The Problem of Evil
It seems that the problem of evil is the most powerful argument against the theist argument. To provide context to the dialectic, the problem of evil argument at its simplest looks something like this:
1.If God exists, he would remove evil from the world
2.Evil has not been removed from the world
3.Therefore, God cannot exist [1,2]
The support for the first premise is the assumption that God is a perfect being by definition. God has the ability to remove evil, and the attribute of benevolence attached to his nature seems to compel God to remove evil. Otherwise, he is complacent in allowing his creations to suffer and responsible for creating a world in which suffering is inevitable.
Assuming that we grant the theist position that God does exist, how can we reconcile the fact that evil exists in the same reality as a perfect God?
It seems that the only hope of combatting this objection is for the theists to justify evil's existence. Evil exists because a world without evil would somehow be worse than the world we currently inhabit. Evil exists because it’s necessary for soul building, saint creating, or the possibility of free will.
However, my objection is this:
1.If God exists, he would have created the best possible world.
2.There are cases where evil does not lead to the fruition of some greater good (ex: holocaust, starving children, etc.)
3.God could have created a world without these types evil
4.Therefore, God did not create the best possible world [2,3]
5. Therefore, God does not exist. [1,4]
My objection rests heavily on the inconsistency of there existing a perfect being in the same reality as an imperfect world. Can anyone provide an argument that provides justification for the existence of evil while taking into account the unnecessary evils, or gratuitous evils, that we seem to observe throughout our life experiences?
1.If God exists, he would remove evil from the world
2.Evil has not been removed from the world
3.Therefore, God cannot exist [1,2]
The support for the first premise is the assumption that God is a perfect being by definition. God has the ability to remove evil, and the attribute of benevolence attached to his nature seems to compel God to remove evil. Otherwise, he is complacent in allowing his creations to suffer and responsible for creating a world in which suffering is inevitable.
Assuming that we grant the theist position that God does exist, how can we reconcile the fact that evil exists in the same reality as a perfect God?
It seems that the only hope of combatting this objection is for the theists to justify evil's existence. Evil exists because a world without evil would somehow be worse than the world we currently inhabit. Evil exists because it’s necessary for soul building, saint creating, or the possibility of free will.
However, my objection is this:
1.If God exists, he would have created the best possible world.
2.There are cases where evil does not lead to the fruition of some greater good (ex: holocaust, starving children, etc.)
3.God could have created a world without these types evil
4.Therefore, God did not create the best possible world [2,3]
5. Therefore, God does not exist. [1,4]
My objection rests heavily on the inconsistency of there existing a perfect being in the same reality as an imperfect world. Can anyone provide an argument that provides justification for the existence of evil while taking into account the unnecessary evils, or gratuitous evils, that we seem to observe throughout our life experiences?
Comments (99)
If so, could that being exist without having created anything? For instance, is the following scenario coherent: God exists and billions of other minds exist that God did not create?
If not, why not?
If God is omnipotent he can do anything. That includes creating minds that are not created. He can be self contradictory and do contradictory things.
This is an unwarranted premise. Which makes 2. a triviality and 3. a false conclusion.
Magical thinking on top of magical thinking. Good job! :sparkle:
Because God made me have a mouth.
Again, an unwarranted assumption. Which makes the argument invalid.
And suddenly I understand the atheist. It's the OOOO character that makes him repulsive.
Indirectly.
Not following this are you?
They created the universe. So indirectly me. We all evolve(d) in the universe.
I don’t see that…sadist? Because god is letting some bad things happen? So if you are omnipotent then you are either omnibenevolent or a sadist/devil?
Like I say, you are not really following this.
Let me explain. God not create anything. See? God exist. God not create anything. God exist. Other things exist. God not create the other things. See? Once again: God exists. Other things exist. God did not create the other things.
Take you. God would not create a person like you. Yet you exist. And God exists. And that's consistent.
Are you omnibenevolent? If not, are you a sadist?
That's all personal opinion, while I know they created the world.
So, God exists and you exist and God didn't create you.
Why not? Tell me your thoughts... I'll listen. Don't worry.
They only created the universe. Not the people in it.
If its creation is ravaged by suffering and its creatures have been made capable of freely making each other and themselves suffer gratuitously, then how could a 'non-omnibenevolent omnipotentate' not be "a sadist/devil" (i.e. malignantly omni-negligent)? :eyes:
Quoting EugeneW
Even on my best days, lil D-Ker, I'm not omnipotent, so the question is (charitably) missplaced. :roll:
You must go see a doctor... You clearly show the signs...
Argue something.
Well wouldnt God be evil if he denied free will to human beings as well?
Do we just chalk this up to the inherently nonsensical nature of omni-god or is there space for a more fair assessment than god being evil or evil?
I think having an argument with you isn't good for my healh. I only can say, if the universe coexists eternally with the gods and they haven't created the universe, then the universe would be devoid of life.
As you might conclude one day for yourself, when the gap is closed, we can receive gods.
I'm convinced. Go ASAP! Call him or her now you still show some signs of sanity.
I just don't understand why not being omnibenevolent means being a sadist, 180booze. :chin:
WTF is lil D-ker?!?
