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: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Last

The problem of Evil

Mariner
Longing

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Brazil
Total Topics: 35
Total Posts: 4328

Posted 11/30/05 - 01:10 PM:	#11
dclements wrote: If Epicurus heard of such an arguement I'm sure he would point out that just because people have some free will does not prove that God exists or that allowing us to choose between good and evil (and punishing us if we fail) with our limited abilities is best that an omnipotent and benevolent God can do. But that was never the intent of the Augustinian answer. He was not in the business of "proving Gods". He solved an apparent inconsistency. You may either accept that this is the best of all possible worlds (as per Leibniz) or not, but you can't say that there is an inconsistency. People can claim that God's viewpoint of 'good' is different than our, that God works in 'mysterious ways', and that we can not understand why he doesn't help us in our day to day lives. Sure, people can claim that, but that's not what Augustine claimed. The fact that 'good' or 'evil' exist does not prove the existance of an benevolent and omnipotent God. Yes, but again, that's not what I claimed. I claimed that the emphasis on the Problem of Evil by atheists presupposes an objective existence of evil (and good). The Epicurean paradox is merely simple logic not a form of theology preaching one religious belief over another. And so is the Augustinian answer. Which is why it does not purport to prove gods or to convert people. The problem of evil is a question that is raised by almost all faiths regardless of their beliefs. Yes, but if one denies an external source of morality, then this question is inconsistent. One can't condemn any hypothetical deity if one does not accept an objective basis for moral condemnation. If you believe that Epicurus was a sophists I'm sure that if he was alive today he could point out that since Christain belief is based on faith(not logic or reason) that God exists, that any arguement that God exist done by these people of faith (such as Augustine and other theologians) that they would be as biased as any arguement that a sophists could come up with. Probably . Since he was a sophist. Of course, he would be wrong, and any philosopher (Christian or not) could explain it to him, if he were willing to listen. Hardly likely, he did one of the earliest attempts at character assassination known to history (regarding Aristotle), so he was not the kind of guy to pay attention to logic and arguments. An argument does not become less correct because of the biases of the arguer (that's a common fallacy, known as "poisoning the well", as well as by other names). The only arguement that I believe is valid is that either God is benevolent or omnipotent, but not both. You can believe in whatever you want, but you can't claim that the Augustinian answer is inconsistent. Or at least you haven't claimed it so far, and haven't given arguments as to why it would be inconsistent. Inconsistencies -- contradictions -- are pretty obvious things. Hard to miss them once they are pointed out. Do your best.
"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

dclements
Hedonistic Nihilist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 26, 2004
Total Topics: 40
Total Posts: 1234

