Free Will and the Problem of Evil

[Ichneumonwasp]

I don't begin many threads, but this is an issue that has been bothering me for a short while and I hoped that you might help me think through some of the issues. I don't have any real answers, only a feeling of how things may shape up.

The common theist answer to the problem of evil is "free will", but I am beginning to doubt the validity of that answer, even assuming the truth of what I do not really believe -- namely the existence of libertarian free will.

To be more explicit:

Theists generally claim that for a being to deserve worship it must have aseity -- non-contingent and perfect, for a quick and dirty definition. If God is non-contingent and perfect in all ways, then He should be capable of creating a perfect world with no evil. We see evil, so God either could not have created this world or God is in some way limited and not worthy of worship.

The ways out of this quandary are to attack the premises or the form of the argument. Since the form of the argument is essentially modus tollens, there is no way to attack it. So to save God we must attack the premises.

Since we begin with God being non-contingent and perfect and the fact that evil does exist, God must allow evil to exist for some reason.

One option is that good has no meaning without evil, as a mountain has no meaning without a valley. However, a child dying of starvation with flies in its eyes, parasite infested, racked in pain is really not necessary for us to be able to define "good".

The other common approach and what I would particularly like to explore (I know it's been done to death) is the issue of free will and whether or not this actually saves the argument. I'm not so sure that it does any longer.

For the sake of discussion, let us assume that libertarian free will (that supernatural magic of an individual being the absolute originator of action) exists. Does the existence of free will -- the free will theodicy -- save God's behind in this argument?

The form the argument usually takes is one of three: (1) Adam and Eve introduced evil into the world because they were given free will, so all the natural evils that we see are the result of that action. This is a really terrible argument with all sorts of stupid entailments, so I will dismiss it out of hand unless someone else wants to bring it back up for discussion. (2) We must have free will so that we can choose God freely, since that is what he wants. In other words, God is vain and wants his children's praise. Another dumb one. (3) We are children and God is like our parent. He gives us free will because we have a lot of learning to do and without free will we could not spiritually grow into the beings that we need to grow into.

It is this last argument that I have begun to doubt. What about children who die in infancy? Aborted fetuses? People who make mistakes and then die immediately after? It certainly does not seem that they are being given a chance to learn and grow, as opposed to others who have time to learn from their mistakes. It seems that this argument suffers from the common problem of us looking only at the positive side and ignoring all the situations in which spiritual growth is not even possible. I'm not certain that, even if I give a theist the benefit of the doubt and allow them the luxury of the incoherent concept of libertarian free will that this actually helps them.

Thoughts? What other arguments have I missed?

[Greediguts]

Something that has always puzzled me is....how do you "give free will"? How could it be truly free? Wouldn't a deity know what we are going to do? Is that really a choice?

I'm confused....."free will" never seemed like a valid argument to me.

[kellyb]

A determined theist who believes in free will could come up with all kind of hypothetical possibilities.
Like:

What about children who die in infancy? Aborted fetuses?
Maybe they go back to god and live for forever and ever in bliss? Maybe they get "lucky" like that?

People who make mistakes and then die immediately after? It certainly does not seem that they are being given a chance to learn and grow, as opposed to others who have time to learn from their mistakes.

Maybe they get a chance to learn when they're facing god? They would have also learned a lot before they died at various other points. And maybe the mess they leave behind will turn into a learning opportunity for someone else?

Etc...

Since we're dealing with the world of "make up anything you can think of and it's all possible and valid", there's no way to solidly counter it.

[Slimething]

Since we're dealing with the world of "make up anything you can think of and it's all possible and valid", there's no way to solidly counter it.

Well put. A person who stolidly believes in a deity depsite complete lack of evidence will ultimately retreate to "just so" reasoning when put in a logical corner.

To answer the question, we have free will because there is no god. Otherwise, you are predestined.

[Ichneumonwasp]

A determined theist who believes in free will could come up with all kind of hypothetical possibilities.
Like:


Maybe they go back to god and live for forever and ever in bliss? Maybe they get "lucky" like that?