Again, just another squawk and not an argument. You seem incapable of arguing for anything. Why the hell would any of that follow?
You exist. God exists. And God would not create someone like you. if you think God created you, then you're even more misguided than the person who thinks the cold urine soaked piece of bread they've been served is toast by the finest chef in the world. Conclusion: God did not create you.
Now, stop blurting things and try and engage with the argument. So, that means not just blankly stating your rote learned beliefs, but showing how something you believe follows from premises that have some independent plausibility.
Or, alternatively, you could just try and follow my reasoning and learn something. God exists. Stupid, ignorant immoral people exist. A dangerous world exists. God would not create stupid, ignorant immoral people and create a dangerous world and plonk the stupid ignorant immoral people in it, would he? If you think he would, provide an argument.
So, God exists and stupid, ignorant immoral people exist and a dangerous world exists and God did not create the latter. See? Can't you see how that follows? And if you think that's a problem - that God somehow 'must' have created all other things - have the decency to provide an argument to that conclusion. This is a philosophy forum - do some.
Goddamnit Bartricks! Are you comparing me with a urine soaked piece of bread? What kind of argument is that? The chef might not have created that piece, but he might have created that urine.
Read my word, dear Tricks. If the gaps are closed there is nothing other to conclude the universe is created. I closed the gaps. My conclusion: Gods exists and the created the universe.
Don't evade the question by pointing out that it is 'possible' that the world's best chef produced it. Yes, it is metaphysically possible. But it'd be a very stupid inference to make, would it not?
Now come along, up your game: it isn't reasonable is it? No. And you - all of us - are a bit like that mouldy piece of urine soaked bread, are we not? And God is the finest chef ever. So, on the face of it it's a pretty stupid inference to make - to infer that God created us, is it not? If you think not, explain.
Who says people are plonked into this world? I like arguments but false assumptions don't get my thumb up.
No. I would conclude the chef is drunk or has a grudge against me. Since I don't know the good man, I'd say he's drunk. So were the gods when they created the world.
Look, this is pointless, you're clearly 14 and not remotely interested in finding out about the world, so just stay in your cage and squawk conventional views at the cat.
No. I was pulled out. But you were saying gods plonked us in. They didn't. They plonked the universe into existence. PLOINK!
Make an argument or go and do your homework.
Even the finest cook has moments. What's your point with urine bread? What you want me to conclude after I receive pissed bread?
God can't show his omnipotence. So he's not omnipotent.
Does they not teach you English good at the learning place?
Yes, that's right. Who's a good boy!
Not as evil, I think, as the Abrahamic God must be for giving us a form of "free will" too weak for us to freely – easily – choose in every instance not to make others and ourselves suffer needlessly (i.e. "making us sick but commanding us to be well"). Thus, the argument from poor design.
Yeah, of course. I do.
The old trick of people out of rational argument. Show them their failing grammar or spelling.
I know you don't.
Quoting EugeneW
:smirk:
Then explain me!
Good done God!
The Theodicy (Leibniz) response is basically P1 while rejecting P2. If God exists, he must have made the BPW, so any evils must entail some greater goods in the future. On a different avenue, a theist can employ chaos theory to undermine epistemic warrant for P2.
Quoting tryhard
Cantorian arguments, modal collapse arguments, and many more do a far better job
I think that your OP is a notorious dilemma that many have and many will argue about. Unfortunately, it seems as though (for the most partl) the discussion reply posts have derailed quite swiftly into a heated insult match, which isn't very productive nor thought-provoking. Hopefully I can provide a bit of exposition into the problem of evil from my understanding of the issue. Now, I should disclaim that I am not a theist, but this would be my counter arguments to yours.
Personally, I don't find the problem of evil as the most powerful argument against theism, but this isn't the main focus of your OP, so I am not going to elaborate too in depth here (unless you would like me to). I think this is a great argument for very specific conceptualizations of a monotheistic God (typically within an abrahamic kind of God), but not all of them.
I think it would be beneficial for you to specify exactly what you mean by "perfection". But for all intents and purposes, I am going to assume (correct me if I am wrong) that you are referring to a omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient God.
I think this is where the first issue I would have lies: what is evil? and what aspect of omnibenevolence compels God to remove it? Both depend on one's definitions. The problem of evil, as I understand it, boils down to axiology. Likewise, I typically view it as an internal critique and, therefore, "evil" would not be defined by what the opponent (who is providing the argument of the problem of evil to the theist) deems is "evil", but, rather, uses the definition that the particular theist holds for "evil". I think this is important because, although i would agree with you that the examples you give throughout your post are acts of evil (e.g. holocaust), none of your examples are necessarily considered acts of 'evil' by a theist in relation to God. I've never met a theist that thinks that the holocaust wasn't 'evil' in relation to human on human atrocities, but I have met theists that do not hold God to the standard of which He himself commands: in other words, he is not a law giver and obeyer. It is not a contradiction to hold that God's commandments are with respect to humans, not himself. Therefore, it is not a contradiction to hold that God can strike people down where they stand, but a human cannot do such to another human. I think this starts involving what I would presume you meant by:
My complaint would be, although I understand what you are saying, that your statement here is using your definition of evil. If a theist does not hold God to the same standards he proclaims for human-to-human interactions, then it logically doesn't make sense to claim they are "justifying 'evil'" in relation to their own definition because there's no dilemma for them (thereby no justification required in the sense you are using it). An issue only arises if they accept your definition of "evil". Furthermore, their definition (as previously defined) shares your moral rejection of the holocaust (because it was human to human mass genocide, not God to human mass genocide), thusly the issue now refurbishes into a discussion of how/why God could/does allow human-to-human evil. My only emphasis here is that it is no longer about God's direct actions but, rather, his seeming negligence. So it becomes whether or not the theist now needs to justify God allowing evil with respect to humans performing actions on other humans (or, if we wanted to broaden it, animals, etc).
