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 13 Last

The problem of Evil

periculum
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 20, 2005
Location: Virginia
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 1

Posted 12/01/05 - 09:13 AM:	#21
Boy, a lot has happened since my last post. First, I have to contend with mariners attempt to undermine my position. As osibe stated, you don't have to agree with a system in order to argue against it. I might not believe in objective morality, but when arguing with christians about a christian concept, it helps to adopt some common ground before breaking it apart. Thus, christians beleive in an omnipotent god (another thing I don't believe in), and objective morality. I take the position that both are true, for arguments sake, and then show how they are incompatible. My personal beliefs do not make my arguments any less valid. Second, even if we take subjective morality as the standard, an omnipotent ALL POWERFUL god should still be able to solve the problem because he can do anything. Especially since we have evil defined as an unfortunate or harmful event (relative to the viewer), then god merely has to eliminate all unfortunate and harmful events regardless of perspective. To say that this is a teaching tool and that evil makes us better people is again undermining god's omnipotence as it asserts god couldn't do such without evil. the problem remains. To say that god can't create good without evil is again undermining god's omnipotence. Whether with objective or subjective morality I can easily picture a world with only beneficial (i.e. good) events and no harmful ones. Would we still term it good without the comparison of evil? Maybe. we might have different shades of good. but even if we don't term it such, does it make it any less so? To say that we can't enjoy his gifts without also suffering his torments is again undermining the deity by saying he couldn't create US in such a fashion. Omnipotence and omnibenevolence are mutually exclusive. Any argument you come up with has to undermine one or the other. The best arguments are those trying to look someplace other than god for the source of evil, thereby avoiding stripping god of one of these qualities. Freewill being the most popular. However, with the judaic mythology, ALL things come from god and therefore you have no other place to turn.
"When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible god's out there, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

periculum
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 20, 2005
Location: Virginia
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 1

Posted 12/01/05 - 09:20 AM:	#22
philosophy: I said you would have free will, but not that you would want to do such things...Human will was free before anyone sinned, and thus free will and impeccability are compatible. This demonstrates my best point against the freewill argument. God created freewill, and could've done so without evil. Even if evil does stem from freewill, with freewill being a creation of god, god has also purposely created evil by making freewill in such a manner.
"When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible god's out there, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

Mariner
Longing

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

Posted 12/01/05 - 09:28 AM:	#23
periculum wrote: Boy, a lot has happened since my last post. First, I have to contend with mariners attempt to undermine my position. As osibe stated, you don't have to agree with a system in order to argue against it. Sigh... the Problem of Evil is not an argument. It is a moral judgment. It makes no sense in the absence of an objective morality. Or are you not paying attention to my posts? I might not believe in objective morality, but when arguing with christians about a christian concept, it helps to adopt some common ground before breaking it apart. Thus, christians beleive in an omnipotent god (another thing I don't believe in), and objective morality. I take the position that both are true, for arguments sake, and then show how they are incompatible. My personal beliefs do not make my arguments any less valid. No, you take the position that both are true, for argument's sake, and then refuse to examine the Christian resolution of the apparent incompatibility. A far cry from showing that the apparent incompatibility is true. You haven't even breached that matter in the thread, so far -- a detailed refutation of Augustine's argument is not what I have seen here. Second, even if we take subjective morality as the standard, an omnipotent ALL POWERFUL god should still be able to solve the problem because he can do anything. Except instantiate contradictions. This misdefinition of omnipotence is at the root of several misunderstandings like this one. God can't instantiate square circles, and He can't make a purely subjective concept be an objective one. Especially since we have evil defined as an unfortunate or harmful event (relative to the viewer), then god merely has to eliminate all unfortunate and harmful events regardless of perspective. But since perspectives do contradict each other, this is impossible (i.e. beyond the power of God). Hitler wants dead Jews. Jews want dead Hitler. Someone is going to see the final outcome as unfortunate, regardless of God's power. To say that god can't create good without evil is again undermining god's omnipotence. That much is correct (which is why is not part of the traditional Christian answer). Goodness does not depend on evil (though evil depends on goodness). To say that we can't enjoy his gifts without also suffering his torments is again undermining the deity by saying he couldn't create US in such a fashion. He can't create free beings that are 100% foolproof. That is a contradiction. Omnipotence and omnibenevolence are mutually exclusive. Any argument you come up with has to undermine one or the other. Except the one that you have refrained from analyzing . The Augustinian answer stands.
"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

