The problem of Evil: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » The problem of Evil » The problem of Evil

The problem of Evil
(the Epicurean paradox)

Page: First 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

The problem of Evil

Petunia
silent muse

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 24, 2005
Location: Cold North, brrrrrrr
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 164

Posted 12/20/05 - 08:11 PM:	#111
It is worth investigating the idea of free will a little deeper if it is to be a justification for evil. If free will is simply the ability to reject God, then I suppose God could eliminate each person from ever existing who rejects Him and there would be no known suffering. Free will is more than the ability to reject God. It is the ability to demonstrate whether or not our will is superior to God's. The consequences of our choice are necessary to reveal the nature of our choice. Edit: Free will is the freedom to demonstrate and make a case against God. That God does not control us is an attribute of His goodness. I understand that goodness by definition does not seek to control absolutely, and so it is perceived as not being all powerful. If we look to authority on earth, those rulers who desire to control absolutely allow for the least rejection. Stalin's critics had a way of mysteriously disappearing. From my experience I would even suggest that the desire to control is the root of arrogance and cruelty - the very foundation of evil. I understand that God takes a different approach to suffering - by joining Himself to it. When facing the experience of suffering one realizes that rejecting God leaves only suffering. When embracing God, there is still suffering, but there is God. Edited by Petunia on 12/20/05 - 09:39 PM
Peer over the precipice

Mariner
Longing

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Brazil
Total Topics: 35
Total Posts: 4337

Posted 12/21/05 - 04:24 AM:	#112
angieaugustine wrote: ... even if the behaviors differ from culture to culture, the idea that certain behaviors are somehow inherently evil or wrong does not. Not only that, but the fact that the representatives of different cultures can argue about morality, trying to convince the other that their morality is right (or better -- there is no need to imply perfection), shows that people think of morality as something authoritative, based on a standard that is independent from them. In other words, the difference in moral codes around the world stems from ignorance rather than from the lack of a standard -- if this were not the case, there would be no room for arguments about morality. For we do not discuss taste (for example) as if arguing about it could reach a conclusion. We reserve this kind of argument for things which do not depend on our whims. (Please observe that I did not use the word "objective" in conjunction with morality . I do not think that morality is strictly objective.) *** ZenEthics wrote: As you said will even if its free cannot turn away from the undeniable righteousness of God:you said that you can still have free will and be around God and never experience/choose evil: Why did God create a world where it is possible to be separated from him if in every instance being separated from him is undesirable? Yes, this is the big question. And the big answer is not anything earthshaking . The point of God's hard-to-explain behavior is that he wants us to know that He is Goodness. (Caveat -- when I say "know", I don't mean "classify this proposition in some file in our minds", I mean something more intimate and pervasive. It is not something that demands the attention of the intellect, only). If we were "exposed" to God before we had the chance to choose to reject him, we wouldn't really know Him in that sense. There is a great divide here, of course. Anyone who chose God sees that His actions are good and make sense quite easily, because those who chose God are exhilarated and remember the time before this existential choice was made, they are thankful for the opportunity of choosing. They know that God did the right thing (and not just because we are "defining God's will as good", or something like that. They know it as much as they know that chocolate tastes good. It is apprehended by their beings.) Those who haven't experienced that can't understand it. Which is why I don't ask anyone to understand it, since this is something which is experienced in one's life much more than conceived in one's mind. It is enough, in this thread, to point out the lack of contradiction. This "negative knowledge", that merely establishes the possibility of something, is not true understanding. If we don't want to divide the world into those who have glimpsed God and those who haven't, and try therefore to look at this problem impartially (which does not mean, as many people believe, "starting from the assumption that God does not exist ), the Problem of Evil is simply a misgiving about Existence. But Existence, the Universe, is the given; to question it is hardly useful. That is the point of Job, by the way. The assurance of a loving God who throws light in our darkness and is the source of meaning is ok, but it is no assurance that there will be no suffering or evil. "God's ways are not our ways" certainly sounds unsatisfying, but it is not terribly different from "the tsunami's ways are not our ways", and no one tries to disprove tsunamis by pointing this out . The outer cosmos is outer. The revolt of man at the cosmos is a hint of his intimate connection with something other than the cosmos, but this is not the point being argued. Rather, I'm emphasizing that immanent existence can't be elevated into a source of morality, goodness, or what else -- and at the same time that transcendental Being has no necessary connection with immanent existence. We can't use the one to accuse the other. Even if we grant (something which is not necessary for theism) that this Being is also the Creator. For Creation is a work-in-progress, even in this case, and we can't pronounce our judgment on the Artist while He is choosing the paints . The ability of blind forces(nature) to create intense suffering. why do natural disasters exist? This is the kind of question that leads one to the Problem of Good. Why does great bliss exist? Who are you (or anyone else) to demand gratification from the Universe? The asking of this question about natural disasters is quite unusual if you look at it closely. One's disaster is another's blessing. The shark enjoys the shipwreck . If all there is to existence is immanent existence, and if we are but animals who managed to create a language and some tools for working the world out, we should acknowledge that this kind of question is meaningless, as meaningless as the cosmos itself. Yet, we don't. Some of us even use it to disprove theism , and no one really accepts that the cosmos is meaningless.
"In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't." -- Blaise Pascal "The more I am by myself and alone, the more I have come to love myths" -- Aristotle in his later years

