable mental illness.

Secondly, even if you refuse to recognize that, simply replace "problem of evil" with "problem of curable mental illnesses". Why did a good god allow such people to exist? Back to square one.

Which is why a definition of evil is not necessary for this debate.

[Henners]

First of all, it should be blindingly obvious that it is not the case that everyone that commits evil acts has a curable mental illness.

Perhaps it should be blindingly obvious. I had not considered that as a possibility until you mentioned it. However, I merely wanted you to consider that case. Of course you don't need to if you don't want to.

Perhaps a more relevant case to consider is this: suppose that, at some future time, all such behavioural problems become curable.

Would that mean that we humans would have eliminated evil from the world?

Does that mean that God can come back with a clear conscience?

[sol invictus]

Would that mean that we humans would have eliminated evil from the world?


Only if we eliminated all evil from the world. Curing all mental illnesses isn't going to do that.

But again, you simply have to accept that bad things happen in the world to ask about this problem. It doesn't matter if those things are evil; what matters is that a good and merciful being with the power to do so would prevent them from occuring (volcano erupts and kills small child painfully, for example).

So we can rephrase things yet again, as "the problem of suffering".

[Robin]

Yes, OK. That sounds like Augustine's argument, as far as I can recall what it was (I read City of God ages ago). But for that to work, we would need to believe that the exercise of free will is somehow an enormous good, so good it overwhelms the suffering of all those poor children and justifies all the evil in the world.

Not an unattractive idea, but not one that sounds much like standard Christian dogma. And what is the logic behind it? Why believe that and not something else?
The logic is that without free will there would be no good.
Fine, so it's pure #1. If we cannot or do not understand this, then we cannot say with any conviction that god is good. In fact we can argue much more convincingly that god is evil.
You didn't read properly, I already explained how the argument differs from your #1 point.
OK, probably. Can you explain a little further how it has done better?
I think I have already pointed out how the actual arguments Christians use differ from the ones represented on your OP.

[fuelair]

Those are examples, not a definition.

If you want to define something by compiling an exhaustive list of every possible example, you will be at it for a very long time, and will get it wrong into the bargain.

The plural of "example" is not "definition".

My favorite definition of evil would be that which if you do it and I have the opportunity of educating you about the perils of doing evil will result in several hours to several days of your screaming for death. The examples he gave qualify.



W18 DO

[A Christian Sceptic]

Here's an idea.

God doesn't want to interfere because in order to do so on a grand scale, it would effect a design that he is trying to cause.

What if God has realized in his grand intelligence that unless his creation experiences complete freewill, unhindered by anything more than philosophical aspects of morality, they will not grow to become like him, eventually?

Perhaps, in God's mind, the true evil is not letting mankind find it's own way . . .

I've got some of my own theories and they're awfully similar to what you just posted - except with a Christian twist to things. ;)

[sandee]

Do you think the devil can cause illness and can he control our thoughts? Always a pleasure.

[Skeptical Greg]

Again, I think that we are missing specific intent. There maybe a very good reason to either stay out of mortal affairs, or perhaps nudge only when needed and leaving no trace of his/her help.

...................

Thats why i mentioned the invisable dragon in my garage. But again, the point I was trying to make is that an omnipresent god, who had a reason to not interfere directly, would certainally have the ability to do things and leave no trace.And be indistinguishable from no God at all ...

[Plathagoras]

3) God is in a struggle with the devil, and it is the devil that brings evil.

Objection: if god cannot defeat the devil, god is not omnipotent.



More?

3a) short answer: God can defeat the devil, but not instantly.

long answer:

Eliminating and Solving the Problem of Evil
Mani, Manichaeism, and the Attempted Refutation of Augustine of Hippo

by

Amitakh Stanford

24th June 2008

For a free e-book, click here.

www[.]xeeatwelve[.]com/articles/EliminatingEvil[.]pdf

pages 226-227:

I propose that God exists, and that God is Absolute Good. The premise that has frustrated so many for so long is that God is supposed to be omnipotent and omniscient, neither of which God is. Further, there is Evil, which God is in the process of eliminating, as will be shown.

God is perfectly good, but certainly not perfect in the unrealistic sense that humans have perceived that It ought to be. Humans have constructed an all-powerful, all-knowing, morally good God, which is totally absurd.

If God were omnipotent, It could eliminate all traces of evil and put things back as if evil had never occurred (however, Evil has set up such a situation that to do this would jeopardize even more Light particles than are currently at risk- such is the putrid scheme of Evil). For the above stated reason, this cannot be done by an Absolute Good God, which therefore renders God, in this unique situation, not strictly omnipotent. God is the highest power there is and has the power to eradicate evil forever, which It is doing in a way consistent with a loving, good God.