Maybe they get a chance to learn when they're facing god? They would have also learned a lot before they died at various other points. And maybe the mess they leave behind will turn into a learning opportunity for someone else?

Etc...

Since we're dealing with the world of "make up anything you can think of and it's all possible and valid", there's no way to solidly counter it.

Hmm, yes. But the law of unintended consequences being what it is, it would therefore seem that on logical grounds, what we do in this life has no meaning. If we can change what we think and do before God after death, then what difference does any earthly action make. Couldn't Charlie Manson change his tune at the last minute?

When it comes to judgment and eternal torment, the only real justification for evil was supposed to be our ability to choose good or evil and the effect this has on our "souls". If we have the opportunity to change after death, then why all the fuss during life?

The answer for the infant would tend to abolish the Christian doctrine that one must accept Jesus into one's heart or eternal Hell awaits.

A good example of the "decision after death" if you haven't seen it is the movie "Rapture" -- it's a bit old now but still shocking. The lead character leads a life of sin, then finds Jesus and leads an exemplary life, loses her husband to senseless violence, and hears the voice of God who tells her to take her daughter out the desert. There she must sacrifice her daughter ala Abraham and Isaac, but this time God doesn't step in. She is arrested for killing her daughter, put in jail, and then the end of the world comes. She finds herself before God and is asked if she wants to join the heavenly host. She turns her back on God and walks off screen.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Something that has always puzzled me is....how do you "give free will"? How could it be truly free? Wouldn't a deity know what we are going to do? Is that really a choice?

I'm confused....."free will" never seemed like a valid argument to me.

Well, the way that theists usually deal with this is to say that God can know but He does not have any force in the human decision.

Libertarian Free will is admittedly magic. That is why I said that I would grant the theist camp the idea but I didn't buy it. I think free will theodicies run aground simply because there is no true libertarian freedom. But what I wanted to explore was whether or not it runs aground even if we grant them free will as a given.

[krazyKemist]

The form the argument usually takes is one of three: (1) Adam and Eve introduced evil into the world because they were given free will, so all the natural evils that we see are the result of that action. This is a really terrible argument with all sorts of stupid entailments, so I will dismiss it out of hand unless someone else wants to bring it back up for discussion. (2) We must have free will so that we can choose God freely, since that is what he wants. In other words, God is vain and wants his children's praise. Another dumb one. (3) We are children and God is like our parent. He gives us free will because we have a lot of learning to do and without free will we could not spiritually grow into the beings that we need to grow into.

It is this last argument that I have begun to doubt. What about children who die in infancy? Aborted fetuses? People who make mistakes and then die immediately after? It certainly does not seem that they are being given a chance to learn and grow, as opposed to others who have time to learn from their mistakes. It seems that this argument suffers from the common problem of us looking only at the positive side and ignoring all the situations in which spiritual growth is not even possible. I'm not certain that, even if I give a theist the benefit of the doubt and allow them the luxury of the incoherent concept of libertarian free will that this actually helps them.

Thoughts? What other arguments have I missed?

It's ok if you admit reincarnation, like in hindu/bouddhist faith. Well it does make more sense than the concept of original sin.

the Kemist

[Ichneumonwasp]

It's ok if you admit reincarnation, like in hindu/bouddhist faith. Well it does make more sense than the concept of original sin.

the Kemist

Agreed. This doesn't help ethical monotheism, though, since reincarnation isn't part of their program.

[Lord Emsworth]

I think that this whole free will thing falls somewhere between "not properly defined" and "logical impossibility."

In either case though you will have severe problems in even granting such a beast. Not to speak of the difficuties that you'll encounter when you try to understand or make arguments that incorporate free will as a premise.

[Ichneumonwasp]

I think that this whole free will thing falls somewhere between "not properly defined" and "logical impossibility."

In either case though you will have severe problems in even granting such a beast. Not to speak of the difficuties that you'll encounter when you try to understand or make arguments that incorporate free will as a premise.

