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 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

The problem of Evil

Postmodern Beatnik
Or Is It?

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005
Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 1465

Posted 01/01/06 - 05:35 PM:	#131
Mariner, I agree with what you have said in the previous post. Nota bene that I myself don't find, and have never found, the problem of evil to be a very serious challenge to theists (nor the problem of good a serious challenge to atheists). I only joined this thread because it seemed that periculum's argument was being misunderstood (I think it can be interpreted as invoking an inconsistency, and it seemed you were not taking it as such). However, it seems we have come to an understanding. Are you saying that you agree that agnosticsm is the proper philosophical position due to the discipline's limits? If so, I admit that I am surprised to hear it, yet obviously I agree. And, of course, yes: we have to choose. Cheers, indeed .
"It is not a mistake to have strong views. The mistake is to have nothing else." --Anthony Weston "If you can't imagine how anyone could hold the view you are attacking, you just don't understand it yet." --Anthony Weston

Paulnbama
Quipper

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 29, 2005
Location: Uh....here?
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 561

Posted 01/02/06 - 01:15 AM:	#132
Puppies are born with viruses and worms. We too are born with biological impurities. But we are also born with a spiritual impurity called sin. Sin has many meanings: Missing the mark (as in a shooting contest), corruption, separation from God, violation of God's law. Sin is a type of evil. But not all evil is human sin. Some evil are of outside influence such as evil spirits. Now pretend you are a computer. You have a virus called sin. You can control the virus somewhat by running a virus scanner. The virus scanner is akin to a religion or maybe scriptures. It points out the virus, and tells you what to do with it, however unlike a computer you can never truly delete it. Its etched in your harddrive. The evil spirits are like hackers trying to use the virus (sin) to control you the computer. If they can't completely control you through your virus they want to at least manipulate you and/or extract pertinant information from you. God (Computer manufacturer) is going to rebuild all the computers with all new and everlasting hardware. The computers will be so advanced that the hardware will be the software and the software will be one with the hardware. Viruses (sin) will be a thing of the past and all communication will go through the Manufacturer which will vanquish all illegal communications and hackers (evil spirits). When will this take place? Remember a 1,000 years is as 1 day and 1 day is as a 1,000 years. In His time. Now go your way reader and shut up the instruction manual until the times of Microsoft come to an end.
Zoe: I know something ain't right. Wash: Sweetie, we're crooks. If everything were right, we'd be in jail.

abba
Servant

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

Posted 01/02/06 - 07:47 AM:	#133
(Speaking as devil's advocate): But the context of the Problem of Evil is not what we (as a computer or otherwise) can do, but what God can and should do. You focus on the effects without touching on the reasons.

Gary
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 28, 2005
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 254

Posted 01/02/06 - 12:50 PM:	#134
I have been discussing the idea of man’s potential for moral objectivity with Calypsopensate and BubaSwitzler. Can I offer a point that will allow me to demonstrate man’s subjectivity for the “Is religion necessary for morality?” thread, and at the same time offer a point that might allow for a different exchange of philosophical ideas in this thread. I am no philosopher and have never visited a philosophy forum before this one. My main interests are ancient history and language. As a historian I can’t help but note that the nature of controversies about evil depend upon the religious context they are placed in. The religious context changes not only between religions, but between ages and stages within the same religion. The context and nature of your thread’s debate is created and framed by a MODERN context. This particular debate would not occur in an “ancient philosophy” forum regarding evil’s “creation”. Old testament Jews (who loved to debate as much as anyone) did not debate these same controversies in the same context. The Jewish Targums do not have equivalent contextual controversies. Early Christian apologist writings (circa pre 200 a.d.) did not have to deal with such controversies. It is only after the 4th centuries that you see such controversies raised to any degree. Ancient Judao-Christianity (and other ancient ‘pagan’ religions such as the egyptian belief system) did NOT believe God “created all things from nothing” (and therefore was completely responsible for his creation), but rather, some principles were eternal and were part of the same eternal reality as God. For them, physical matter used in physical creation, was eternal but existed in a chaotic state prior to creation. For such believers, “creation” meant “organization” of the pre-existing chaotic matter. For them, God created all things which are created and was ONLY responsible for what he created (some things being eternal - such as matter, was NOT created, merely organized by him). It was only after an evolving (but dominant) Christianity adopted the doctrine that God created ALL things out of nothing (ex-nihilo) that controversies regarding God’s creation of evil arose. I do not particularly want to enter this philosophical discussion, but wanted to demonstrate for the “Is religion necessary for Morality” thread that men are somewhat subject to time, and place, and doctrinal biases (context) we are placed in. However, IF the ancients were correct; that God did NOT create all things out of “nothing”, then he is only responsible for that which he creates. If they were correct in their beliefs that God did NOT create matter, and if and matter has it’s own set of characteristics which God must simply take into account as he organizes, perhaps you might want to consider how the discussion would change IF there are other eternal principles besides matter which God must deal with. For example; The earliest christian apologists did not believe that the spirit place in man was instantaneously created out of “nothing” and immediately placed into a baby, but, like any other matter, the spirit brought characteristics with it. If they were correct, how would that change the framework for the discussion; for God’s responsibility; for the origin of evil, etc? Gary Edited by Gary on 01/02/06 - 01:08 PM. Reason: clarity