If God were omniscient, then everything would be known before anything occurred. If that were the case, then God would have known that evil was being facilitated and that evil would flourish, which would in turn cause tremendous suffering to beings who were in no way responsible for the evil, but were innocent victims of it. The only type of God who would be omniscient in a world where there is evil is an evil God.

An omniscient God would really have no purpose because if everything were known, there would be no point in doing anything, nor would there be anything to do. In effect, God would only be able to do things to occupy Itself. It would be like playing solitaire with a stacked deck, going through the motions just to have something to do. For everything to be predestined as Augustine proposes, the realm would have to be governed by an omniscient being - an evil being.

[Complexity]

Yawn.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

And, if pigs had wings, they still could not fly. The Cube-square Law you know. :boggled:

[Beerina]

Proposed solutions:

1) Humans cannot understand the mind of god, so we can't hope for an answer to this question.

AKA "There are things Man was not meant to Know" AKA "Mysterious are the ways/mind of God"

I reject this out-of-hand. Since God can do anything, he could stop, say, babies from being raped to death. He does not.

"For some reason" is a cop-out.

"For a greater good" is an assumption (and an offensive one at that). It's also arguably not true, since this "greater good" would be according to only rules God cares about, and God defines as good.

I.e. He's a stubborn person who doesn't want to deviate just because, oh, I don't know, some child is being raped and murdered right at this moment somewhere, and wants to feel He did the Good, Right Thing, at the expense of us decidedly finite mortals.

Do you follow this? There is no "Greater Good", as an actual, physical thing that God could not accomplish directly rather than in this roundabout way. Therefore the only thing are God following His own rules and regulations for the purpose of keeping Himself consistent.

He's forcing us to have terror and pain and sorrow and loss so He doesn't have to say, oops, I changed my mind.

Nice guy.



2) This is the best of all possible worlds (Leibniz, 1710).

Well, I can sure as hell imagine better ones. Elect me God next time.

In any case, this would again butt up against omnipotence, and you're right back in the same boat with issue 1 above. There is either a physical limitation on why the world cannot be better (thus some bizarre lack of omnipotence on God's part) or God is again, stubbornly limiting himself to jumping through hoops only He cares about, with raped, dead babies suffering so He can feel good about His hoop jumping.


3) God is in a struggle with the devil, and it is the devil that brings evil.

We'll ignore, for the moment, that God and His punishments are far worse a plague on humanity than anything the Devil is, has, or will do.

Omnipotent God, if kind, would not allow Jr. High School bullies into the playground to start slapping around and threatening kids.

Modern humans consider it unethical to experiment on non-consenting subjects.

"But God knew what would, and will, happen!"

NOT HELPING YOUR CASE ANY!


And how ethical would we consider a scientist who, say, created artificial life, the life flipped him off, so he dumped it off in North Korea or a grinding, 3rd world slum?

I mean, WTH, put that god, er, scientist in jail! NOW! :mad:



4) Free will means that our lives are not predestined; in particular we must be allowed to choose between good and evil so as to determine our virtue and whether we go to heaven or hell.

1. This contradicts God as omniscient. And no, sorry, "choosing not to predict what will happen" doesn't alter that He could do so, in theory, thus obviating any true concept of non-determinism.

2. Of course, in practice, "free will" has nothing to do with spirituality, and just means that your brain has the freedom, so to speak, to weigh inputs, including threats of punishments, and decide courses of action. That it may be deterministic at a microscopic level doesn't affect that you are, indeed, weighing the issues before deciding.

3. Is this the "experiment"? "Let's see who chooses to believe in me, without proof, and those who don't, let's torment them for ever and ever! Which will probably be most since I did a really, really, really detailed FEA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_element_method) study."

WTH kind of thing is that for a "kind" god to do?


5) There is no evil in the world.

This is like the ugly, fat, ornery sister of the hot chick of "There's a Greater Good".

Your objection bodyslams it appropriately.


6) Good is only good by contrast to evil, and variety makes for a better world than would otherwise be possible (Augustine?).


Fair enough. Let God go get raped and murdered and be lonely and have loved ones die -- really die, not die and get closer back to him. Lemme outta here, thxgodbie.

[Monkian1234]

To the OP:

How about God is also evil as well as good? I personally could never bow down before anything that wasn't greater than me in every aspect.

As a mere mortal man, I am capable of both good and evil. If I am capable of something and God isn't-that would really make God unworthy of my respect, imo.

[westprog]

If there is no such thing as evil - if it's just what we happen to prefer - then there is no problem. If people starving and getting cancer is no better or worse than being happy and fullfilled, then there's no issue. A strict scientific viewpoint works.

However, if you want your evil - if you want the kidnap/rape scenarios sketched out earlier to be genuinely wrong - then you have to accept that materialism isn't enough of an explanation for the universe. You have to look for something else beyond the scientific viewpoint - because from the scientific viewpoint, all the outcomes are equivalent.