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 2726

Posted 12/01/05 - 10:36 AM:	#24
The problem of evil is a strawman. I've replied to this issue earlier http://forums.philosophyforums.com/thread/17625
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin

dclements
Hedonistic Nihilist

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

Posted 12/01/05 - 11:24 AM:	#25
philosophy wrote: I apologize for butting in, but I could not resist… .. 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. .. 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. As I said before the existance of good does not prove the existance of God nor is God required in order for there to be an objective good. It is possible for people to know good through reason alone even if God does not exist. philosophy wrote: 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? Nope. I'm stating that theodicy shows that one can have some doubt about that God is not both both benevolent and omnipotent, but this doubt exists for any knowledge that we accept as truth or as a fact. It is always possible that one day someone will find a reason why any given fact is not true. The real problem for Christianity is that nobody has ever found a reason why God allows the world to be the way it is when if he is benevolent and omnipotent it would be different. As for your question as to whether God has revealed himself to us and allows us to understand why the world is the way it is and allows us to know that he is a benevolent and omnipotent God that answer is simply .. no. Although I do not know the Christian religion as well as most Christians and I'm not aware of all knowledge in the world that could influence such a decision, everything that I have ever come across that tries to prove there is a benevolent and omnipotent God is too flawed to be the work of any such God. Instead all I see are people that want there to be benevolent and omnipotent God and are trying to prove it is true even if there isn't enough facts to support such a belief.
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

osibe
Professor

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

Posted 12/01/05 - 11:59 AM:	#26
i'd like to know, and i'm asking anyone who holds God to be all powerful and all knowing, what is lost if he is not these qualities? He can still be all loving, and be the realization of goodness within the universe but be devoid of "causing" it to be any one way over another, and the inherent guilt associated with that. The universe by the very nature of its existence could and possess either good or evil state as a basic underlying principle and have always been like this, and God, a being that is many dimensions above us can be the force of goodness, can act through love. With this perspective God can tell us what the objective moral truth of the universe is (or at least try to convey it in the Bible). Now in the specifics i don't see why he couldn't have just picked our species as special and given us souls even if he didnt directly "create" us, and heaven and hell as planes of existence could have always existed as well i'd just like to know why it is so important that God be all powerful and all knowing, if anything it seems like the people writing the Bible didn't want this "true" God to appear weak like the pagan gods.
"Live everyday like it's your first"

philosophy
Sapiens

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

Posted 12/01/05 - 01:56 PM:	#27
philosophy: I said you would have free will, but not that you would want to do such things...Human will was free before anyone sinned, and thus free will and impeccability are compatible. periculum: This demonstrates my best point against the freewill argument. God created freewill, and could've done so without evil. Even if evil does stem from freewill, with freewill being a creation of god, god has also purposely created evil by making freewill in such a manner. God created man with a free will, that is, with the ability to freely choose – specifically to freely choose to love God or not. Thus, there was the possibility to choose evil (not loving God). But man did not have to choose this, and until then he was obviously impeccable. Furthermore, God warned man not to choose this, but man did it anyway. You would have to explain how God could have created man with the free choice to love him, without the possibility of not loving him as a genuine option (that is, without the possibility of evil). Also, you will have to explain how man was subjected to evil (not merely the possibility of evil) before he choose to do something evil. Someone who is, at this moment, impeccable, certainly could sin later, and he still would have been impeccable at this time. In heaven, we will be so disposed that we will not want to sin – we will not make the same mistake that Adam made. That is who Heaven is for: those who will to be with God with their whole heart, mind, and soul. As I said before the existance of good does not prove the existance of God nor is God required in order for there to be an objective good. It is possible for people to know good through reason alone even if God does not exist. The existence of good does not prove the existence of God. However, the existence of God does explain the existence of good. Could there be an objective good without God? That would require a difference explanation, one that has yet to be forthcoming. Until then, God is the reasonable choice. That statement will not compel faith, properly speaking, but it does show that faith in God is reasonable, and thus clears away an objection. Furthermore, if no other explanation is forthcoming, then it is fair to say that faith is the most reasonable position. Lastly, the statement “it is possible for people to know good through reason even if God does not exist” requires explanation also. If we remove God, then what philosophical reason do we have to suppose that? A statement doth not an argument make. I'm stating that theodicy shows that one can have some doubt about that God is not both benevolent and omnipotent, but this doubt exists for any knowledge that we accept as truth or as a fact. It is always possible that one day someone will find a reason why any given fact is not true. All that means is that it is possible to doubt anything. However, conversely, it is possible to believe anything (to be convinced with certainty that there will never be a reason found why a particular fact is not true). Thus one must ask how reasonable it is to believe, or doubt, this or that. For someone who has faith in God, he believes that God will never be disproved. The question, then, is how reasonable this position is (or, conversely, how reasonable it is that God will be disproved, and the matter of “could” is no longer a useful hypothetical). The real problem for Christianity is that nobody has ever found a reason why God allows the world to be the way it is when if he is benevolent and omnipotent it would be different. The Christian believes that it could be no different, exactly because God is omnipotent and benevolent, and be believes this because he trusts what God has said. The reason, therefore, is his trust in God’s Word.
There is no more pleasant food for the soul than the knowledge of truth. - Lactantius