I fully agree. That's why I was hoping to skip it altogether and see if the argument can stand on its own without the very serious problems involved in the free will issue. I'm beginning to suspect that the argument doesn't work even if we grant free will and pretend that it really exists.

But you might be right. The whole thing may be a non-starter.

[Mangafranga]

Thoughts? What other arguments have I missed?How about a bold faced reply. God allows evil. Allowing evil does not make him responsible for it. Allowing evil is not an evil act. I imagine that this can be bolstered by examples (e.g. would you prevent people from making the choice to...), but I can't form any good ones at this point. The point of this reply is to turn the burden back on you. Tell me just why allowing evil is itself evil. If it isn't, what is your objection? (And note that if you accept that it isn't evil then I surely don't have to give much of a reason to satisfy your request as to why god allows evil. Any reason to allow evil should do the job (e.g. freewill is better than no freewill))

ETA- I edit my posts way too much sometimes. Seriously, I did about 6 edits.

[Ichneumonwasp]

How about a bold faced reply. God allows evil. Allowing evil does not make him responsible for it. Allowing evil is not an evil act. I imagine that this can be bolstered by examples (e.g. would you prevent people from making the choice to...), but I can't form any good ones at this point.

Right, but we try to put the replies into a framework.

If we accept the general premises:

1. God is perfect.
2. From perfection flows perfection.
3. The world is flawed.

We have a problem. Either there is no God or the premises are wrong in some way.

It may be that God is not perfect. So why worship Him? He could allow evil because he is not perfect.

It could also be that we cannot tell anything of the designer from the design, but that would cruch both the teleological and cosmological arguments.

Or he could allow evil even though he is perfect so we try to understand why. He could allow evil because it isn't really evil. We just have the wrong perspective -- but that just seems wrong.

He might permit evil because we did something to bring evil into the world out of our free choice. But that is truly wacky when examined closely.

He might permit evil because of another group of beings that freely chose to commit evil and there is an evil force in the world, namely the devil and his minions.

Or he might permit evil because it serves some higher good -- as in our moral development through the use of free will.

To say that he just permits evil would seem to violate the original definition of God as non-contingent and perfect (being all powerful, all knowing and all good). If he is all good and all powerful how can he permit suffering?

[Mangafranga]

Or he could allow evil even though he is perfect so we try to understand why. He could allow evil because it isn't really evil. We just have the wrong perspective -- but that just seems wrong.But this is my point, tell me why allowing evil is evil. (this is why the reply is bold faced) To say that he just permits evil would seem to violate the original definition of God as non-contingent and perfect (being all powerful, all knowing and all good). If he is all good and all powerful how can he permit suffering?I have interpreted up until this point "evil" to mean something like "bad brought about by free willed beings". But now I don't think that is what you meant. You just mean suffering in general?

[Ichneumonwasp]

But this is my point, tell me why allowing evil is evil. (this is why the reply is bold faced)I have interpreted up until this point "evil" to mean something like "bad brought about by free willed beings". But now I don't think that is what you meant. You just mean suffering in general?

OK, I think I understand, sorry, that was my fault.

I was trying to keep the opening post to a manageable size, so I cut a few corners.

We generally speak of two types of evil -- human evil and natural evil -- where natural evil is defined as all the bad stuff that happens in the world, hence my screen name. Earthquakes, Tidal waves, screwflies, malaria, etc.

The stuff that just happens that an all-good and all-powerful God should be able to stop.

The free will argument seems to work fairly well for the human evil side of things but it doesn't seem to cover the natural evil side very well. I should have made that more explicit.

[Mangafranga]

The free will argument seems to work fairly well for the human evil side of things but it doesn't seem to cover the natural evil side very well. I should have made that more explicit.Agreed. Also in the natural evil side it seems tough to argue that God is not actually causing (as opposed to just allowing) the evil.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Agreed. Also in the natural evil side it seems tough to argue that God is not actually causing (as opposed to just allowing) the evil.

Right. The two ways around that seem to be that it is somehow for our own good -- that is the part that I just can't seem to buy -- or that there is a demonic force that is responsible for all the natural evils.