And if you let materialism go, that's a big open door. Anything might slip in.

[Robin]

If there is no such thing as evil - if it's just what we happen to prefer - then there is no problem. If people starving and getting cancer is no better or worse than being happy and fullfilled, then there's no issue. A strict scientific viewpoint works.

However, if you want your evil - if you want the kidnap/rape scenarios sketched out earlier to be genuinely wrong
That seems to depend upon what you mean by "genuinely wrong". If what we feel is "wrong" is simply an artifact of the evolution of human biology then that would be genuine wrongness.

What is more (and as Quine pointed out) if there were some "wrong" that was an objective unalterable fact of reality that even a God could be judged by, then how would we know about it?

The word "wrong" that we use would still refer to an artifact of human biology.

[westprog]

That seems to depend upon what you mean by "genuinely wrong". If what we feel is "wrong" is simply an artifact of the evolution of human biology then that would be genuine wrongness.

What is more (and as Quine pointed out) if there were some "wrong" that was an objective unalterable fact of reality that even a God could be judged by, then how would we know about it?

The word "wrong" that we use would still refer to an artifact of human biology.

We could use "right" and "wrong" to refer to biological imperatives, but that's not what we normally mean by those words.

[Trent Wray]

No other creature that is known to exist apparently struggles with the problem of good and evil.

We are the problem.

[Darth Rotor]

No other creature that is known to exist apparently struggles with the problem of good and evil.

As far as we know.

I am not so sure that struggling with the problem of good and evil is a problem, however.

DR

[Trent Wray]

As far as we know.

I am not so sure that struggling with the problem of good and evil is a problem, however.

DR
I think it usually becomes a problem, resulting from regret and remorse ....

An example. My sister is raped by the neighbor. I can kill the neighbor, and absolve any "problem" immediately. Just go over there and kill him.

But I don't want to go to jail. I don't want to spend years behind bars. So now I have a problem. I want "justice". Why? Because I FEEL that what my neighbor did was wrong. It was evil.

And I did nothing about it.

It leaves me with regret and remorse, because I didn't do what was right ... and end that person's existence for his crime. I'm hoping someone else takes care of it for me (the justice system), because I'm not willing to do the dirty work myself.

Plus .... I have to think about other factors, right? What if the neighbor has a brain tumor or something and wasn't in control of his actions? Good and evil become confused, etc and so forth.

Cognitive dissonance.

I might always live with the regret and remorse of not having executed justice myself, unless I can somehow find solace in the justice system or some other thing that provides me comfort. Usually, I think labeling the perpetrator as evil, and something else as good and being triumphant (the justice system, faith, killing him perhaps, etc) .... is a weak attempt to solve this problem of guilt and remorse or regret on our part.

I think it obviously blossoms into more and more complicated layers ... but I think they are unecessary if cut off at the head.

This is what I think other animals do well. They don't like something ... they fix it. They don't dwell on it or ponder it. They kill the attacker, or they run off, etc and so forth. There isn't all this decision making going on to weigh moral principles.

It's why I generally think of morality as a "flaw" that will hopefully be selected out of our race. And I think that's what we are trying to do now actually ..... either that, or "extinct ourselves" pulp fiction style :)

[Darth Rotor]

I think it usually becomes a problem, resulting from regret and remorse ....

An example. My sister is raped by the neighbor. I can kill the neighbor, and absolve any "problem" immediately. Just go over there and kill him.

But I don't want to go to jail. I don't want to spend years behind bars. So now I have a problem. I want "justice". Why? Because I FEEL that what my neighbor did was wrong. It was evil.

And I did nothing about it.

There are ways of killing that fella that increase your odds of not going to jail. How bad do you want justice?

Read in the paper this morning that about 30% of all homicides go unsolved.

DR

[Marduk]

Read in the paper this morning that about 30% of all homicides go unsolved.

To be fair to the police
most of those are mine
:degrin:

[Trent Wray]

There are ways of killing that fella that increase your odds of not going to jail. How bad do you want justice?

Read in the paper this morning that about 30% of all homicides go unsolved.

DR When my mother-in-law passes on, that number will drop significantly.

[Robin]

We could use "right" and "wrong" to refer to biological imperatives, but that's not what we normally mean by those words.
By those words I mean what I feel to be right or wrong.

That is either a biological imperative or it isn't.

What do you think "we" normally mean by those words?

[cienaños]

When my mother-in-law passes on, that number will drop significantly.

Is this (http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l0all0pBe01qbuq0so1_500.jpg) your mother-in-law?

[Trent Wray]

Is this (http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l0all0pBe01qbuq0so1_500.jpg) your mother-in-law?


Add the smell of this (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2047/2202691530_8bfb8ba440.jpg), and yes. Yes it is.