abba
Servant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 05, 2005
Location: Sarasota
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 432

Posted 12/21/05 - 07:29 AM:	#113
ZenEthics wrote: I fail to see the inherent benefit in creating a world full of suffering outside of heaven. YES! That is the question that man has always been asking - what is the purpose of my existence?? We do fail to see it... necessarily, because we are not God. If a purpose exists, it is surely not one of man's devising, but only of God's.

ZenEthics
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 15, 2005
Location: Denton Tx
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 106

Posted 12/22/05 - 05:38 PM:	#114
Mariner wrote: But Existence, the Universe, is the given; to question it is hardly useful. That is the point of Job, by the way. To question it is hardly useful? What is the purpose of this discussion? Mariner wrote: "God's ways are not our ways" certainly sounds unsatisfying, but it is not terribly different from "the tsunami's ways are not our ways", and no one tries to disprove tsunamis by pointing this out . No one claims that tsunamis have a mind or infinite power over the world they control. We understand Tsunamis the way we understand the rest of the universe:blindly indifferent. I find myself in neither heaven nor hell, nor a world that treats me solely based on my morality or actions, it seems the world around me is mindless and indifferent to my plight. If sin were truly separation from God it would be fairly easy to watch habitual sinners fall apart over time(as they grew more and more distant from God), but that is in fact not the case, popes seem to be riddled with death and disease just as much as the next person. I apologize for the terrible movie analogy but if a background system of morality was truly in place i would expect evil to be a bit more like the dark side in star wars: those who chose evil/the dark side would increasingly become sickly/decrepit. Since order beauty healthiness are all good properties of your good God, we should expect to find these things decrease as one moves farther and farther from God. No such evidence seems to exist. Mariner wrote: For Creation is a work-in-progress, even in this case, and we can't pronounce our judgment on the Artist while He is choosing the paints .. i don't think this metaphor holds any water. God is not limited in any sense like an artist who must choose paints and ponder what he will create. Mariner wrote: This is the kind of question that leads one to the Problem of Good. Why does great bliss exist? Who are you (or anyone else) to demand gratification from the Universe? why does great bliss exist? from a strictly materialist standpoint it would exist because bodies developing highly complex nervous systems(brains) gain replicative advantage by being wired in a way that experiences are labeled as undesirable or desirable, there must also be a way to differentiate between desirable/undesirably quanta during such experiences, I'm not sure what you mean by great bliss, but having sex eating food are all fun and great, but i understand that they are fun and great precisely because I am programmed to think so. I do not demand gratification from a blind apathetic universe, i do however Demand a perfect existence from a perfect God. Mariner wrote: The asking of this question about natural disasters is quite unusual if you look at it closely. One's disaster is another's blessing. The shark enjoys the shipwreck .. I am aware of predators and parasites, their blessing is your disaster, but the strong kill and exploit the weak not because an Almighty God exists and thinks that its ok if just one party benefits at the others expense, nature is cruel and deadly because it operates on survival and replication. Is it necessary for ones disaster to be another's blessing? wouldn't the world be better if ones blessing were another's blessing and that was the end of the story? Mariner wrote: If all there is to existence is immanent existence, and if we are but animals who managed to create a language and some tools for working the world out, we should acknowledge that this kind of question is meaningless, as meaningless as the cosmos itself. Yet, we don't. Some of us even use it to disprove theism , and no one really accepts that the cosmos is meaningless. I don't understand this paragraph, are you saying that if god doesn't exist then asking why natural disasters happen is meaningless, of course it is! the question is trying to show a dichotomy between what should exist if God existed and what does exist. What is your definition of meaning? and if you could please address #2:The ability of a will to influence evil over another will ex:Satan(who is not quite all powerful but still much more powerful than humans) and his constant unchecked evil influence on humanity. God gave Satan a large amount of power, and control over humanity....why?
We are all the punchline to a joke that they wont let us in on.