Posted 11/30/05 - 09:00 PM:	#12
Mariner wrote: Yes, but again, that's not what I claimed. I claimed that the emphasis on the Problem of Evil by atheists presupposes an objective existence of evil (and good). .. Yes, but if one denies an external source of morality, then this question is inconsistent. One can't condemn any hypothetical deity if one does not accept an objective basis for moral condemnation. I know that there are some people that disagree, but I do not believe that there in order for there to be an objective morality there has to be a God. However since nobody has given good arguements why we can not know good and evil through reason I will leave it at that. Also if we talk about if morality is subjective than the problem of evil is moot because there is no 'good' or 'evil', except whatever people want to believe and God can not be benevolent (unless people want to believe this which would be no more true than people who did not believe). Mariner wrote: Probably . Since he was a sophist. Of course, he would be wrong, and any philosopher (Christian or not) could explain it to him, if he were willing to listen. Hardly likely, he did one of the earliest attempts at character assassination known to history (regarding Aristotle), so he was not the kind of guy to pay attention to logic and arguments. An argument does not become less correct because of the biases of the arguer (that's a common fallacy, known as "poisoning the well", as well as by other names). Than WHY try to label him as a sophist, except to paint him as an athesist that wasn't capable of reasoning (are any of them?) so that nobody should even bother thinking about what he said. You may not believe that his arguements are worth bothering with, but his arguements echo the beliefs and thoughts of people that are not indoctrinated with Christain beliefs and are still to this day the reason why many refuse to become a Christain. Many theologians that understand this problem are a little more careful to dismiss it as merely moot, otherwise they would risk losing more potential believers... Mariner wrote: You can believe in whatever you want, but you can't claim that the Augustinian answer is inconsistent. Or at least you haven't claimed it so far, and haven't given arguments as to why it would be inconsistent. Inconsistencies -- contradictions -- are pretty obvious things. Hard to miss them once they are pointed out. Do your best. After I reviewed my post I realized the last paragragh was incomplete. I should of added that it is possible for God to be both benevolent and omnipotent, but this requires knowledge (most likely granted to us from God) that no human being has ever gained. I sure that any person of faith could try to argue that this means that the Epicurean paradox has been solved ie. because it is possible(or not impossible) for people to know why God is good (or at least God does what he does for good reason, even if we can not understand them) than it is possible for God to be both benevolent and omnipotent. This is pretty much the arguement that Theodicy gives in response to the problem of evil, and for me to agree with it may seems like I'm going 180 degres in my arguemnt and stating that it is rational to believe that there is a benevolent and omnipotent God. But I'm not. This is because that although there are arguements such as 'I think therefore I am' (which shows that any 'thinking thing' that can understand that concept has to exist while it is trying to understand it, and nobody has ever been able to given a good arguement as to how it can be untrue) which are reguarded as truths ,they can not be show to be an absolute truth or it can not be proven that it it is impossible for anyone to find reasons as to why it isn't true. The bottom line is that although there are statements which are true, we can not prove that it is impossible for someone one day to find reasons as to why it is not true. This applies to all statements, or truths, you can think of. I'm sure most of the senior forum members understand what I'm talking about. (If anyone is still confused find one of the threads talking about absolute truth and start reading...and get ready to be even more confused..) Theodicy takes this one fact as to how can we be sure anything is absolute truth and tries to dismiss the problem of evil. They would succeed if they only one thing was true...which is that someone actually knew why God is good. Without anyone knowing why God is good the problem evil still stands and shows that God can not be both benevolent and omnipotent. One can always claim to know God is good, but unless they can explain it in a way that is rational to people not of faith then it stands as the only way to know/believe(?) God is good is through faith.
No, you don't get it, thats why I'm telling you. You think you get it, which isn't the same as actually getting it. Get it?-Kakashi Hatake Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied, And vice sometimes by action dignified-Friar Lawrence The state of mind that questions is much more important than the question itself.Any question may be asked by a slavish mind, and the answer it receives will still be be within the limitations of its own slavery...Freedom of desire for an answer is essential for the understanding of a problem-Krishnamurti

philosophy
Sapiens

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 01, 2005
Location: Ivory Tower
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 283

Posted 11/30/05 - 09:39 PM:	#13
I apologize for butting in, but I could not resist… I know that there are some people that disagree, but I do not believe that there in order for there to be an objective morality there has to be a God. But there would have to be a source of morality – an objective source. The theist understands this source through the concept of God. Anyone who wishes to dispense of God, yet retain objective morality, must then reconcile such a position by proposing another source – one that works as well as God. Until then, such arguments are merely empty critiques. However since nobody has given good arguements why we can not know good and evil through reason I will leave it at that. The theist clearly holds that we can know good an evil through reason. The question is, what metaphysical support is there for the atheist to hold such a claim? Why would reason be a profitable activity, morally speaking? For the Christian, God is Logos: Reason, and thus our reason can attain true knowledge about God, and the world (which is reasonable, because it come from Reason itself). Again, to dispense with God necessarily forgoes Logos itself, unless some atheistic argument can be put forth reestablishing the utility of reason. it is possible for God to be both benevolent and omnipotent, but this requires knowledge (most likely granted to us from God) that no human being has ever gained. I sure that any person of faith could try to argue that this means that the Epicurean paradox has been solved ie. because it is possible(or not impossible) for people to know why God is good (or at least God does what he does for good reason, even if we can not understand them) than it is possible for God to be both benevolent and omnipotent. If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that Christian theology does indeed solve the problem of evil, but that part of that problem is that we must know that this solution is true, and that no one “knows” this, because they do not “know” what God is like for sure.(?) How, then, do you reply to the claim that God has revealed such about himself to us, and that the faithful response of the will precipitates certain knowledge?
There is no more pleasant food for the soul than the knowledge of truth. - Lactantius