[yomero]

3a) short answer: God can defeat the devil, but not instantly.

long answer:

I propose that God exists, and that God is Absolute Good. The premise that has frustrated so many for so long is that God is supposed to be omnipotent and omniscient, neither of which God is. Further, there is Evil, which God is in the process of eliminating, as will be shown.

God is perfectly good, but certainly not perfect in the unrealistic sense that humans have perceived that It ought to be. Humans have constructed an all-powerful, all-knowing, morally good God, which is totally absurd.

If God were omnipotent, It could eliminate all traces of evil and put things back as if evil had never occurred (however, Evil has set up such a situation that to do this would jeopardize even more Light particles than are currently at risk- such is the putrid scheme of Evil). For the above stated reason, this cannot be done by an Absolute Good God, which therefore renders God, in this unique situation, not strictly omnipotent. God is the highest power there is and has the power to eradicate evil forever, which It is doing in a way consistent with a loving, good God.

If God were omniscient, then everything would be known before anything occurred. If that were the case, then God would have known that evil was being facilitated and that evil would flourish, which would in turn cause tremendous suffering to beings who were in no way responsible for the evil, but were innocent victims of it. The only type of God who would be omniscient in a world where there is evil is an evil God.

An omniscient God would really have no purpose because if everything were known, there would be no point in doing anything, nor would there be anything to do. In effect, God would only be able to do things to occupy Itself. It would be like playing solitaire with a stacked deck, going through the motions just to have something to do. For everything to be predestined as Augustine proposes, the realm would have to be governed by an omniscient being - an evil being.

If I understand correctly, you are saying that god exists but he is not omnipotent nor omniscient, but he is omnibenevolent or something close to it. He can not alter the laws of physics since that would cause chaos and greater evil and thus can not answer prayers. He is trying with all his will to end evil but can not do it immediately.

How is this discount, K-Mart god different from no god at all? Why do you feel you are obliged to believe in it and worship it? Your belief places you no nearer nor farther from evil than the lack of it.

[Robin]

3a) short answer: God can defeat the devil, but not instantly.

long answer:

Eliminating and Solving the Problem of Evil
Mani, Manichaeism, and the Attempted Refutation of Augustine of Hippo

by

Amitakh Stanford

24th June 2008

For a free e-book, click here.

www[.]xeeatwelve[.]com/articles/EliminatingEvil[.]pdf

pages 226-227:

I propose that God exists, and that God is Absolute Good. The premise that has frustrated so many for so long is that God is supposed to be omnipotent and omniscient, neither of which God is. Further, there is Evil, which God is in the process of eliminating, as will be shown.

God is perfectly good, but certainly not perfect in the unrealistic sense that humans have perceived that It ought to be. Humans have constructed an all-powerful, all-knowing, morally good God, which is totally absurd.

If God were omnipotent, It could eliminate all traces of evil and put things back as if evil had never occurred (however, Evil has set up such a situation that to do this would jeopardize even more Light particles than are currently at risk- such is the putrid scheme of Evil). For the above stated reason, this cannot be done by an Absolute Good God, which therefore renders God, in this unique situation, not strictly omnipotent. God is the highest power there is and has the power to eradicate evil forever, which It is doing in a way consistent with a loving, good God.

If God were omniscient, then everything would be known before anything occurred. If that were the case, then God would have known that evil was being facilitated and that evil would flourish, which would in turn cause tremendous suffering to beings who were in no way responsible for the evil, but were innocent victims of it. The only type of God who would be omniscient in a world where there is evil is an evil God.

An omniscient God would really have no purpose because if everything were known, there would be no point in doing anything, nor would there be anything to do. In effect, God would only be able to do things to occupy Itself. It would be like playing solitaire with a stacked deck, going through the motions just to have something to do. For everything to be predestined as Augustine proposes, the realm would have to be governed by an omniscient being - an evil being.
Woody Allen put it more concisely:

The important thing, I think, is not to be bitter... if it turns out that there IS a God, I don't think that He's evil. I think that the worst you can say about Him is that basically He's an underachiever.

[rocketdodger]

So there was a bad accident on the freeway near Minneapolis a few days ago...

A semi was stopped for traffic congestion caused by construction. Two cars brake and come to a stop behind it. Mr. Idiot, in a second semi, fails to "react in time" (that is official for being an idiot I guess) and rams into the second car. Second car is pushed into first car while the rear semi squashes them into the back of the lead semi.

So when all is said and done there were two disturbingly mangled cars (the occupants of both cars died).

But, because god isn't content with just killing two innocents in a terrifying way, he ups the ante -- the lead semi was carrying creaking beehives. Yes, beehives.

Thus these poor people, sitting in their wrecks, had to deal with swarms of bees while they were dying from being crushed. The rescuers had to deal with swarms of bees while trying to save them.

Wtf god. Just... Wtf ...