But then God has to permit the demonic forces to work, which seems much coser to dualism than should be permissable in a monotheistic faith.

[Mangafranga]

Right. The two ways around that seem to be that it is somehow for our own good -- that is the part that I just can't seem to buy -- or that there is a demonic force that is responsible for all the natural evils.

But then God has to permit the demonic forces to work, which seems much coser to dualism than should be permissable in a monotheistic faith.A third way would be to argue that natural evil isn't really evil at all. But this seems to imply a double standard (e.g. a human causing earthquakes would presumably be an act of evil) and thus seems untenable, or at least requires a very good argument to back it up.

[Ichneumonwasp]

A third way would be to argue that natural evil isn't really evil at all. But this seems to imply a double standard (e.g. a human causing earthquakes would presumably be an act of evil) and thus seems untenable, or at least requires a very good argument to back it up.

Yeah, I think that gets into the law of unintended consequences.

If we say that God's ways are not man's ways, then we really have no way of figuring anything out anything about the old guy, so all this conjecture is just spitting into the wind.

Some folks have tried the old -- but if you look at it from the perspective of eternity, then maybe nothing really is evil. Well if that is the case, then why are we here in the first place? If there really isn't any evil, then why are supposedly under judgment in this scheme.

If we really believed in life after death, or rather that life is eternal and it's just a matter of transforming from one state to another, then that solves the problem of people dying being evil. No evil there, just transition. But if that is the case, what happens to ethics? Should murder be a minor infraction because gosh you really messed up his transition period there buddy, but no worry since he's off in the Elysian Fields tramping with the unicorns now. Death for the religious really should be like winning the lottery. Yet that is not how it is treated.

It is disease and parasites that cause the most pain. I simply do not see how, if we are to take suffering seriously, free will solves the inherent problem that an omnibenevolent God should not cause such pain.

I also reject the idea that evil is logically necessary. While mountains are defined in terms of valleys and flat land I don't think that the "good" is necessarily defined by "the evil". We can have good without evil, whether it goes by that name.

[kellyb]

Ich...
You're not really supposed to think critically about religion when attempting to believe. God can have double standards. You're supposed to just accept paradoxes. You're supposed to just assume that it all makes sense from God's point of view, even if our tiny little human minds can't understand it.

If we really believed in life after death, or rather that life is eternal and it's just a matter of transforming from one state to another, then that solves the problem of people dying being evil. No evil there, just transition. But if that is the case, what happens to ethics? Should murder be a minor infraction because gosh you really messed up his transition period there buddy, but no worry since he's off in the Elysian Fields tramping with the unicorns now. Death for the religious really should be like winning the lottery. Yet that is not how it is treated
You're supposed to be ethical because it's what god says do. Period. It's the right way to be, and going against god is just a bad idea. It'll make you and everyone else miserable if you don't act ethically. You might or might not land yourself in hell.
Now...suffering that god allows is a totally different story. God can do whatever He wants to do, and He has His reasons. Part of having faith is being humble enough to accept that not everything will make sense to your puny little human mind. But God is the great maker of lemonade from lemons. All things work for the good, yadayadayada.

It is disease and parasites that cause the most pain. I simply do not see how, if we are to take suffering seriously, free will solves the inherent problem that an omnibenevolent God should not cause such pain.
Suffering in this life is just a grain of sand on the beach of eternity. We humans are supposed to take our own roles in this life seriously, but god is exempt, because He's in charge of eternity, and He's working out all kinds of complex things we don't know about.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Well, yeah, but I'm not interested in discussing the wacko fundamentalist view. They just make it up as they go along, so there is nothing you can do with them but play as a cat with a mouse. Hours of amusement.

But there is a venerable tradition of apologetics that supposedly can answer the problem of evil. I just don't think it can any longer. It's not like I spend much time thinking about it, but I started thinking about it again because of something from another thread recently.

The approach that says that we just can't understand his ways -- well it can't lead anywhere since you can put in any ************ you want.

[kellyb]

Are you talking about intellectual deist types?
What tradition are you thinking of?