osibe
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 519

Posted 11/30/05 - 11:17 PM:	#14
it was said earlier by Mariner: "Which is my point. In order for anyone to be hung up with the Problem of Evil, he must not agree with your notion. The more an atheist emphasizes the Problem of Evil as an obstacle to theism, the more he is supporting theism's moral framework (and the Augustinian explanation, since it is the only one that makes sense within theism)." i would have to disagree, the prospect of an objective morality does not have to be believed to theoretically disagree with it. Atheists have a problem with the very logic that makes up the idea of such a God (and inherent objective morality) they (or at least me) are not disagreeing within the accepted framework of an objective morality (meaning that they assume that there is set: good and evil in some facet regardless of god), they are disagreeing with the idea itself and its contradictions. personally i used to believe in an all loving and all powerful God, and for a while i was able to accept evil, understand it in a way, but this was all based on my minimal experience with it. It seems that once people are old enough, see the real evils of the world (let alone live them) that hope often becomes lost, which, though sad is merely the natural reaction. What are we to think? thrown into this world, and through no fault of our own (note that we had zero say in the forming of this world and man's obedience to God, adam "choose" "for us" damning EVERYONE based on some blanket "human nature" choice, which by itself seems unjust and against the very idea of free-will). We are born into a world filled with hate, starvation, genocide, and were to assume this is a world where a God, let alone an all-loving AND all-powerful one EXISTS? how would the world be any different if he didn't exist? It seems all too sad to be made out of love, and to claim that for some twisted prospect of a "greater" good humans must live in shit, babies must be born with aids, and kids go to bed hungry so that souls can become "enlightened" or to greater glorify God, is wrong and unjust by itself. i dont think it is worth it, EVEN for a greater good, with that idea God is just rationalizing evil, allowing it to exist for a greater purpose. "evil" should never be rationalized or tolerated, why do people do good things and try to save lives to end their suffering, often under the "christian" mantel? It is to erradicate evil, to banish it completely, not to accept it, not to allow it to exist. no ammount of suffering is acceptable, no ammount is worth it, ever. You tell the people rotting in africa that they have to suffer to make us all "better" or "more good." Something seems terribly wrong with the world and if there is a god he is NOT doing his job. i've said this before but the point is that, assuming God is all powerful he could have made us like children, too naive to truely make moral descisions and therefor lacking "free-will" but living in an eternal state of beauty and goodness devoid of the true horrors of the world, within an ideal state of childhood, but, for those "mysterious" reasons he opted not to and we ALL suffer for it. (pardon my excessive usage of caps, it was itallics or caps for emphasis, i apoligize for the eye sores)
"Live everyday like it's your first"

Mariner
Longing

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Brazil
Total Topics: 35
Total Posts: 4328