[Radrook]

"Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. "

How about being able and willing but not at this time? Would that still necessarily mean malevolence?

Ecclesiastes 3: 11
For everything there is a season, a time for every activity under heaven

[bruto]

"Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. "

How about being able and willing but not at this time? Would that still necessarily mean malevolence?

Ecclesiastes 3: 11
For everything there is a season, a time for every activity under heavenSo who set the time and the season? A previous administration?

Not that I think the passage particularly relevant to a situation such as the aforementioned truck accident. Are you saying that in some other, unknowable or arbitrary season, God would have intervened, but that he had some grand plan we can never guess that required this particular disaster? Are you saying that the victims should have behaved differently, and it's their fault they did not know what time or season it was? Are the victims here to be considered collateral damage from someone else's greater good fortune? Of course a religious apologist can always say that's so, and contend that God's unfathomable plan requires such things, but the fact that it's unfathomable makes the assumption a matter of faith only. If we can never predict events beforehand, nor trace or prove the connections afterward, God's presumed plan is indistinguishable from chaos, or the unregulated and untampered operation of determinism.

I'm not sure that such an idea requires that we consider God malevolent, but neither can he be considered benevolent. If the operation of the world is so complex and its rationale so unpredictably foreign to us that we can never recognize until it's too late whether prayers are answerable, and never until it's over know what collateral damage is necessary, then neither benevolence nor malevolence can really be accurate. If such chaos is necessary to the operation of the world, and if God is the author of it, and if he also is unwilling or incapable of letting us in on the plan, then the notion of a personal God is nonsensical, and so are personal attributes such as benevolence and malevolence.

[CriticalThanking]

"Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. "

How about being able and willing but not at this time? Would that still necessarily mean malevolence?

Ecclesiastes 3: 11
For everything there is a season, a time for every activity under heavenBack to square one. At a minimum it makes such a deity either unknowable, or unable to make this "the season".

CT

[Radrook]

So who set the time and the season? A previous administration?

Not that I think the passage particularly relevant to a situation such as the aforementioned truck accident. Are you saying that in some other, unknowable or arbitrary season, God would have intervened, but that he had some grand plan we can never guess that required this particular disaster? Are you saying that the victims should have behaved differently, and it's their fault they did not know what time or season it was? Are the victims here to be considered collateral damage from someone else's greater good fortune? Of course a religious apologist can always say that's so, and contend that God's unfathomable plan requires such things, but the fact that it's unfathomable makes the assumption a matter of faith only. If we can never predict events beforehand, nor trace or prove the connections afterward, God's presumed plan is indistinguishable from chaos, or the unregulated and untampered operation of determinism.

I'm not sure that such an idea requires that we consider God malevolent, but neither can he be considered benevolent. If the operation of the world is so complex and its rationale so unpredictably foreign to us that we can never recognize until it's too late whether prayers are answerable, and never until it's over know what collateral damage is necessary, then neither benevolence nor malevolence can really be accurate. If such chaos is necessary to the operation of the world, and if God is the author of it, and if he also is unwilling or incapable of letting us in on the plan, then the notion of a personal God is nonsensical, and so are personal attributes such as benevolence and malevolence.


The Bible describes God as following a consequentialist approach. The permission of chaos and evil is only for a season. He is described as promising another season when chaos and evil won't be permitted. The reason for the permission of this season is explained by some as relsted to the original issues raised against rightfulness of universal rulership in Eden. When such issues are resolved the the next season will commence. In short, he is described as following a consequentialist modus operandi. Or permitting of negativs in the short run for the betterment of mankind in the long run. That is one Bible-based explanation and the one which I find makes the attribution of benevolence more acceptable.

Isaiah 65: 17
"Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind.

[fuelair]

Can god create a weight so heavy he cannot lift it?

Message to sol invictus. When quoting George Carlin at least give him credit for his words.

Uh, where did you get the idea that George Calin invented that? Been around a good while before Carlin. Forms of which I am aware from long before Carlin was known to anyone but family and acquaintances:Can god create a rock so big he can't lift it? Can god create a path so long he can't walk all of it? Can god create so much wine(water)he can't drink it all?(etc.)were floating around by, if not previous to, my early teens -1959-61. Even came up with a technical answer back then: based on the idea of the trinity , Holy Ghost creates it, god can lift/drink,travel but jeebus can't. Conflict solved by proper magical thinking. All a big load, but ...........

[bruto]

The Bible describes God as following a consequentialist approach. The permission of chaos and evil is only for a season. He is described as promising another season when chaos and evil won't be permitted. The reason for the permission of this season is explained by some as relsted to the original issues raised against rightfulness of universal rulership in Eden. When such issues are resolved the the next season will commence. In short, he is described as following a consequentialist modus operandi. Or permitting of negativs in the short run for the betterment of mankind in the long run. That is one Bible-based explanation and the one which I find makes the attribution of benevolence more acceptable.