As you are probably already anticipating, if the theist holds that "benevolence" does not directly entail direct interference with human-to-human evil, then there's no dilemma (i.e. if "all-good" is equivocal to "all-loving" then it is a more complex task to discern whether or not a being that truly infinitely loves you would allow you to suffer or not). As you mentioned, if the theist holds a libertarian or compatibilist view of free will, then this may be the part where they start invoking God's allowance of 'evil' as necessary for us to choose to follow him. If "all-good" is "all-loving", a loving being would not force you to follow it: you must choose it (or, at least, that's how the argument goes). My main point here is that loving something is not equivocal (necessarily) to trying to always prevent that something from feeling pain or from suffering--whether that be psychological or physiological. For example, let's say my best friend is a drug addict and is at the point that they take pills simply to prevent unwanted suffering in the form of withdrawal. Now I know that, considering the trajectory, they will die if I don't intervene. To oversimplify it, let's say I have two options: let them overdose on opioids in the most painless (and most absence of suffering) death imaginable or have an intervention and put them in rehab. Considering I love my mate, I will choose the latter option although it will obviously cause tremendous amounts of pain and suffering as they take back their life from addiction in rehab (it's not an easy process getting one's life back together after addiction, let alone detoxification). Now this is obviously an oversimplification, but notice how it is not concrete that we try to always avoid suffering. Likewise, there are people who enjoy pain, but we could easily posit that the "best possible world" is not that which has no pain, but no suffering (where "suffering" is that which someone doesn't enjoy doing--or something to those effects). Therefore, maybe the "best possible world" is where the person who likes to stick themselves with needles can do so and those who don't never have to, etc. But then we inevitably end up with a dilemma of impeding wishes of individuals: in this "best possible world", does one person's enjoyment of raping people overrule the person's hate for getting raped? I think not! To keep this brief, positing linguistically a "best possible world" is a whole lot easier than actually coming up with a viable "best possible world" and, even in the event that you can do it, it would only be a relative "best possible world" (relative, at best, to what humans could best come up with, which can surely not be confidently posited as absolutely the best possible world).
Let me break down your argument's premises:
I would like to emphasize that, as God is posited typically in a theistic worldview, we would not have any clue what the "best possible world" is in terms of what absolutely is the best possible world. We could both agree on what we think would be best, but not the absolute "best" (which would require the perspective of a omniscient being). Likewise, as previously mentioned, it is not clear that a best possible world would be devoid of pain nor suffering.
Although it was tragic and horrible, humanity did learn something, no matter how small or great, from the atrocities we have committed. Prior to the holocaust, people holistically didn't fully grasp how humans can be psychologically and sociologically manipulated into literally being complacent or, worse, an active participant in mass genocide (although there have been previous genocides to the holocaust, that one is generally the one that hit everyone's radar and is subsequently the most remembered). My main point here is that if a theist is positing an omniscient being, then we legitimately have 0 clue if there's no meaningful, worthy fruition of some greater "good" from the worst atrocities we can both conceive of. It is essentially a comparison of relative knowledge to absolute.
How do you know what God could have done? Maybe it is necessary for an all-loving God to allow evil. Again, theists typically posit a being that is "above our pay grade" in terms of knowledge and wisdom, so why should they concur that He could have done otherwise?
Again, what are you constituting as "best possible world"? Absence of pain? Suffering? Both? I would appreciate a little elaboration into what you mean here. Secondly, how do you know what the best possible world is without knowing all possible perspectives, contexts, and knowledge? Or are you merely referring to what would be better than our current world (which is also relative to what we know)?
Again, from a theistic perspective that asserts God as outlined previously, how are the 'evils' unnecessary? What logically contradicts the idea that they are necessary (from a theistic perspective)?
Bob
Rome more.[/quote]
There is no evil. Period!
Yes, you've understood the nature of "The problem of evil". The problem of evil reveals to us that we cannot label a God as limited to acting a certain way, when that God is without limits. That's just logically inconsistent, and impossible. If you reduce even one of the omni's to "The most X that is possible", then the problem of evil is solved.
:cry:
There was this man who pointed his telescope towards the ground and wondered why he couldn't see any stars? It was after dark.
You might wanna reconsider that.
I have, and that is what I've concluded. Its your job to show me why my conclusion is wrong. "I don't think so," is not philosophy.