Posted 12/01/05 - 03:12 AM:	#15
dclements wrote: Than WHY try to label him as a sophist, except to paint him as an athesist that wasn't capable of reasoning (are any of them?) so that nobody should even bother thinking about what he said. You may not believe that his arguements are worth bothering with, but his arguements echo the beliefs and thoughts of people that are not indoctrinated with Christain beliefs and are still to this day the reason why many refuse to become a Christain. Many theologians that understand this problem are a little more careful to dismiss it as merely moot, otherwise they would risk losing more potential believers... What a curious instance of "reverse poisoning of the well" . I addressed Epicurus' arguments, here and elsewhere. And I added, in an aside that made absolutely no difference to my counter-argument, that he was a sophist. This does not disqualify the argument (the true fallacy of poisoning the well). I did not say that this argument is worthless because it comes from a sophist. Why label him a sophist? Because his philosophy is incoherent, and because in life he coveted glory and rewards rather than truth. Seems reason enough to me. After I reviewed my post I realized the last paragragh was incomplete. I should of added that it is possible for God to be both benevolent and omnipotent, but this requires knowledge (most likely granted to us from God) that no human being has ever gained. I don't understand this reasoning. Do you mean that it is impossible for God to be simultaneously benevolent and omnipotent unless someone else knows about it? You may claim that no human being has enough knowledge to state that God is both benevolent and omniscient, but that's a completely different claim, unrelated to the claim that this state of affairs is contradictory. I sure that any person of faith could try to argue that this means that the Epicurean paradox has been solved ie. because it is possible(or not impossible) for people to know why God is good (or at least God does what he does for good reason, even if we can not understand them) than it is possible for God to be both benevolent and omnipotent. Well, I haven't argued along those lines, but you are right. If Epicurus (or someone else) wants to show that A and B are incompatible and someone else points out that it is possible (whether or not it is the case) that A and B are both true, then the Epicurus argument is solved. But the Augustinian argument is not that "it is possible, in a way unknown to us, that this inconsistency is solved somehow". (This argument would be based on the lack of definition of the concepts). The Augustinian argument is that it is possible to solve this inconsistency in this particular way. And it is . Whether or not it is true. The bottom line is that although there are statements which are true, we can not prove that it is impossible for someone one day to find reasons as to why it is not true. This applies to all statements, or truths, you can think of. I'm sure most of the senior forum members understand what I'm talking about. Not really. We use some rules to decide on what is true and what isn't, the laws of logic. No laws can disprove the laws of logic, because "disproving things" requires those laws in the first place. Perhaps we can discover beings who employ a kind of "super-logic", but we can be 100% sure that super-logic will not eliminate old logic, it will only supercede it (as Einstein supercedes Newton). One can always claim to know God is good, but unless they can explain it in a way that is rational to people not of faith then it stands as the only way to know/believe(?) God is good is through faith. God is good because he is the source of morality. Seems rational enough. This is true logically, morally, and historically. No wonder that Plato was deducing that a few centuries after Moses received the Decalogue. *** osibe wrote: i would have to disagree, the prospect of an objective morality does not have to be believed to theoretically disagree with it. Atheists have a problem with the very logic that makes up the idea of such a God (and inherent objective morality) they (or at least me) are not disagreeing within the accepted framework of an objective morality (meaning that they assume that there is set: good and evil in some facet regardless of god), they are disagreeing with the idea itself and its contradictions. Fine. Then don't complain about a Problem of Evil . You can believe in what you said above, but you can't believe in that and simultaneously complain that God cannot be a good being because he allows for evil. Something seems terribly wrong with the world and if there is a god he is NOT doing his job. Half-full or half-empty? I enjoy life enough to thank God for every day in which I'm alive. I don't think there is anything that God could have done better. i've said this before but the point is that, assuming God is all powerful he could have made us like children, too naive to truely make moral descisions and therefor lacking "free-will" but living in an eternal state of beauty and goodness devoid of the true horrors of the world, within an ideal state of childhood, but, for those "mysterious" reasons he opted not to and we ALL suffer for it. (pardon my excessive usage of caps, it was itallics or caps for emphasis, i apoligize for the eye sores) This wouldn't be childhood. If you know children you know they are very mischievous. This would be a world of robots. You wouldn't be able to thank God for anything and mean it. You may believe that this world of robots would be better, but I disagree -- and apparently God does so to . I don't think you have meditated long enough on free will (few people have). Without it, you wouldn't even be able to decide on those thoughts of yours. By the way, you read Genesis too literally, as if a particular human being (Adam) got a bad toss of the coin and so damned everybody else. Adam = Man, remember that. Genesis does not take place solely in the distant past, it takes place in everyone's soul. Which is why, in the last analysis, even children are mischievous .
"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