Isaiah 65: 17
"Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind.

That may well be, but the required redefinition of benevolence makes it a meaningless term when applied to individuals and particulars. It means, in short, that our own lives are subject to unexplained and apparently arbitrary actions, and our prayers to unexplained and apparently arbitrary failure. Whether or not the actual operation is arbitrary or not is something we are not allowed to know, only to believe. Given what we actually see happening in the world, reconciling such a scheme for the "betterment of mankind in the long run" with a just, merciful or benevolent personal god who answers prayers requires a level of denial and mental contortion that I find unpalatable. Stalin and Pol Pot made similar assertions. How and why can we see God's plan as any better, or morally superior, except by a faith based on wishful thinking?

It's cold comfort to hear we're being killed by friendly fire.

[!Kaggen]

I think it usually becomes a problem, resulting from regret and remorse ....

An example. My sister is raped by the neighbor. I can kill the neighbor, and absolve any "problem" immediately. Just go over there and kill him.

But I don't want to go to jail. I don't want to spend years behind bars. So now I have a problem. I want "justice". Why? Because I FEEL that what my neighbor did was wrong. It was evil.

And I did nothing about it.

It leaves me with regret and remorse, because I didn't do what was right ... and end that person's existence for his crime. I'm hoping someone else takes care of it for me (the justice system), because I'm not willing to do the dirty work myself.

Plus .... I have to think about other factors, right? What if the neighbor has a brain tumor or something and wasn't in control of his actions? Good and evil become confused, etc and so forth.

Cognitive dissonance.

I might always live with the regret and remorse of not having executed justice myself, unless I can somehow find solace in the justice system or some other thing that provides me comfort. Usually, I think labeling the perpetrator as evil, and something else as good and being triumphant (the justice system, faith, killing him perhaps, etc) .... is a weak attempt to solve this problem of guilt and remorse or regret on our part.

I think it obviously blossoms into more and more complicated layers ... but I think they are unecessary if cut off at the head.

This is what I think other animals do well. They don't like something ... they fix it. They don't dwell on it or ponder it. They kill the attacker, or they run off, etc and so forth. There isn't all this decision making going on to weigh moral principles.

It's why I generally think of morality as a "flaw" that will hopefully be selected out of our race. And I think that's what we are trying to do now actually ..... either that, or "extinct ourselves" pulp fiction style :)

Hi Trent, roller skated past the aircraft carrier museum on the Hudson a few times. Was having too much fun to pop in, but looked awesome from the outside ;).

Your last sentence reminded me of a book I am reading called:

The Philosophical Baby: What Children's Minds Tell Us About Truth, Love, and the Meaning of Life (9780374231965): Alison Gopnik: Books

http://www.amazon.com/Philosophical-Baby-Childrens-Minds-Meaning/dp/0374231966

It is a highly recommend read.

Anyway, it appears that researchers have discovered that developing the ability to imagine counterfactuals as children is critical in our development to become thinking and caring adults. In other words the all too human ability to imagine many future outcomes of an action before we act. The obvious trade-off of this, which you find unnecessary, is that we can also regret/feel guilty about decisions made in the past. You win some you lose some :(

It is interesting to note that scientific research has shown that the concept of right and wrong/evil is the trade-off part of humans having prediction abilities/knowledge.

We're out of Eden and on our own.

[Robin]

"Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. "

How about being able and willing but not at this time? Would that still necessarily mean malevolence?

Ecclesiastes 3: 11
For everything there is a season, a time for every activity under heaven
Not at this time, but no doubt in the fullness of time - in due course - at the appropriate juncture - weather permitting.

[Radrook]

That may well be, but the required redefinition of benevolence makes it a meaningless term when applied to individuals and particulars. It means, in short, that our own lives are subject to unexplained and apparently arbitrary actions, and our prayers to unexplained and apparently arbitrary failure. Whether or not the actual operation is arbitrary or not is something we are not allowed to know, only to believe. Given what we actually see happening in the world, reconciling such a scheme for the "betterment of mankind in the long run" with a just, merciful or benevolent personal god who answers prayers requires a level of denial and mental contortion that I find unpalatable. Stalin and Pol Pot made similar assertions. How and why can we see God's plan as any better, or morally superior, except by a faith based on wishful thinking?

It's cold comfort to hear we're being killed by friendly fire.

Well, the fire you described as friendly isn't biblically described as friendly fire. Very often its described as a cause and effect of human decisions and refusal to adhere to moral principles that would have prevented consequences. Humans are very skilled at producing and propagating their own misery. History has borne that out repeatedly. Totalitarian governments such as fascism, Nazism, Communism, dictatorship, are adopted and all hello breakes loose on earth. Humans choose to warp their consciousness through drugs all hell erupts. Governments covet the territory of their neighbors and misery spreads like a plague. So misused freedom of choice is one crucial factor and not necessarily what you describe as friendly fire.

