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 14 15 16 17 Last

The problem of Evil

Mariner
Longing

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

Posted 12/05/05 - 10:24 AM:	#61
dclements wrote: "If, as they say, God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?" And the answer is "He's doing that". (Actually, the answer is He already did that, through Christ). Now, what proponents of the Problem of Evil would like is a less imaginative (and less effective) answer . But God knows best. Not surprising, since He is omniscient. I will admit that I'm not really knowledgeable about Augustine, Boethius, and Leibniz's arguements. But claiming that this is the best of possible worlds is also a very weak arguement. It is not an argument, it is a conclusion. The reason that it is a weak arguements is that people, with effort, can improve their sitiuation. This seems to be an observation in favor of the "best possible world" scenario. If people could not improve their situation with effort, I (at least) would consider the world to be worse. Since we existed we have done countless things to improve our lives. To claim that this world is the best of all possible worlds goes against the fact that we can make the world better. How does this fact go against the Leibnizian theodicy? I honestly don't see your point here. I imagine that if you wanted to you could claim that what we do only improves what we perceive as making the world better and there is no real way that we can make the world better, but this is pretty much the same as saying it is subjective that we can make improvements to our world, and if this is true that morality is more or less subjective too. No, I wouldn't say that. I agree that we really (i.e. not merely apparently) make the world better -- but this seems to be an argument for God. Anyways, by trying this sleight of hand trick by claiming this world is the best of all possible worlds leads to the problem why if we can improve our world than how come God who is omnipotent can not do one thing more to make it better? Because if He did it for us it wouldn't be the same thing. Any Father is acquainted with this principle. By allowing us to do it for ourselves, this world seems quite good . We are not ontologically separated from God. We are His creatures. You seem to be arguing for a world in which no one does nothing but God; and to be arguing that this would be a better world. I see no reason to agree . This is just even more circular thinking. In order to prove that God is good because he is the source of all good, which is due to the fact that he is the Prime Mover you have to prove that he is in fact the Prime Mover. No, just by establishing the necessity of a Prime Mover one can take this to mean God. The concepts are interchangeable. This does not entail circularity. What one needs to prove is the necessity of the Prime Mover -- and there are plenty of arguments to that effect. Claiming that evil does not 'exist' and it is only the lack of good or positive substance is clever, but it is also a weak arguement. (It seems almost all arguements that try to solve the Epicurean paradox require a redefinition of the words good/evil or omnipotent, mostly with the focus on redefining evil.) No, what it seems is that the Epicurean paradoz rests on a misdefinition of Evil -- or even worse, in a lack of definition of Evil. As if it needed none. We saw that this is incorrect in the course in the course of this thread. There is not even an attempt to define "Evil", so far, apart from the Augustinian answer -- which is why it is odd for proponents of the Problem of Evil to criticize it. One problem with this arguement is that even if evil is not created, but is a lack of a good substance, then why couldn't God create a world that everything has enough good substance that it isn't possible for evil to exist. Substance is good. There is no "evil substance". So I don't get your point either. You seem to conclude, from what I said, that there is some kind of "evil substance" in the world, when that is precisely the opposite of what I'm saying (and it is also precisely the unwarranted hidden premise of the Epicurean paradox). (..thinking about good as a substance and evil as lack of it makes my head hurt..) It is not "a" substance. Substance is good. Good is not substance. It is predication, not identity. This could be a good arguements if you explain how good exists in some things and not in others and how we could know whether an object or anything in this world has good in it, or lack of it. But my point is exactly that good exists in all things. All things that have substance, that is -- which means all existing things, all beings. Yes, this includes Satan (if you want to discuss that). This view of morality is simply what is put forth in Genesis. "God saw all the things He created, and saw that they were very good". Satan was not hiding somewhere when God said that .
"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 12/05/05 - 02:09 PM:	#62
Mariner's reply to "If, as they say, God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?" Mariner wrote: And the answer is "He's doing that". (Actually, the answer is He already did that, through Christ). If your reply is correct than there is (or was) evil in this world. This goes against what you've been saying so far. Mariner wrote: This seems to be an observation in favor of the "best possible world" scenario. If people could not improve their situation with effort, I (at least) would consider the world to be worse. .. How does this fact go against the Leibnizian theodicy? I honestly don't see your point here. .. No, I wouldn't say that. I agree that we really (i.e. not merely apparently) make the world better -- but this seems to be an argument for God. .. Because if He did it for us it wouldn't be the same thing. Any Father is acquainted with this principle. By allowing us to do it for ourselves, this world seems quite good . .. We are not ontologically separated from God. We are His creatures. You seem to be arguing for a world in which no one does nothing but God; and to be arguing that this would be a better world. I see no reason to agree . If free will so important than why isn't it best if we know nothing about God? If anything he does or any knowledge than he can give to us removes from our ability to be free and good than why should we make any attempt to know if God exist and what his will is? Mariner wrote: No, just by establishing the necessity of a Prime Mover one can take this to mean God. The concepts are interchangeable. This does not entail circularity. What one needs to prove is the necessity of the Prime Mover -- and there are plenty of arguments to that effect. Nope. God isn't good because he is the source of all good, which is due to the fact that he is the Prime Mover, which is proven because the universe requires a Prime Mover in order to exist. There are so many differnt concepts on how the universe came into being that it requires a thread to properly discuss why God is not the only possible way our universe could come into being. However because God is not the only way the universe can come into being, all the statements you made that are supported by this claim are not facts . Mariner wrote: No, what it seems is that the Epicurean paradoz rests on a misdefinition of Evil -- or even worse, in a lack of definition of Evil. As if it needed none. We saw that this is incorrect in the course in the course of this thread. There is not even an attempt to define "Evil", so far, apart from the Augustinian answer -- which is why it is odd for proponents of the Problem of Evil to criticize it. .. Substance is good. There is no "evil substance". So I don't get your point either. You seem to conclude, from what I said, that there is some kind of "evil substance" in the world, when that is precisely the opposite of what I'm saying (and it is also precisely the unwarranted hidden premise of the Epicurean paradox). .. It is not "a" substance. Substance is good. Good is not substance. It is predication, not identity. .. But my point is exactly that good exists in all things. All things that have substance, that is -- which means all existing things, all beings. Yes, this includes Satan (if you want to discuss that). .. This view of morality is simply what is put forth in Genesis. "God saw all the things He created, and saw that they were very good". Satan was not hiding somewhere when God said that . So your saying that good is caused by something existing instead of not existing? Is mere 'substance' the only thing that is different between good and evil? I can see how one can try to view morality this way, but this is WAY DIFFERENT than traditional Christian morality. If you really believe this morality, then murder is not evil (if a person is killed they still exist even if they are only a corpse). Almost anything we do can not be evil because we are just changing the state of something that exist to some other state. Only when we truely destroy matter can we consider such actions as 'evil'. I really don't think this is much differnt that claiming that morality is subjective.. Again this sounds like you are trying to redefine morality in such a way as give a reason why God created evil. It seems ever time you find one you are turning to a view that very similiar to those that come from Eastern philosophy. Eastern Philosophy is real good at arguing that there is no good or evil. But because these views are so different than the Christian view of the world I do not see how you can use them in order to support your arguement.
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