[Tricky]

Who says Evil is a problem? It works fine for me. It could be that you just haven't had your evil long enough to be familiar with it. Have you read the manual?

[The Atheist]

Hmm, yes. But the law of unintended consequences being what it is, it would therefore seem that on logical grounds, what we do in this life has no meaning. If we can change what we think and do before God after death, then what difference does any earthly action make. Couldn't Charlie Manson change his tune at the last minute?

Given the RCC doctrine of self-exclusion from god being the only way to avoid eternal torment in heaven, you're right, earthly life is irrlelevant and if the premise were true, it would make sense to live as immoral a life as possible, because there are no consequences.

The apologists will give all sorts of reasons why god is allowed to do it, but that's all it boils down to - would you argue with the bloke who created the entire universe?

Then you can really get them tied in knots by asking them about suicide, where the whole thing becomes contradictory - you can gain absolution from killing others, but not yourself...

[Ichneumonwasp]

Are you talking about intellectual deist types?
What tradition are you thinking of?

The whole long tradition of Christian apologetics that has had to deal with the problem of evil. It is still alive and well. My old philsophy professor from U.T. is still one of the leading proponents of libertarian free will because he believes that free will solves the problem. I think he is wrong about not only that but also his free will "solution".

Bertrand Russell's argument for not being a Christian largely revolved around this issue.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Who says Evil is a problem? It works fine for me. It could be that you just haven't had your evil long enough to be familiar with it. Have you read the manual?

I got my evil from a guy named Julio on a corner in Cuatahuelpo. It was dark. He didn't say anything about a manual.

Damn. There's a manual?

[Phlebas]

The thing about evil is that an evil act is only evil when compared to something else. So if we suddenly lost all ability to (for example) murder each other, it's not like we have a gap at the top of our perceived spectrum of evil.

What would happen is that the second most evil thing -- say, assault -- would become the OMG MOST EVIL THING EVER AND HOW COULD A BENEVOLENT GOD ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN. Strip away assault and the current #3 (hiding yams in an otherwise innocent pie without a warning label) becomes the main proof against a supreme force for good. Pretty soon the most evil human act is to not wash your hands after peeing.

Same holds true for natural evils. Take away hurricanes/tornadoes/tsunamis/eathquakes, and we are left looking dolefully at high pollen counts, high humidity, and heavy dew as our worst natural disasters (which would, coincidentally, make Atlanta the most horrible place on Earth).

Lose cancer, Alzheimer's, and AIDS -- go white suffering with hangnails, trench mouth, and swimmer's ear.

So, IMHO, you don't have to go all the way to free will to combat the problem of evil. It's a bit of a self-consuming spiral on its own. Plus, we don't have free will anyway :)

There are much better arguments against the existence of a Christian god, and much better questions we could pose such a being than "why is there bad stuff?"

All IMO, of course.

[Ichneumonwasp]

The apologists will give all sorts of reasons why god is allowed to do it, but that's all it boils down to - would you argue with the bloke who created the entire universe?



Now, don't go bringing Job into this.:)

Apologists have tried for centuries to understand what God is up to. But again, if we can't understand it, then is God really worthy of worship?

Or is he just the big bully that can put boils on Job's bottom and make him squirm for a side bet with Loki?

[kellyb]

The whole long tradition of Christian apologetics that has had to deal with the problem of evil. It is still alive and well. My old philsophy professor from U.T. is still one of the leading proponents of libertarian free will because he believes that free will solves the problem. I think he is wrong about not only that but also his free will "solution".

Bertrand Russell's argument for not being a Christian largely revolved around this issue.

But the Christian apologetics tradition is where the nutso fundies get their arguments from. It's all the same thing. The fundies just present it in a more hysterical, insane sounding way. And it sounds less logical because they claim to know detailed specifics about the nature of god.

[Ichneumonwasp]

There are much better arguments against the existence of a Christian god, and much better questions we could pose such a being than "why is there bad stuff?"