On a more individual basis we have time and unforeseen occurrences befalling us all. The swift don't necessarily win the race nor the strong the battle as Solomon said. That is explained biblically by saying it is only temporary. I agree that the situation isn't easy to bear or to deal with emotionally. But the issue is whether it constitutes justifiable grounds to tag the one who allows of it as evil. Some might conclude that it does. Others conclude that it doesn't.

[Radrook]

That may well be, but the required redefinition of benevolence makes it a meaningless term when applied to individuals and particulars. It means, in short, that our own lives are subject to unexplained and apparently arbitrary actions, and our prayers to unexplained and apparently arbitrary failure. Whether or not the actual operation is arbitrary or not is something we are not allowed to know, only to believe. Given what we actually see happening in the world, reconciling such a scheme for the "betterment of mankind in the long run" with a just, merciful or benevolent personal god who answers prayers requires a level of denial and mental contortion that I find unpalatable. Stalin and Pol Pot made similar assertions. How and why can we see God's plan as any better, or morally superior, except by a faith based on wishful thinking?

It's cold comfort to hear we're being killed by friendly fire.

Well, the fire you described as friendly isn't biblically described as friendly fire. Very often its described as a cause and effect of human decisions and refusal to adhere to moral principles that would have prevented consequences. Humans are very skilled at producing and propagating their own misery. History has borne that out repeatedly. Totalitarian governments such as fascism, Nazism, Communism, dictatorship, are adopted and all hello breakes loose on earth. Humans choose to warp their consciousness through drugs all hell erupts. Governments covet the territory of their neighbors and misery spreads like a plague. So misused freedom of choice is one crucial factor and not necessarily what you describe as friendly fire.

Galatians 6:7: "Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap." ...




On a more individual basis we have time and unforeseen occurrences befalling us all. The swift don't necessarily win the race nor the strong the battle as Solomon said. That is explained biblically by saying it is only temporary. I agree that the situation isn't easy to bear or to deal with emotionally. But the issue is whether it constitutes justifiable grounds to tag the one who allows of it as evil. Some might conclude that it does. Others conclude that it doesn't.

[bruto]

Well, the fire you described as friendly isn't biblically described as friendly fire. Very often its described as a cause and effect of human decisions and refusal to adhere to moral principles that would have prevented consequences. Humans are very skilled at producing and propagating their own misery. History has borne that out repeatedly. Totalitarian governments such as fascism, Nazism, Communism, dictatorship, are adopted and all hello breakes loose on earth. Humans choose to warp their consciousness through drugs all hell erupts. Governments covet the territory of their neighbors and misery spreads like a plague. So misused freedom of choice is one crucial factor and not necessarily what you describe as friendly fire. Why should the use of drugs or the waging of war make children die of cancer or bees sting a trapped driver to death, or earthquakes and tidal waves wipe out devout and sinners alike? If you go with the idea that the innocent pay for the sins of others, and that God is the author of the punishment, then he's evil indeed. Killing hostages, executing random innocents to enforce obedience or set an example: actions of that sort are universally condemned as evil in anyone not a god. If we cannot identify similar actions with similar terminology, then it is because good and evil simply do not apply to God. But it works both ways. If he cannot be evil no matter what he does, then he cannot be called good either.


On a more individual basis we have time and unforeseen occurrences befalling us all. The swift don't necessarily win the race nor the strong the battle as Solomon said. That is explained biblically by saying it is only temporary. I agree that the situation isn't easy to bear or to deal with emotionally. But the issue is whether it constitutes justifiable grounds to tag the one who allows of it as evil. Some might conclude that it does. Others conclude that it doesn't.Aren't we mixing our biblical bits a bit here? I don't recall Solomon saying it was only temporary. Anyway, what does the temporary have to do with it? It's a copout to say that there's a personal god who answers prayers, and then when your prayers fall flat to say it's all part of a grand plan, so don't take it personally. If the answer to every agonizing illness, murder, mass destruction or catastrophe is that God will somehow fix it in the end anyway, then what in the world can be evil? If someone murders me on the street, is it part of God's plan or not? If it is, then either God is evil or there is no evil. If it is not, then God is either absent or not in control. If the answer to every failed prayer is "God had a different plan," then the only prayer that isn't at least a waste of time and at worst a sin against the divine will is "God's will be done," and even that smacks of giving orders to the unorderable. Things happen whatever you ask of God. You might as well skip it, because clearly, whatever god is involved, it's either impersonal or perverse.

[Radrook]

Why should the use of drugs or the waging of war make children die of cancer or bees sting a trapped driver to death, or earthquakes and tidal waves wipe out devout and sinners alike?