Well, the law of noncontradiction seems to imply idealism. Are you an idealist?
Could you please show how this references my original statement? Here, I'll reference it again.
Quoting Philosophim
Where am I wrong in these two statements?
Yes. I accept Aristotle's logic, which concludes that a First Cause is necessary to explain the contingent existence of our world. That's even more obvious since the evidence for a cosmic beginning was discovered in the notions of evolution and expansion. But although his Prime Mover was self-existent, he didn't insist that it was "perfect", in the sense of moral excellence.
So, my hypothetical model for a self-existent Programmer of our long-running & continually-evolving program is Eternal & Infinite Potential, hence all-encompassing. And that definition includes the potential (or statistical possibility) for both Good & Evil. Therefore, like all executing, but incomplete,digital algorithms, our world computes both positive & negative values (1s & 0s). But the final result (synthesis) remains to be calculated. The up & down dialectic process of evolution swings back & forth between Thesis (e.g. positive, relatively good) & Anti-thesis(e.g. negative ; relatively bad) high & low points. And the ultimate output value remains in the unforeseeable future.
This is a PanEnDeistic (not in same reality) concept of a cosmic creator, which is unlike the typical Theistic model of Goodness & Perfection, that belies the reality of an OK-but-hardly-perfect creation. Since evolution explores both positive & negative possibilities, there's no need for a Heaven or Hell. What you see, is what you get. :smile:
What is Hegelian dialectic of good and evil :
As for good and evil, Hegel was extremely obscure on the issue, and Marx of course dismissed them as metaphysical abstractions detached from reality.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/42562/what-is-hegelian-dialectic-of-good-and-evil-and-how-does-it-relate-to-binary-opp
There is no such thing as evil. It is a fictional idea which human beings have created. God determines what is good, but human beings suggest what is evil. If the human suggestions prevail, and good is made to be the opposite of the proposed evil, then this good is just as fictitious as the proposed evil, and evil prevails over the true good.
Ok, so its the lesser of two evils? There are degrees of evil? How does it work, does all the good things count at all in our moral judgement of this god?
Quoting 180 Proof
Well this is a matter of internal consistency. We agree on the non-sensical nature of god but if there was a god, omnipowerful but not omnibenovolent, there are possibilities other than god being wholly evil.
Well the suffering might indeed be part of a greater good, a necessary evil. Thats at least possible, isnt it?
What about the evils that stem from free will being balanced out with greater goods? Do we know the balance? How sure can we really be that those free will evils arent well worth the price?
You could be omnipotent and remain neutral like nature is oft imagined to be, taking no ones side.
What about an omnipotent being who is so far beyond us it is analogous to a human to an insect. Have ever killed a bug? Were you wholly evil when you did?
Why? Everything has a purpose, especially evil. The assumption that God (if such exists) would remove evil (because we don't like it?) has always appeared to be preposterous to me.
What exactly is "the problem with evil"? That it exists?
Ever turn out the light? Would that be the problem with darkness, or the problem with the bright-ass light that is keeping me awake?
Alternately, God doesn't give damn about your belief in him, and proving his ability is pointless, he would have to do it all the time to convince some ass-hat that he is real. Endless nonsense.
Rage at the Sun all day and command it to appear no more; however the Sun doesn't do requests, so it will carry on as usual.
Agreed
Quoting Book273
At least he has to proof it to himself. How else does he practically know he is omnipotent? By his omniscience? Does his omnobenevolence forbid him to try? Or is it his omnipresence?
Every O, or OO, or OOO, undermines an O. OOO&O criples to the bone. OOO&O is equivalent to NONONO&NO. Like infinity and zero lay sleeping peacefully front to back.
Quoting Book273
No he wouldn't. Only to himself.
Quoting Book273
Agreed.
Quoting Book273
You never know. One day she goes bezerk. Or maybe the Moon falls down, causing the Sun to stop rotating around the Earth.
For an "omnipotent deity", only itself is "necessary", not the rules of the game it set up (e.g. "necessary evil") or the game itself (e.g. "creation") for that matter. "Theodicy" isn't for anyone's "greater good" other than "God's", after all, just like arson isn't for any burned alive sleeping victim's pleasure, only the arsonist's. Vapid sophistry, DJ: give it up and these tendentiously silly out-of-context-questions. Either knock down my "omnibenevolence" argument directly or concede the point even if it doesn't persuade you. I'm off to bed now. :yawn:
God would. Operating from an existential developmental/experiential cycle. We are currently in this cycle, in whatever form we elected to engage it (the cycle) in to further our understanding and experience of, eventually, everything from the single perspective of each thing. As there are a nearly infinite number of things, we will take an equal amount of time to garner the experience of said things from its perspective. In order to become fully cognizant of every possible experience all experiences must be available, eventually, to every being; even pissed on burnt toast, by far not the least horrid thing out there. That which is created the ultimate learning environment for those of us which are.
No he wouldn't. You've said nothing in support of your claim. Why on earth would God - an all powerful, all knowing, all good person - create ignorant, morally bad people and then dump them in a dangerous world? That's not remotely like anything even someone half-way decent would do!