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 3000

Posted 12/01/05 - 02:11 PM:	#28
philosophy wrote: The existence of good does not prove the existence of God. However, the existence of God does explain the existence of good. Could there be an objective good without God? That would require a difference explanation, one that has yet to be forthcoming. Until then, God is the reasonable choice. That is one of the biggest loads of crap I have seen on this board, including the pseudophilosophy posts. A great many canon philosophers, most of them Christian, offer many foundations for objective morality. The argument of the problem of evil establishes that, given the state of the world, there cannot be a being that is both all powerful and all good. It does this by judging that the world is full of evil that should be prevented by an all-good being. In order to avoid inconsistency, one must abandon the combination of all-good and all-powerful. Yet even this isn't the reason that so many canon philosophers go looking for a foundation for morality. They undertake this effort because they know that there is no way to justify a moral activity on the basis of mere belief in a diety. This belief comes with no content capable of producing such a foundation. In the end, any moral principle advocated by a religious leader or text must be evaluated by a moral agent. Merely believing in a diety is a poor reason to believe in anything that one stumbles upon in the world.
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "â€¦Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein [This is included for the irony.]

HadouKen24
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 29, 2005
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 2

Posted 12/01/05 - 06:21 PM:	#29
God created man with a free will, that is, with the ability to freely choose – specifically to freely choose to love God or not. Thus, there was the possibility to choose evil (not loving God). But man did not have to choose this, and until then he was obviously impeccable. Furthermore, God warned man not to choose this, but man did it anyway. You would have to explain how God could have created man with the free choice to love him, without the possibility of not loving him as a genuine option (that is, without the possibility of evil). Also, you will have to explain how man was subjected to evil (not merely the possibility of evil) before he choose to do something evil. Someone who is, at this moment, impeccable, certainly could sin later, and he still would have been impeccable at this time. In heaven, we will be so disposed that we will not want to sin – we will not make the same mistake that Adam made. That is who Heaven is for: those who will to be with God with their whole heart, mind, and soul. Hmm. Here's an argument I heard a while ago that perhaps you can help me feel out. God, being omnipotent, has the ability to create any possible world. It is possible to conceive of a world in which all people have free will, but simply choose not to sin. Thus, it is possible for God to create a world in which no one ever sins, but in which everyone has free will. Something about this argument doesn't feel right, but I can't put my finger on it.

RT
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 17, 2005
Location: Auckland, NZ
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 34

Posted 12/01/05 - 06:39 PM:	#30
"It is possible to conceive of a world in which all people have free will, but simply choose not to sin" If god created that world it would not be free will, the people would be determined not to sin by Gods choice (they are fated to not sin, predetermining what will happen isnt free will), if they did sin he hasnt created that world. So the world is either not created or there is no free will, the world cant logically exist.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Last

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.