All IMO, of course.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I fully agree. This is just one that intrigued me for a little diversion. The free will issue itself is a strong argument against the Christian God. As are many othe arguments. I'm not really trying to argue against the Christian God so much as explore if the apologetics surrounding this question hold up.

[Ichneumonwasp]

But the Christian apologetics tradition is where the nutso fundies get their arguments from. It's all the same thing. The fundies just present it in a more hysterical, insane sounding way. And it sounds less logical because they claim to know detailed specifics about the nature of god.

Yeah, but there have been some really smart guys (and a few gals) doing this for 2000 years and they have come up with some pretty elaborate rationalizations.

I doubt that many of the fundies really understand the arguments. They certainly don't see the consequences of the way they use the arguments.

[kellyb]

Yeah, but there have been some really smart guys (and a few gals) doing this for 2000 years and they have come up with some pretty elaborate rationalizations.

.

Well, yeah. I think those arguments are designed to just wear the doubter down more than actually make rational sense. It can go back and forth for forever.
What about this?
Well it could be this....
Well what about this?
It could be this...

It's all straight from the imagination, so there can be no end.

Unless I'm inebriated, it gives me a headache.:)

[Ichneumonwasp]

Well, yeah. I think those arguments are designed to just wear the doubter down more than actually make rational sense. It can go back and forth for forever.
What about this?
Well it could be this....
Well what about this?
It could be this...

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.


Unless I'm inebriated

I think that's the best suggestion I've yet heard.

[The Atheist]

Or is he just the big bully that can put boils on Job's bottom and make him squirm for a side bet with Loki?

I say yes to that, and I don't even need to refer to Job. No matter what the variety of christian, they all rate the Big JC and and the gospels as the true words of their sky-fairy, right?

Jesus' most important commandment was to love his dad, YHWH.

Wtf? Why? Unfailing worship for a vain, jealous and judgemental god-thing? That's bully enough for me without every entering hell, Sodom or Noah's Ark. Why would a god need to be worshipped? You own and run the universe, yet you still need to have people kissing your ring every Sunday?

This is just one that intrigued me for a little diversion. The free will issue itself is a strong argument against the Christian God. As are many othe arguments. I'm not really trying to argue against the Christian God so much as explore if the apologetics surrounding this question hold up.

I really do recommend you having a look at the Ship of Fools forum. Lots of highly expert theologians there and you'd get a perfect insight into how they think and the lastest apologetics. One bloke there - IngoB - is a christian equivalent of Dr Adequate and Dr X rolled into one. He's a highly respected neuro-scientist with a worldwide reputation and a staunch Catholic who knows pretty much everything. Very entertaining. He calls me "Saulus" in vain hope.

[blobru]

...
The free will argument seems to work fairly well for the human evil side of things but it doesn't seem to cover the natural evil side very well. I should have made that more explicit.


An apologist might argue that human evil (due to free will) and natural evil are complementary antagonists.
Natural evil presents problems; free will allows us to find creative solutions for those problems; without both natural and human evil, there would be no science.
The religious apologist would need to link creativity to free will just as he's linked free will to human evil. And have to admit, ironically enough, that science is good.

[Ichneumonwasp]

I say yes to that, and I don't even need to refer to Job. No matter what the variety of christian, they all rate the Big JC and and the gospels as the true words of their sky-fairy, right?

Jesus' most important commandment was to love his dad, YHWH.

Wtf? Why? Unfailing worship for a vain, jealous and judgemental god-thing? That's bully enough for me without every entering hell, Sodom or Noah's Ark. Why would a god need to be worshipped? You own and run the universe, yet you still need to have people kissing your ring every Sunday?



I really do recommend you having a look at the Ship of Fools forum. Lots of highly expert theologians there and you'd get a perfect insight into how they think and the lastest apologetics. One bloke there - IngoB - is a christian equivalent of Dr Adequate and Dr X rolled into one. He's a highly respected neuro-scientist with a worldwide reputation and a staunch Catholic who knows pretty much everything. Very entertaining. He calls me "Saulus" in vain hope.