abba
Servant

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

Posted 01/02/06 - 02:22 PM:	#135
Yet, the problem described in the opening post was voiced 3 centuries before Christ. Although the Judeo-Christian God is invoked in this thread's OP, the ideas originally voiced in that time were obviously not derived from "modern" teachings. It is not some religion-embedded/defined "evil" that is being considered, but rather ALL that is in existence that seems contrary to omnibenevolence combined with omnipotence. Epicurius' concepts of existence mocked the possibility of any such gods, whether Greek, Roman, Hebrew, or other. Historical specificity or relativity was never a consideration.

Gary
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 28, 2005
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 254

Posted 01/02/06 - 03:06 PM:	#136
Abba You are correct that the opening post refers to epicurius (341-270 b.c.) and introduces the controversy that was around much, much longer than his school. However it is the CHRISTIAN doctrine the opening post applies this controversy to by saying: “Since it's been around forever Christian scholars have created several agruements as to how an omnipotent God and evil can exist at the same time, however none of them can explain away this problem.” - dclement Since the opening post refers to “christian scholars” and THEIR creation of “several arguments” regarding evil, MY post refers to the fact that ANCIENT “christian scholars” did NOT have to deal with the claims made by the more MODERN “christian scholars”. It is the more MODERN claim of Christianity that God created ALL things, and that he did so “out of nothing” which forces them to create arguments to “explain away this problem” (as dclement says in the first post). My point still remains that the more ANCIENT Christianity did NOT make the claim and therefore did NOT have to create the same arguments. To have a christianity that is in agreement with science and physics rather than opposed to it changes the nature of the interaction between the two. In ancient Christianity, they can be friends and agree, in modern Christianity, they will forever be irreconcilable and at odds with each other. By the same token, If modern christianity creates arguments about evil which are inconsistent with logic, reason and sense, they will always be at odds, whereas ancient christianity will have been much closer friends to logic, reason and sense. Remember the historical context, Epicurius was GREEK and NOT Jewish, NOR was he christian. He grew up in a Greco-roman religious milieu. You might attempt to FIND any early christian apologist (pre 3rd century or so) who even finds it necessary to defend creation from nothing, since, as you say, the controversy has been around long, long before christianity. Or perhaps you might attempt to find an early Jewish Targum which argues for "creation from nothing" since the controversy HAS been around so long. See if you can find any... then ask yourself why they didn't have the same need to discuss these things in the same context as the moderns. Gary Edited by Gary on 01/02/06 - 04:07 PM. Reason: clarity

Paulnbama
Quipper

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 29, 2005
Location: Uh....here?
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 561

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 01/02/06 - 11:21 PM:	#137
<br> Gary wrote: IF the ancients were correct; that God did NOT create all things out of "nothing", then he is only responsible for that which he creates. If they were correct in their beliefs that God did NOT create matter, and if and matter has it's own set of characteristics which God must simply take into account as he organizes, perhaps you might want to consider how the discussion would change IF there are other eternal principles besides matter which God must deal with. <br> Well I know I'm getting off the subject. But all things must be considered when taking on such a weighty matter. Speaking of matter. Where did the matter come from if not God. To me...I know its personal...it seems that easiest way to explain things that science 'true science' cant explain is to say all this came from another dimension. A dimension that doesn't hold to the same physical laws of time and space. A dimension that the science of this possible reality can't deal with. This other realm some call the heavely realm or a spirit realm...a realm of impossibilities. The bible says God spoke Light into existence. But you are saying they didn't believe He created matter? I know, I know, some of you are saying that my "other dimension" theory is a cop out because it removes the discussion from the bounds of science. Well the last I looked, the title up at the top says Philosophy Forum. Have fun with this discussion. Sorry for the off topic.
Zoe: I know something ain't right. Wash: Sweetie, we're crooks. If everything were right, we'd be in jail.