Mariner
Longing

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Brazil
Total Topics: 35
Total Posts: 4337

Posted 12/23/05 - 02:52 AM:	#115
ZenEthics wrote: To question it is hardly useful? What is the purpose of this discussion? Not to question what is ultimately given, at least as I see it. What is the purpose in your opinion? No one claims that tsunamis have a mind or infinite power over the world they control. We understand Tsunamis the way we understand the rest of the universe:blindly indifferent. And this is my point. What is blindly indifferent does not require explanation, and this applies to the whole of existence. Even if God is not blindly indifferent, his ways are not our ways; his goodness may be beyond our cognitive ability; etc. These are, of course, devil's advocate arguments. But they are enough to point out how the core of the PoE is unreasonable. It means suing the universe. I apologize for the terrible movie analogy but if a background system of morality was truly in place i would expect evil to be a bit more like the dark side in star wars: those who chose evil/the dark side would increasingly become sickly/decrepit. Who said they don't? But don't expect it to be reflected in the immanent existence, which is -- by definition -- not transcendent. The idea that there is an intimate connection between our transcendental experience (which motivates our moral judgments) and immanent existence is unsupported by evidence. This is the dilemma that any soul sensitive to transcendence always feels -- the transcendent being seems far more real than anything else, and yet it is not reflected in the immanent existence (which, supposedly, depends on it). Since order beauty healthiness are all good properties of your good God, we should expect to find these things decrease as one moves farther and farther from God. No such evidence seems to exist. Ah, but they do exist. Yet, it requires an eye focused on the things which are "not of this world" (to use Scriptural language) to grasp that evidence. Saints become more beautiful, and consummate sinners become more ugly. I agree it sounds weird, but it is true nonetheless. i don't think this metaphor holds any water. God is not limited in any sense like an artist who must choose paints and ponder what he will create. Says who? God chose to limit Himself by lending creative power to his creation (us). why does great bliss exist? from a strictly materialist standpoint it would exist because bodies developing highly complex nervous systems(brains) gain replicative advantage by being wired in a way that experiences are labeled as undesirable or desirable, there must also be a way to differentiate between desirable/undesirably quanta during such experiences, I'm not sure what you mean by great bliss, but having sex eating food are all fun and great, but i understand that they are fun and great precisely because I am programmed to think so. But if this is your idea of great bliss, you haven't experienced it. We all know greater, harder-to-explain blessings than purely natural feelings. This is the first objection. The second is that pleasure does not equal bliss. We can have pleasure followed by regret and dejection (we feel that all the time), and curse the day in which we felt that pleasure. Equating pleasure with goodness (i.e. hedonism) is not really a tenable ethical theory, but your answer to the question "why is there goodness" points at pleasure as if it solved the problem. It doesn't. I do not demand gratification from a blind apathetic universe, i do however Demand a perfect existence from a perfect God. And this perfect God has that perfect existence. You, on the other hand, are not a perfect God. Why should you experience a perfect existence? This is the original argument again. The fact that God promised Heaven to you does not mean that He ought to give it because of justice or some other principle. You deserve what you deserve; being imperfect, you can hardly deserve perfection. The PoE, in its original formulation (Epicurus), did not involve a belief in Heaven, remember. It tried to prove that God can't be good because there is evil in this world. This does not hold. I am aware of predators and parasites, their blessing is your disaster, but the strong kill and exploit the weak not because an Almighty God exists and thinks that its ok if just one party benefits at the others expense, nature is cruel and deadly because it operates on survival and replication. And who created nature? Is it necessary for ones disaster to be another's blessing? wouldn't the world be better if ones blessing were another's blessing and that was the end of the story? I don't know. I know that whenever people suggest metaphysical improvements in the world, they usually mean either a simplification of nature or a curtailing of free will. I don't suppose that either would be a real improvement. The question about natural evil is that we conflate pain and suffering and death with "evil", but there is no reason to do so. An "animal philosopher" would find it strange, that we criticize the very processes that allow nature to thrive. Or, to speak in physics' jargon, our system is closed, matter must be recycled, so what would you suggest? I don't understand this paragraph, are you saying that if god doesn't exist then asking why natural disasters happen is meaningless, of course it is! the question is trying to show a dichotomy between what should exist if God existed and what does exist. What is your definition of meaning? In other words, you are assuming a necessary link (above and beyond God) between transcendental experience and immanent existence. You are saying that if God (Transcendental experience) exists, then immanent existence must be in such and such a way. Does this seem reasonable to you? In effect, this assumed link assumes the role of the deity in your worldview if you accept this kind of reasoning. You are merely saying "The Christian God does not exist, because my personal God [shades of Socrates' daimon ] tells me that the world should be in such and such a way if the Christian God existed]". My definition of meaning is "the relationship between the symbolized and the symbol". If a question or a concept is meaningless, it means that the symbol has no correspondence to anything. and if you could please address #2:The ability of a will to influence evil over another will ex:Satan(who is not quite all powerful but still much more powerful than humans) and his constant unchecked evil influence on humanity. God gave Satan a large amount of power, and control over humanity....why? The scene in which Jesus is tempted by Satan does much to explain it. Job does a good job as well. Satan, the Tempter, the Adversary, is the principle that forces us to choose. The point of existence, after all, is to choose. That's why God created us, that's why we have free will, so that we can choose. This is God's greatest gift to us -- the ability, as well as the opportunity, to choose. So that in the last day we can congratulate ourselves, ultimately, on a job well done, instead of bowing to an idol of God as robots. Satan has great power, but he is not allowed to influence any will who is not inclined to follow him first, out of his own volition. He's not an hypnotist or something like that. His power is based on illusion, fear, lies; all of which are in our power to counter. With God's help .
"In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't." -- Blaise Pascal "The more I am by myself and alone, the more I have come to love myths" -- Aristotle in his later years

abba
Servant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 05, 2005
Location: Sarasota
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 432

Posted 12/23/05 - 07:40 AM:	#116
I agree with most of what you say. But in: The point of existence, after all, is to choose. That's why God created us, that's why we have free will, so that we can choose. , the underlined part is simply a tautology - - it's not clear that God created us only so that we may choose; we may have other functions that are also essential to being created human. You might say that ALL other functions derive from our ability to choose... what about love - that is a responsive function, not a decisive function.