He wouldn't and hasn't.
Unless you have another all-encompassing theory to explain everything? I would be interested in hearing it.
Why is your philosophy limited to earth and that which is limited to this reality? It seems, well, limited.
Perhaps the end of modern civilization is close at hand. No worries. There will be another.
They aren’t out of context, those questions illustrate the possibilities you asked for.
Your objection is a good one, but I think we do have reason to believe God might create the sort of world where gratuitous evils are possible. When we consider this problem I think we ought to be wary of placing direct blame for the existence of these evils on God. God may have created a world where these evils are possible, but that does not entail that he is directly responsible for their existence. For example, if I sell you a car and you crash it, it's true that without me you wouldn't have gotten into a car crash, but it is not true that I am to blame. In the same way, I am suggesting that God made gratuitous evils possible, but that does not mean we should blame him.
My argument is as follows:
1. If God exists, then he might create the best possible world.
2. The best possible world would include the potential for gratuitous evil.
a. The best possible world would include the potential for genuinely good actions.
b. If an action is genuinely good, then it was performed by an agent acting freely.
c. So, the best possible world would contain agents acting freely.
d. Agents who act freely have the potential to commit gratuitous evil.
3. If God exists, then he might create a world with the potential for gratuitous evil.
All my conclusion states is that a world with gratuitous evil is not inconsistent with the existence of a God. So,
^ This may also be the case, but it could also be the case that both gratuitous evil and God exist. My argument relies heavily on free action being required for genuine good. I think this is an intuitively appealing view though. How could there be courage without the possibility of cowardice, or generosity without the possibility of greed? Certainly, God could've created a world where gratuitous evil was impossible, but it seems like genuine virtue would also be impossible and such a world would be no better, if not worse, than our own.
Hi, tryhard,
First of all, your arrangement of the PoE seems a little problematic. I realized that you have explained your rationale for your premise 1 “If God exists, he would remove evil from the world” in the second paragraph, maybe you can list a sub-argument to clarify it. I suggest you change it into a more propositional logical form, such as “ If God exists, there is no evil.”
As for your own argument, I find the second premise to be objectionable.
“There are cases where evil does not lead to the fruition of some greater good”
I guess you mean “ there is gratuitous evil.” But a skeptical theist could say that it is impossible for we as humans to know whether something is gratuitous evil, because we aren’t omniscient, and we will always miss some information when making a moral claim. When we think something is gratuitous evil, it could just be the case that we haven’t recognized the positive part of it. For example, you might think that the fact that there are starving children is gratuitous evil. But it might be the case that the starvation of these children is a necessary process for them to gain a better future, and God will make up for their suffering in heaven.
I am not saying that I recognize the holocaust or children's starvation to be good things by any means. I intuitively think these things are really really bad as you do, and it is also hard for me to come up with a proper explanation to justify those tragic events. However, I also realize that ethical problems can be really obscure, and we humans have constantly made wrong moral judgments in our history. And it is possible that we are simply incapable to be certain about whether something is absolutely a gratuitous evil. Therefore, your premise 2 is, maybe not totally proven wrong, but at least significantly weakened by the skeptic theists' argument. Please reply if you found a solution for this skeptic theists' argument.
In this post, I will develop some of my thoughts surrounding the debate on the problem of evil.
To start, I will outline the Evidential Problem of Evil. It seems to go something like this.
In many sad events, we can’t see what good features would outweigh the bad features. There are some apparently gratuitous evils.
Therefore, it’s likely that there are unjustified sad events (the good features do NOT outweigh the bad). Probably, there ARE gratuitous evils.
Therefore, it’s likely that: if God exists, then he allows unjustified and sad events, or gratuitous evils.
God would never allow unjustified sad events, or gratuitous evils.
Therefore, it’s likely that God does not exist.
I think premise 1 is sound. There are quite clearly some “apparently gratuitous evils”. This would reasonably lead one to question why God would allow these things to happen or at least why so creully.
On one hand, I believe an argument could be made against premise 4, arguing that a God would allow “unjustified sad events, or gratuitous events”, because it is the only way to preserve the consequences of human free will. There are obviously some gratuitous evils that are caused by humans, the Holocaust being just one example. If God were to intervene in this event and forbid consequential suffering from happening, He would be preventing the natural consequence of human free choice. It would essentially be God saying, “you humans can do whatever you want, but I control the consequences of your actions. Only positive consequences can materialize, even if the action is evil.” I think we can all agree that this would be quite strange. Thus, God does allow (human caused) gratuitous events to happen; otherwise, it would be infringing on human free will.
Now, even if this is true, one might ask, “what about the evil that is not caused by humans–natural disasters for example?” Let me first state that no one can definitively say that there even exists a sort of evil that humans did not cause. Humans can cause evil even if they do not intend to; even pure intentions can result in evil consequences. It is possible that an earthquake may be caused by the imperfect way humans have interacted with the world for thousands of years. Of course, this seems outrageous to say, but it is possible.
Nonetheless, let us say that there are indeed evils that are solely caused by the hand of God–that even if humans were perfect and lived just like Christ, there would still be gratuitous evils.