I never said that they did. Those natural phenomenons are biblically attributed to a flawed nature due to mankind's rebellion and God's reaction of abandoning nature to work by itself without his protection. That's why nature is described as groaning in agony and that's why a restoration of all things is repeatedly promised.


If you go with the idea that the innocent pay for the sins of others, and that God is the author of the punishment, then he's evil indeed.

Seems you are referring to the concept of an innocent man dying for all guilty mankind--right?


I don't see how punishment of evil can be considered evil. Care to explain?



Killing hostages, executing random innocents to enforce obedience or set an example: actions of that sort are universally condemned as evil in anyone not a god. If we cannot identify similar actions with similar terminology, then it is because good and evil simply do not apply to God. But it works both ways. If he cannot be evil no matter what he does, then he cannot be called good either. Aren't we mixing our biblical bits a bit here?

The Bible doesn't teach that God can do anything he wants and still be viewed as good.



I don't recall Solomon saying it was only temporary.

When interpreting scripture the methodology involves taking the whole Bible as a context.
The biblical context justifies that expanded understanding of that text.



Anyway, what does the temporary have to do with it? It's a cop out to say that there's a personal god who answers prayers, and then when your prayers fall flat to say it's all part of a grand plan, so don't take it personally. If the answer to every agonizing illness, murder, mass destruction or catastrophe is that God will somehow fix it in the end anyway, then what in the world can be evil? If someone murders me on the street, is it part of God's plan or not? If it is, then either God is evil or there is no evil. If it is not, then God is either absent or not in control.

The Bible doesn't teach that the present world is under full control by God. It calls the Devil the god of this world. So its the devil's policies which are temporarily predominating.



If the answer to every failed prayer is "God had a different plan," then the only prayer that isn't at least a waste of time and at worst a sin against the divine will is "God's will be done," and even that smacks of giving orders to the unorderable. Things happen whatever you ask of God. You might as well skip it, because clearly, whatever god is involved, it's either impersonal or perverse.

Well, you are certainly entitled to that view as others are to the completely opposite one.

[yomero]

I never said that they did. Those natural phenomenons are biblically attributed to a flawed nature due to mankind's rebellion and God's reaction of abandoning nature to work by itself without his protection. That's why nature is described as groaning in agony and that's why a restoration of all things is repeatedly promised.


This is worse than Rev. Pat Robertson's comment on the Haiti earthquake. He blamed it on Haitian ancestors 200 yrs. ago, you go back to Adam's fall. According to this view, any suffering a child with leukemia feels, he deserves it, since Adam sinned. As I understand it, you are saying that before The Fall there were no earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, infectious diseases etc., because god kept them controlled and then, he actively decided to unleash those disasters (or invent them). In that case, he is completely evil, with no mitigating circumstances.



Seems you are referring to the concept of an innocent man dying for all guilty mankind--right?

Jesus, according to the Christian myth, is a part of the trinity, therefore not innocent at all. He is guilty of the suffering and evil that he invented for this world. That sin would be greater than any a mere mortal can commit.


I don't see how punishment of evil can be considered evil. Care to explain?

What evil has a small child with leukemia done to deserve such punishment?




The Bible doesn't teach that God can do anything he wants and still be viewed as good.

Exodus 34:6-"The Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness". Immediately after that, god tells Moses how he will punish the sins of the fathers on the sons, to the 3d. and 4th. generation. Deut. 4:31, Samuel 24:14, Psalms 25:8, 81:5, 100:5 and John 4:16 are also full of praise for god's "goodness".



The Bible doesn't teach that the present world is under full control by God. It calls the Devil the god of this world. So its the devil's policies which are temporarily predominating.
.

The Bible is replete with evil deeds by god himself. The Deluge, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Egyptian plagues etc., etc. In the Book of Job we can see both god and satan together. All the ills that fell on Job were god's doing, excepting the sores that covered Job from head to foot, and satan had god's direct permission to do it. Much of the book tells how anything that happens, good or bad, is god's work.

[m_huber]

I never said that they did. Those natural phenomenons are biblically attributed to a flawed nature due to mankind's rebellion and God's reaction of abandoning nature to work by itself without his protection. That's why nature is described as groaning in agony and that's why a restoration of all things is repeatedly promised.


Yes, but god, being all-powerful, loving, and good, should be able to stop the unnecessary suffering that is unrelated to individual's actions, but he doesn't. This is sometimes referred to as "The Problem of Evil."

Interesting that you say that god just lets things go until the end of time.. If that is the case, then your beliefs are truly based on what is written in the bible, and have no relationship to physical evidence or anything scientific. Which means that you should have no problem with anything scientific, since whatever is in the natural world can be treated as though there is no god, since he apparently has left it alone anyway. But you also post (and link in your sig) arguments against evolution..