Mariner
Longing

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Brazil
Total Topics: 35
Total Posts: 4337

Posted 12/23/05 - 02:58 PM:	#117
But love is choice. I'm not familiar with your distinction between responsive and decisive functions; I'd say that all choices are responsive, since they never happen in the abstract, but perhaps you mean something else. By the way, I found a fantastic quote by Jacob Burkhardt that is very appropriate for this thread. I won't paraphrase it, when I get home I'll post it correctly.
"In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't." -- Blaise Pascal "The more I am by myself and alone, the more I have come to love myths" -- Aristotle in his later years

Mariner
Longing

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Brazil
Total Topics: 35
Total Posts: 4337

Posted 12/24/05 - 07:06 AM:	#118
Here is the Burckhardt quote: The domination of evil has a high significance, for only if there is evil there can be disinterested goodness. It would be an unbearable spectacle, if on this earth goodness were consistently rewarded and evil punished, so that evil men would start to behave respectably at a matter of rational caution; for they still would be around, evil as they are. One might want to pray Heaven to grant impunity to the evil, so that they would appear again in their true character. There is enough hipocrisy in the world as it is.
"In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't." -- Blaise Pascal "The more I am by myself and alone, the more I have come to love myths" -- Aristotle in his later years

abba
Servant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 05, 2005
Location: Sarasota
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 432

Posted 12/24/05 - 12:26 PM:	#119
That's a strange quote. Perhaps my "distinction" does not truly exist. I had in mind "love of God", mother's love", "true love", ---- the type of love that is emotionally overwhelming, not rationally decided. Perhaps I should have said rationally-decided versus emotionally-felt; but, it's not a point of contention with me.

ZenEthics
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 15, 2005
Location: Denton Tx
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 106