Let us, for a moment, consider a hypothetical world where God does not permit gratuitous evils. This means every event must produce more good than bad or simply be purely good without any bad. This is important to point out because this means a world of purely good is possible in this hypothetical. If there are no events where the bad outweighs the good, and only events where the good outweighs the bad, then the spectrum of possible worlds include only worlds that have more good than bad, or worlds that are only good. Thus, a perfect world is possible without gratuitous events. Of course, this possibility would only materialize if humans lived as perfect images of Christ. Nonetheless, this perfect world is still possible. What if God never intended for this world to be even possibly perfect? What if that would actually be counterintuitive to human purpose. If God wanted humans to be perfect, this world would not be necessary. Humans would simply exist eternally in heaven. Thus, it is possible that God would allow gratuitous evils.
The purpose of this post is to support Van Inwagen’s “Rescue Operation”.
Below is a link to some of Inwagen’s ideas:
https://www.scielo.br/j/man/a/y7sLnLDW6xzwh7d8FYrH8Gz/
In summary, Van Inwagen argues that “since love essentially involves free will, love is not something that can be imposed from the outside, by an act of sheer power. Human beings must choose freely to be reunited with God and to love him, and this is something they are unable to do by their own efforts. They must therefore cooperate with God. As is the case with many rescue operations, the rescuer and those whom he is rescuing must cooperate. For human beings to cooperate with God in this rescue operation, they must know that they need to be rescued. They must know what it means to be separated from him. And what it means to be separated from God is to live in a world of horrors. If God simply "canceled" all the horrors of this world by an endless series of miracles, he would thereby frustrate his own plan of reconciliation. If he did that, we should be content with our lot and should see no reason to cooperate with him.”
Here is the link to the quote:
https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/1025532-the-problem-of-evil-the-gifford-lectures-delivered-in-the-university-of
The argument would go as follows:
If God ended suffering, humans would not know what it means to be separated from Him.
If humans did not know what it means to be separated from God, they would not know that they need to be rescued.
If humans did not know they needed to be rescued, they would have no reason to cooperate with God.
Suffering is necessary for humans to cooperate with God.
I believe this is an extension of my previous post. In my previous post, I briefly mentioned that a world where gratuitous evils do not exist would be quite weird because it would eliminate the purpose of the world. I strongly believe God would not want a perfect world, or even one where a perfect world exists. I believe that it is possible that God created forms of gratuitous evil to prevent this very case. If it was the case that humans could attain perfection, they might as well live in Heaven. There is a very real and concrete purpose for being in this world: to suffer, and in a world where suffering ceased to exist or there was even a possibility to end all suffering, all meaning would be lost. In the Christian doctrine, there is a very apparent call to suffering. A call to fast, a call to participate in lent, a call to reject one’s internal desires, a call to “pick up one’s cross daily”. This suffering brings the individual to a state of dependence–a state of reliance on God, and it is only when one is brought to this state that they can learn to comprehend the necessity of the offering that God has made.
Romans 5:3-4 says, “we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope.”
The Bible encourages Christians to “rejoice in our sufferings,” because the unavoidable nature of suffering is a blessing in two ways. When Christians are brought to a state of dependence, it lures them towards the grandeur of God, inspiring us to find Him and develop a relationship with Him. And this is the only moral way God can offer this gift; He cannot force this gift upon us, or else it would not be a gift. Acceptance of this gift is an act of humility, not only bringing human “character” closer to the image of God, but also giving us “hope”: hope that the sacrifice of our fleshly desires, will lead us somewhere greater. And this is the beginning of faith.
Let it not be confused that humans should then create evil to cause suffering. I believe this would be imitating God–attempting to take away the power that is meant for God. The mission to end suffering is obviously a righteous cause, one that ought to continue being pursued. However, the point is, despite human effort, suffering is inevitable: and our mission on an individual level ought not to be to suffer as little as possible, but instead to choose to suffer in the hope that it develops character and brings us closer to God. If this opportunity is available, it ought to always be chosen. I will continue this discussion in my next post.
Western culture has made the mistake of glorifying comfort. Progress in life is simply a means to increase ease and comfort–in other words, to escape discomfort. What kind of life is this? Is this a truly fulfilling life?
These are the questions that St. Irenaeus and John Hick attempt to answer with their “Soul-Making Theodicy”.
Their argument goes something like this:
The world is designed by God as an environment in which people, through their free choices, can undergo spiritual growth that will ultimately fit them for communion with God.
Soul-making is a great good, and God would therefore be justified in designing a world with that purpose in mind.
Our world is very well designed in that regard, and thus that, if one views evil as a problem, it is because one mistakenly thinks that the world ought, instead, to be a hedonistic paradise.
Opponents to this argument can foolishly take the argument out of context and argue that the Soul-Making Theodicy posits that suffering ought to be encouraged and even produced if it is good.
This might be true, but I am not concerned with defending against such arguments. I am only concerned with attempting to find what is true. In the case of suffering, there is almost no definitive way one ought to approach suffering. Of course, one ought to endure the suffering of losing weight if they are overweight, but no child ought to experience the suffering of starvation. However, I do believe that there is something to be said about the importance of suffering and how it can bring one closer to God–something that seems to have been lost in modern society. So, that is exactly what I will do.