I know the arguments. The problem is that this argument does not address the limiting conditions of the problem. God is defined as all good and all powerful. It follows that an all good and all powerful being would act to eliminate suffering. The answer "who are you to question the author of the universe" does not play by those rules. That amounts to sying "you cannot know God". One of the premises of the argument is that we can knowsomething about God -- namely that he is all powerful and all good. Those are supposed to be criteria for a being who deserves worship.

If the being in question is just an arbitrary jerk, then he doesn't deserve worship. We might worship him to placate him, but that is not the God is Love that Christians want to use in other contexts.

[Ichneumonwasp]

An apologist might argue that human evil (due to free will) and natural evil are complementary antagonists.
Natural evil presents problems; free will allows us to find creative solutions for those problems; without both natural and human evil, there would be no science.
The religious apologist would need to link creativity to free will just as he's linked free will to human evil. And have to admit, ironically enough, that science is good.

Right -- that's what I was getting at with the "evil allows us to grow as humans" which is John Hicks' schtick. But the problem that I am having with it is that there are clear instances in which no growth is possible (infant death and someone dying immediately after a transgression). It works as a general rule, but if we are truly to be judged based on our actions in this world, the answer that evil exists so that we may grow seems to ignore plenty of evidence in which growth is not possible.

[blobru]

Right -- that's what I was getting at with the "evil allows us to grow as humans" which is John Hicks' schtick. But the problem that I am having with it is that there are clear instances in which no growth is possible (infant death and someone dying immediately after a transgression). It works as a general rule, but if we are truly to be judged based on our actions in this world, the answer that evil exists so that we may grow seems to ignore plenty of evidence in which growth is not possible.


I suppose the apologist might respond, "all the more incentive for us to come up with ways to prevent infant or accidental death." :boggled: Not very persuasive I know but whenever I put on my religious apologist's hat (with the halo brim) some very strange ideas pop into my head... :halo: ;)

[Ichneumonwasp]

I suppose the apologist might respond, "all the more incentive for us to come up with ways to prevent infant or accidental death." :boggled: Not very persuasive I know but whenever I put on my religious apologist's hat (with the halo brim) some very strange ideas pop into my head... :halo: ;)

And a very good idea too.

But it doesn't get God off the hook. I think they have to relinquish something. It seems as though the argument over the past few decades has shifted into the "we can't know God and who are we to question Him" camp, which is fine, but it means that they must reliquish all the classical arguments for God's existence. Every argument's gots its consekenses. I suppose they may not care about that too much since those arguments don't work for other reasons, but I wish they would stop trotting them out so often.

[Nosaj]

Ichneumonwasp,

The form the argument usually takes is one of three: (1) Adam and Eve introduced evil into the world because they were given free will, so all the natural evils that we see are the result of that action. This is a really terrible argument with all sorts of stupid entailments, so I will dismiss it out of hand unless someone else wants to bring it back up for discussion.


I know that you have already dismissed this particular argument, but I thought that I would point out that the argument that Adam and Eve introduced evil into the world, for whatever reason, contradicts what God says in Isaiah 45:7. God says, "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things]" (Isa 45:7, KJV). Evil is God's creation.

Jason

[Ichneumonwasp]

Ichneumonwasp,




I know that you have already dismissed this particular argument, but I thought that I would point out that the argument that Adam and Eve introduced evil into the world, for whatever reason, contradicts what God says in Isaiah 45:7. God says, "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things]" (Isa 45:7, KJV). Evil is God's creation.

Jason

Good point, Lord.

This really ties in with the Book of Job as well. God takes the credit/blame for all the evils that befall Job. As much as the fundies want to say that it is ha Satan's doing, it's all God ultimately.

[Nosaj]

Ichneumonwasp,

This really ties in with the Book of Job as well. God takes the credit/blame for all the evils that befall Job. As much as the fundies want to say that it is ha Satan's doing, it's all God ultimately.

Aye, that God character sure is a troubling bloke. By god's own admission, he is the source of all things in the world, good and bad. It seems to me that Satan is more of scapegoat that anything else.

Jason