Posted 12/25/05 - 08:54 PM:	#120
Mariner wrote: Not to question what is ultimately given, at least as I see it. What is the purpose in your opinion? I misread your previous post, obviously we are not questioning whether the universe or suffering exists, i acquiesce Mariner wrote: And this is my point. What is blindly indifferent does not require explanation, and this applies to the whole of existence. Even if God is not blindly indifferent, his ways are not our ways; his goodness may be beyond our cognitive ability; etc. These are, of course, devil's advocate arguments. But they are enough to point out how the core of the PoE is unreasonable. It means suing the universe. It does not mean suing the universe: precicely because because you only sue persons. I agree that Gods ways are not our ways, God is not a superhuman mind, he is something wholly different than our minds, that is why the world does not seem in order to us---precisely because something like us did not design it! understanding God in terms of him being a person seems irrational to me, How could god be a mind--who wants and desires and acts? How does it even make sense to say that the starting point of all of existence was something already complex with an arbitrary set of desires and emotions. Mariner wrote: Who said they don't? But don't expect it to be reflected in the immanent existence, which is -- by definition -- not transcendent. The idea that there is an intimate connection between our transcendental experience (which motivates our moral judgments) and immanent existence is unsupported by evidence. This is the dilemma that any soul sensitive to transcendence always feels -- the transcendent being seems far more real than anything else, and yet it is not reflected in the immanent existence (which, supposedly, depends on it). could you define immanent and transcendent for me... I'm not a big metaphysics buff(which could very well be my problem in this conversation) Mariner wrote: Ah, but they do exist. Yet, it requires an eye focused on the things which are "not of this world" (to use Scriptural language) to grasp that evidence. Saints become more beautiful, and consummate sinners become more ugly. I agree it sounds weird, but it is true nonetheless. I guess ill have to take your word on it . But I would consider myself a habitual sinner... but I'm in excellent shape and find myself fairly attractive, and i guess for the sake of argument ill put my appearance on everybody Else's judgment call if its necessary. Mariner wrote: Says who? God chose to limit Himself by lending creative power to his creation (us). I don't see how "hes still choosing the colors" is linked with him giving us free will. were you implying that his plan is somehow changing over the course of time? Mariner wrote: But if this is your idea of great bliss, you haven't experienced it. We all know greater, harder-to-explain blessings than purely natural feelings. This is the first objection. The second is that pleasure does not equal bliss. We can have pleasure followed by regret and dejection (we feel that all the time), and curse the day in which we felt that pleasure. Equating pleasure with goodness (i.e. hedonism) is not really a tenable ethical theory, but your answer to the question "why is there goodness" points at pleasure as if it solved the problem. It doesn't. it doesn't just have to be physical pleasure... but essentially all goodness to me breaks down to some form of pleasure or another. What is Great bliss? Mariner wrote: And this perfect God has that perfect existence. You, on the other hand, are not a perfect God. Why should you experience a perfect existence? This is the original argument again. The fact that God promised Heaven to you does not mean that He ought to give it because of justice or some other principle. You deserve what you deserve; being imperfect, you can hardly deserve perfection. The PoE, in its original formulation (Epicurus), did not involve a belief in Heaven, remember. It tried to prove that God can't be good because there is evil in this world. This does not hold. No i am not a perfect God, but if i was created by a perfect God, would i not expect to be perfect?God cannot be good because there is evil in the world: does not the creation reflect the creator? wouldn't a perfect god create a perfect creation?We must admit this is not the greatest of all possible universes. Mariner