Roosevelt Montas, Professor at Columbia University, writes in his book Resurrecting Socrates,
“...the idea that a long life of comfort and ease should be the ultimate goal for a human life is atheism–the denial of God.”
Montas argues that the life God calls people to live is one of vows to God. And in the Christian view, vows to God involve continual suffering. Citing the work of Gandhi, Montas mentions that “in order to ‘see God,’ to know Truth, one must be prepared to die in the effort. A vow is an explicit declaration of this intention. It’s as if only by committing to a value that is higher than life itself does one meet the condition for a revelation of God. God enters a human life through the opening created by settling on terms with death.” There is certainly something about suffering that connects humans to God on a deeper level. One that cannot be explained, but only experienced. However, I will do my best to rationalize through this connection.
Suffering, in some sense, is the purest form of truth. Even happiness can be faked. Suffering cannot. Suffering is the only undeniable truth of the world–it will occur no matter what and one's willingness to accept this suffering defines the character of the individual. Montas continues with Gandhi’s philosophy of suffering saying, “the acceptance of suffering in upholding a just cause unleashes an irresistible power, the very moral force that…sustains the universe.”
You're just saying stuff. Again: as is blindingly obvious to virtually everyone bar the psychopathic and morally bankrupt, an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person would not decide to create some idiot immoral people and then dump them in a dangerous world to live among each other. That's the act of a sadist. So, God - not being a sadist - didn't do it. That's not what is going on. If you think it is what is going on - that God loves idiot immoral people and then letting them languish in ignorance in a dangerous world - then you've gone one totally messed up idea about what being morally good involves.
Huh? Both happiness and suffering can be faked. Suffering especially because it is so often seen as a symbol of authenticity and worthiness. Sounds to me more like you have particular fondness or bias for suffering as a sign of integrity. That is common with some philosophically inclined folk and pessimists who often assume happiness is either inappropriate or delusional while suffering is genuine. :wink: Of course Christians have fetishized and made a cult of suffering for centuries, so in Western culture suffering is synonymous with sanctification.
Quoting Jonah Wong
No, capitalism, marketing and advertising have done this. What's left of culture after this onslaught is incoherent and broken.
Quoting Jonah Wong
This sounds like a twisted way of thinking and a good example of how a Christian might work really hard to overlook the fact that god (based on the stories and what we see in nature) is an abject cunt who treats creation with disrespect and malevolence.
Quoting Jonah Wong
The thing is, this is exactly the kind of thinking that I heard in Baptist church sermons in the 1970's and 80's and is a common Christian refrain. Suffering is a form of blessing that makes us better people.
What the hell does that mean? God is an energy? Oh, I thought he was a gas. Or a potato. Silly me. So, just to be clear, when you hear 'the problem of evil' you think this is a problem that arises for those who believe in energy?
The word 'God' denotes a person who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. And it is for the putative existence of a person like that, that the problem of evil emerges. And it's not about religion - the problem of evil was first articulated by Epicurus hundreds of years before Christianity was on the books.
If one is using the word 'God' differently, then you are just not engaging with the problem.
It isn't. What are you on about? I believe in God. I also believe that no good, all knowing, all powerful person would create some evil, ignorant idiots and then create a world it would be dangerous for evil, ignorant idiots to live in and place them in it. That seems patently obvious: that's not how good people behave and if you think otherwise, then you have some screwed up ideas about what being morally good involves.
So, I draw the only reasonable conclusion one can draw: God did no such thing. God did not create me and you.
That contradicts what some religious types believe. So what? What's that got to do with anything?
The only question is whether it is consistent to suppose that there exist billions of ignorant, evil idiots and that God exists as well and had nothing whatsoever to do with their existence. And the answer to that question is a big fat 'yes'. Being omnipotent does not involve having to create anything - if it did, it wouldn't be omnipotence worthy of the name. Thus, there is no contradiction involved in supposing there to exist an omnipotent being and lots of other beings that the omnipotent being had nothing to do with creating. And the same goes for being omniscient. And certainly being morally good doesn't, for it'd be positively bad to create such creatures. Thus, God's existence is entirely compatible with the existence of billions of evilly disposed ignorant idiots that God did not create. And that seems to be the situation, yes?
Person, likely not. People are weaklings and lack insight. The anthropomorphic version of God should n't be a weakling, so your description of God isn't applicable.
Now you are describing me. Thanks. Although, to be clear, I don't actually need the support.
I find your version of God as limited as your willingness to consider alternate viewpoints on the subject. Therefore, to acknowledge exactly what you have claimed, I agree, your version of God would not do such a thing. However, as I do not find your version of God to be remotely accurate, the assumptions based on it are equally invalid.
A mind. A person is just a mind. If you are using the word 'God' to mean something other than a person, then you're just not talking about what others are talking about.
Look, I can prove God. God is a peanut. Here is a peanut.