osibe
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 519

Posted 12/01/05 - 03:48 AM:	#16
you wouldn't give up your ability to choose evil for all the pain and suffering in the entire world throughout all time? it being able to be bad that important? does the freedom outweigh the outcome? More child analogies, think of the actions of parents, now do parents let kids play in the street? is their own free will to choose to play in the street or not more important than their possible death? it seems that any rational parent would not let their kid play in the street, would not even allow them to possibly hit by a car even if they have to rob them of their own freely chosen action. God seems to not do this, God lets us hurt, God lets us have war, God lets us play in the street, all for the sake of a greater chosen good. i would say that yea kids are mischievous and they do horse around but kids, and i mean young kids like 5-9 or so do not do truely evil things (in an ideal state) often when they act up it is because they do not fully know what they are doing or the consequences, and certainly its moral worth in the grand scheme of things. I dont think kids are evil or even capable of evil, there is a sense that "age of reason" comes into play and often kids are not and cannot be held responsible for their actions (legally) And i do not mean the casual sense like hitting your sister or something i mean truely malicious, the stuff murders are made of. not to make too broad of assumptions but i'm willing to bet life seems so good because of all the opportunity and love that has been given to you, and the same goes for me i'm a white middle-class suburbanite that did not come from a broken home, or have abusive parents, i did not grow up african american and in the ghetto where the odds are against me and have been for hundreds of years now. Nor was i born severely disabled or with aids, and because of all that i really only experience a small fraction of what life really is, and to me at least everything seems pretty good and couldn't ask for more blessings. But it is easy to love life when all you see is beauty and goodness, but the majority of the world is not like this, the majority of the world does not live as good as we do, cannot achieve what we can, and are suffering, all the time without relief, think of their reality and their world. Unfortunately this is not an outlook problem, not that i am somehow pessimistic creating suffering and pain from a world that is actually the opposite.
"Live everyday like it's your first"

Mariner
Longing

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Brazil
Total Topics: 35
Total Posts: 4328

Posted 12/01/05 - 04:01 AM:	#17
osibe wrote: you wouldn't give up your ability to choose evil for all the pain and suffering in the entire world throughout all time? it being able to be bad that important? It is being able to be good that is that important. The absence of free will would prevent us from being good. But it is easy to love life when all you see is beauty and goodness, but the majority of the world is not like this, the majority of the world does not live as good as we do, cannot achieve what we can, and are suffering, all the time without relief, think of their reality and their world. Unfortunately this is not an outlook problem, not that i am somehow pessimistic creating suffering and pain from a world that is actually the opposite. I don't think we should do a contest of who has seen the most suffering . It would be pointless, because this is an outlook problem. I venture to say that living in Brazil I've seen more "general suffering, poverty, hunger", etc., than most people in this forum. I still thank God, though.
"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

osibe
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 519

Posted 12/01/05 - 05:07 AM:	#18
true we would no longer "be" good or even be able to choose to be good, "good" things, as we refer to them now with free will, would be the norm, becoming all of our actions. There may be no virtue, and no heroes but at least there would be no suffering. personally i think it would be like heaven, no "choice," no ability to do evil but thats not really important in a realm of pure bliss. why didn't God just make earth like heaven and create us all in it? why the pitstop along the way filled with pain and drudgery that is so real to our temporal shells, it all seems rather unneccessary assuming God is all powerful and able to craft us any way he pleases. maybe the outlook problem is not mine, i am not making things worse then they are, optimism is merely the denial of the truth, it is putting aside the nastier things of a situation for the more pleasing and acceptable parts to form a more comfortable reality. Also, the world's suffering is reconciled by a Christian's (or any religion with divine justice) beliefs in Heaven, and Justice after death etc. In a way, eventually evil people will get what they deserve, as well as good people, this seems to negate the fleshy pain humans experience in this life. Assuming heaven is eternity the memory of pain will eventually be forgotten , so the question is, why is suffering so real? why does it seem so horrible and terrible if it is all going to work out in the end. Here is a world, a reality that seems as real as possible, not some dreamstate or metal state simply for nurturing the infant soul to a higher state of enlightenment or goodness. but a raw, animal, and visceral existence, not the product of a god, not a product of love. Are you thankful to God for their poverty? (perhaps so people can help them) or that your are not poor and starving as well?
"Live everyday like it's your first"