wrote: And who created nature? Does nature need a creator? Couldn't we be one possibility in an infinite pool of possibilities? Mariner wrote: I don't know. I know that whenever people suggest metaphysical improvements in the world, they usually mean either a simplification of nature or a curtailing of free will. I don't suppose that either would be a real improvement. The question about natural evil is that we conflate pain and suffering and death with "evil", but there is no reason to do so. An "animal philosopher" would find it strange, that we criticize the very processes that allow nature to thrive. Or, to speak in physics' jargon, our system is closed, matter must be recycled, so what would you suggest? I'm not criticizing the very processes that allow nature to thrive, I'm claiming that if your version of God existed then the confines of being in a closed system wouldn't need to exist, nor would anything that we consider to be negative in this world. you seem to think that god could not have created a universe with all the positives of this world and none of the negatives. (it seems your claim is that God is bound by certain restraints beyond his control.) Mariner wrote: In other words, you are assuming a necessary link (above and beyond God) between transcendental experience and immanent existence. You are saying that if God (Transcendental experience) exists, then immanent existence must be in such and such a way. Does this seem reasonable to you? In effect, this assumed link assumes the role of the deity in your worldview if you accept this kind of reasoning. You are merely saying "The Christian God does not exist, because my personal God [shades of Socrates' daimon ] tells me that the world should be in such and such a way if the Christian God existed]". I'm not assuming a Link above transcendental experience that limits immanent existence: do not equate god with transcendental experience(because that argument backs up solipsism ,nihilism ,and zen Buddhism. My argument is not against transcendental existence or even of "God", it is directed at a very specific definition of god) In the very act of defining God, you limit him, God is beyond definition,personality,limit, want ,desire etc etc.... God is infintity: all of existence you, me,jesus,everyone, and everything is God. Didn't God say "I am the All; the All has come forth from me, and the All has attained unto me. Cleave a (piece of) wood: I am there. Raise up the stone, an ye shall find me there."? Mariner wrote: My definition of meaning is "the relationship between the symbolized and the symbol". If a question or a concept is meaningless, it means that the symbol has no correspondence to anything. I'm wondering what you think that this existence "points to" or "corresponds with" Mariner wrote: The scene in which Jesus is tempted by Satan does much to explain it. Job does a good job as well. Satan, the Tempter, the Adversary, is the principle that forces us to choose. The point of existence, after all, is to choose. That's why God created us, that's why we have free will, so that we can choose. This is God's greatest gift to us -- the ability, as well as the opportunity, to choose. So that in the last day we can congratulate ourselves, ultimately, on a job well done, instead of bowing to an idol of God as robots. We have been created away from God, in the ignorant dark, being forced to choose between two things we couldnt possibly understand. I'm not asking God to make us robots, I'm only asking why we weren't created in the presence of God, with free will and the ability to choose to stay with that which we now know.. or another state which we know. doesn't knowing your choices affect Whether its actually a free choice or not? Mariner wrote: Satan has great power, but he is not allowed to influence any will who is not inclined to follow him first, out of his own volition. He's not an hypnotist or something like that. His power is based on illusion, fear, lies; all of which are in our power to counter. With God's help . He still has control over humanity. unless you are claiming that without Satan the same amount of people would have chosen to be away from God. Does Satan have no effect at all on the amount of people getting into heaven or hell?
We are all the punchline to a joke that they wont let us in on.

Page: First 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.