Gary
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 28, 2005
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 254

Posted 01/03/06 - 10:45 AM:	#138
PaulnBama 1) PaulnBama wrote - “all things must be considered when taking on such a weighty matter.” I do not think you are ‘off subject’, but simply clever for realizing things are not ‘simple’. To the end that other ideas might have been considered was the purpose of offering a historical context in the first place. 2) PaulnBaba wrote - Speaking of matter. Where did the matter come from if not God. I certainly don’t know the answer. I do know that the ancient Judao-Christian orthodoxy used to be that it was eternal in nature (i.e. it did not have any beginning) and that it simply is part of an eternal reality. As far as I know, science feels matter is not able to be created, nor destroyed. (though I am not a scientist - someone else might know if there is a scientific theory on ‘ex-nihilo’ creation - I doubt it). 3) PaulnBaba wrote - The bible says God spoke Light into existence. But you are saying they didn't believe He created matter? I’m not sure I’ve ever read into scripture the concept that light didn’t exist before God “spoke it into existence” but this may be your subjective interpretation of what happened. The concise sentence “And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.” (AV) simply says that it happened according to his direction, but it doesn’t say HOW it was done; or whether light existed elsewhere before or many other questions we might ask about this event. It leaves out those interesting details. If I told you that I had a boss, and my Boss said “let this room be cleaned”, and it was done. I haven’t told you anything about the process of cleaning (though people may have different suppositions as to how it became clean). And yes, I am saying that the ancient Jews/Christians (before the third century) did NOT believe in ex-nihilo creation (or creation from nothing). They believed that God DID create all created things out of chaotic matter which he brought into order. We believe in science that all things are made of particles so small that they cannot be seen. So did these ancients. Paul - I appeciate the fact that you have new and different thoughts, I would expect that new thoughts are what philosophical forums thrive on. Gary Edited by Gary on 01/03/06 - 10:53 AM. Reason: clarity and to correctly end a sentence

abba
Servant

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

Posted 01/03/06 - 05:32 PM:	#139
Gary: I agree that the creatio ex nihilo concept originated in 3rd century Christianity. I guess I need a primer on what ex nihilo has to do with the POE.

Paulnbama
Quipper

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 29, 2005
Location: Uh....here?
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 561

Posted 01/03/06 - 08:55 PM:	#140
I think evil is inherent. Maybe under our present conditions it is necessary. As atrocious as this seems, it needs to be said. We as people always abhor evil. We view it narrowly in disgust and treat it like its a strange force that we have yet to touch or experience. We have all experienced it. The temptations of lust and desire.(I always think of dinner buffets). The evil thoughts.(How can I get rid of this person?) Remember evil is evil whether it is acted out or not. Hatred in someone’s thoughts is wrong. If it is wrong, and if God is to stop all evil, then He must stop that person from thinking his own thoughts. To do that, God must remove his freedom of thought. I see evil as a requirement. It's part of a design. God won't get rid of it due to an agreement of a currently incomplete design. God never breaks His word. His plans don't change. He is timeless. He sees all immediately. From beginning to end. North to south. Totally aware of all. Here is my humble opinion in natural finite human terms. The plan is in the bible. Though mostly misunderstood by unbelievers and believers alike. The design will be completed as foretold but intil then we must suffer through this. Call it a punishment or an affliction of sorts. It will be vanquished. If evil is removed prematurely, it would cause some real problems with the plan. It must be played out. "After all there are some good things that come out of evil. 1. Killing, weeds out the weak. Sometimes it weeds out the evil. 2. Tragedy will quite often give the wise more understanding. However is leaves many foolish with just more questions. 3. If there were no evil in the world...there would be no philosophers! A final thought. Remember, to purify gold it must go through the fire. Those that make it through the purification will be called, Righteous! And that is always better than innocence. Which is what Adam and Eve was before sin. God's Goodness very much goes beyond man's idea of good. Evil is not the flip side of perfect goodness. It is very much a subordinate; a tool if you will. Just my humble however religiously bent philisophical opinion.
Zoe: I know something ain't right. Wash: Sweetie, we're crooks. If everything were right, we'd be in jail.

Page: First 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.