That's stupid, yes? So, God is a person who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. Note, 'knowledge' is something only a person can have. So if someone believes in an omniscient 'thing', then that thing is a person or that the believer is an idiot.
Again, your version of God, your definition of all the aforementioned "evils". All according to your viewpoint. Limited, limited, and oh yes, very limited.
Excellent! Do it my friend.
I find it hard to imagine how anything like 'a world' could exist without the possibility of suffering. After all, animals predate each other. Evolution is a nasty and messy business, replete with extinctions, merciless struggle everywhere. So what do you expect? Once the possibility of death and disease exists, then how could you have a world without any suffering?
Quoting tryhard
The Holocaust was the work of human beings. Starvation is a consequence of overpopulation, shortage of resources, drought. Do you expect a God to literally come down and take military action against the Nazis, or distribute food aid to the poor?
There's an old joke. A priest was driven to the steeple of his church by a catastrophic flood. A man of devout faith, he prayed to God to save him.
Soon a man in a rowboat came by and the fellow shouted to priest “Jump in, I can save you.”
The priest shouted back, “No, I’m praying to God and He will save me.”
So the rowboat went on.
Then a motorboat came by. The fellow in the motorboat shouted, “Jump in, I can save you.”
To this the priest said, “No thanks, I’m praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith.”
So the motorboat went on.
Then a helicopter came by and the pilot shouted down, “Grab this rope and I will lift you to safety.”
To this the priest again replied, “No thanks, I’m praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith.”
So the helicopter flew away.
Soon the water rose above the rooftop and the man drowned. He went to Heaven. He finally got his chance to discuss this whole situation with God, at which point he exclaimed, “I had faith in you but you didn’t save me, you let me drown. I don’t understand why!”
To this God replied, “I sent you a rowboat and a motorboat and a helicopter, what more did you want?”
Gnostic Christianity proposed its own unique “explanation” for the existence of evil which differed significantly from the “explanation” proposed by orthodox Christianity.
It went something like this.
Gnostic Christianity believed in a completely unknowable Transcendent God which was revealed to be a timeless trinity of Father, Mother, and Son. This Transcendent God emanated and contained within itself a realm of spiritual fullness (the Pleroma) that consisted of a series of emanated spiritual beings (Aeons).
The very last emanated spiritual being or Aeon, called Sophia (Wisdom), longed to have an unmediated, direct knowledge of the Transcendent God. But such unmediated knowledge (gnosis) was not permitted to any Aeon because doing so successfully would erase the Aeon’s emanation, absorb it back into the Transcendent God, and cause the Aeon to lose its identity.
Sophia’s effort to have direct knowledge of the Transcendent God failed, but since she was a spiritual being, she automatically emanated from herself a defective, imperfect, inferior version of The Transcendent God. This inferior version of the Transcendent God was named Ialdabaoth.
Ialdabaoth stole spiritual power from his mother (Wisdom), fell outside the fullness of the Pleroma, and created an imperfect, defective copy of the Pleroma, which became our universe. Ialdabaoth also created imperfect copies of the Aeons, called Archons, to rule over the universe.
Ialdabaoth Is also said to be responsible for human beings falling from the Pleroma into the universe, imprisoning them in physical bodies, and causing them to forget their prior existence in the pleroma.
Being ignorant of the Transcendent God, Ialdabaoth claims that he is the only true God who rules over the created universe and its inhabitants.
Of course, there is much more to this religious epic, but enough has been presented at this point to at least indicate how and why evil exists in the created universe and who is responsible for it from the perspective of Gnostic Christianity.
Any opinions about this?
This except I say everything that is good is just what God created or is existence (through God). There are then degrees of good as we get closer to the most universal good which is God. This overlaps with reality perfectly for me like in science, math etc. It's just the most accurate.
Quoting tryhard
Is it? Who is using that argument against theism?
If you are referring to atheism/atheists, you should state that. Anyway, not so important.
Quoting tryhard
1) What is considered as "evil"? (One must first define that first.)
2) Why God would remove evil (however this is defined)? Based on what?
So, to me the first assumption-proposition is evidently baseless. Hence, the whole argumental/logical construction falls apart. It can't support God's inexistence (or anything else, for that matter).
I know that there's a lot of argumentation in favor and against the existence of God, by theists and atheist, resp/ly. But there's also another category, which I call "no-theists" for whom God is just a concept. God does not exist for them. That's all. (It may be quite similar to what is known as "nontheism", but since I don't know much about it, I cannot talk from that perspective.)
This, in my opinion, is the most rational position on the subject. I explain why below.
There's no meaning in talking about and/or trying to prove the inexistence of something, which one believes that it does not exist or one does not believe it exists. And God is one of them. So, however any attempt to prove the inexistence of God --using the above argumentation scheme or any other-- is destined to fail.
The existence of God is a question of personal experience and belief. Neither of them is open to dispute.
Evil doesn't exist until you can show an object "evil" and then show causation of "evil" to other objects in reality. Actions are too general and can be in many contradicting categories and "suffering" can't be evil as sometimes pain is good as an evolutionary response etc.
Hmmm. So the holocaust was inevitable, necessary. Ought implies can?