Mariner
Longing

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Brazil
Total Topics: 35
Total Posts: 4328

Posted 12/01/05 - 05:12 AM:	#19
osibe wrote: true we would no longer "be" good or even be able to choose to be good, "good" things, as we refer to them now with free will, would be the norm, becoming all of our actions. There may be no virtue, and no heroes but at least there would be no suffering. personally i think it would be like heaven, no "choice," no ability to do evil but thats not really important in a realm of pure bliss. But that's not how Heaven is. We'll have free will in Heaven. It is not spiritual regression, it is spiritual growth that leads us there. why didn't God just make earth like heaven and create us all in it? why the pitstop along the way filled with pain and drudgery that is so real to out temporal shells, it all seems rather unneccessary assuming God is all powerful and able to craft us any way he pleases. Two reasons: 1) Because then we wouldn't be able to choose good, which is what matters. Being good without choosing it is worthless (as well as a bit self-contradictory, since there is a subjective element in all morality). 2) He did. He made earth as a perfect abode for us. Man fell of his own volition. God is straightening up our mess, not His. maybe the outlook problem is not mine, optimism is the denial of the truth, it is putting aside the nastier things of a situation for the more pleasing and acceptable parts to form a more comfortable reality. Also, the world's suffering is reconciled by a Christian's (or any religion with divine justice) the beliefs in Heaven, and Justice after death etc. Neither optimism nor pessimism is the denial of the truth, friend. Both are outlooks. You may pick either one. When I say that I thank God, I don't mean that I thank Him for what He has in store for me after death. I thank him for what I have right now. It's plenty good. In a way, eventually evil people will get what they deserve, as well as good people, this seems to negate the fleshy pain humans experience in this life. Assuming heaven is eternity the pain will long be forgotten eventually, so the question is, why is suffering so real? why does it seem so horrible and terrible if it is all going to work out in the end. Here is a world, a reality that seems as real as possible, not some dreamstate or metal state simply for nurturing the infant soul to a higher state of enlightenment or goodness. but a raw, animal, and visceral existence. Enthusiastic agreement. See? Optimism is not the denial of the truth, it's just another way to look at it . This is a raw, animal and visceral existence -- and it is good. I dare say that you agree inasmuch as you haven't committed suicide. I apologize i do not know your personal situation but i would only like to point out that seeing suffering and living suffering are completely different. Interestingly, it is the people who have most claim to have been dealt with unfairly -- tetraplegics, blind people, and so on -- who usually love life to the fullest and are more thankful for it. They know the value of what they have.
"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

ace of god
The Knower of Nothingness

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 23, 2005
Location: Ontario
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 43

Posted 12/01/05 - 08:16 AM:	#20
Has anyone ever considered that for there to be good there must be evil? Without evil, we would never realize what was good, and never fully apercaite it. If God, wished us to experince the good, he would therefore, have to create evil as well? God, created, evil for us, to enjoy his gifts, much like he created rain so we could have flowers. Just like he created war, so we can need peace. Just like he created greed, so we can experince charity. Life is balance, life is the need to except all aspects. Could you truly, love without truly hating first? Even if you love someone, there is parts of them you hate isn't there? The need for balance and exceptances of all aspects of life and emotion is the foundation of truly experincing his life.
"What is reality?" "What is home?" "What are cows?" ------------------- "Faith is beleiving in what you can not see. The benifit of faith is that you begin to see what you beleive."- St. Augustine

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Last

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.