BubbaSwitzler
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 02, 2005
Total Topics: 75
Total Posts: 2542

Posted 12/05/05 - 03:59 PM:	#63
To answer the question of why there is evil you have to ask what is "good" and "evil"? We think we know but do we? Most often when people ask why God allows evil there is an implicit claim to know better than God how to run the universe. For example, many nonreligious types tend to assume that suffering is evil and that the existence of suffering is therefore evidence of God's nonexistence (or malice). Another example is inequity, an evil to many people. That God might allow evil to exist for a good reason seems not to be considered. To return again to an example, consider the existence of weapons, which many take to be evil things and which, in and of themselves, cause destruction and suffering and yet can be described as good when the things (or people) destroyed are evil.
"Can anything good come from Nazareth?"

vordhosbn
Mezzanine

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 17, 2005
Location: USA
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 98

Posted 12/05/05 - 05:38 PM:	#64
BubbaSwitzler wrote: To answer the question of why there is evil you have to ask what is "good" and "evil"? We think we know but do we? Man invented good and evil, so for all practical purposes, lets say we do know what "good" and "evil" is. Most often when people ask why God allows evil there is an implicit claim to know better than God how to run the universe. What is wrong with this? Who is to say we don't? For example, many nonreligious types tend to assume that suffering is evil and that the existence of suffering is therefore evidence of God's nonexistence (or malice). Another example is inequity, an evil to many people. That God might allow evil to exist for a good reason seems not to be considered. I am nonreligious and I completely disagree with that assumption. To return again to an example, consider the existence of weapons, which many take to be evil things and which, in and of themselves, cause destruction and suffering and yet can be described as good when the things (or people) destroyed are evil. Bad being used for Good purposes? Good being used for Bad purposes? Good = Bad? Or maybe neither exist.
Subterranian Homesick Alien

BubbaSwitzler
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 02, 2005
Total Topics: 75
Total Posts: 2542

Posted 12/05/05 - 06:05 PM:	#65
vordhosbn wrote: Man invented good and evil, so for all practical purposes, lets say we do know what "good" and "evil" is. Of course, this is not true on it's face. There is very much disagreement on what "good" and "evil" are. My point is simply that God may have his own idea on this question and that whatever our opinions, they may not be useful for answering the question. vordhosbn wrote: bubba wrote: Most often when people ask why God allows evil there is an implicit claim to know better than God how to run the universe. What is wrong with this? Who is to say we don't? The problem is that you may arrice at an incorrect conclusion about what evil is and why it exists. If, for example, you define "evil" as bad things happening to me, then you will have a very narrow understanding of the existence of evil and it's nature. vordhosbn wrote: Bad being used for Good purposes? Good being used for Bad purposes? Good = Bad? Or maybe neither exist. Maybe, but then it would not be a problem would it?
"Can anything good come from Nazareth?"

Mariner
Longing

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

Posted 12/06/05 - 03:29 AM:	#66
dclements wrote: If your reply is correct than there is (or was) evil in this world. This goes against what you've been saying so far. Why? If free will so important than why isn't it best if we know nothing about God? If anything he does or any knowledge than he can give to us removes from our ability to be free and good than why should we make any attempt to know if God exist and what his will is? Because knowledge and will are independent. There is wide availability of knowledge about God, but much less people willing to follow it. Also, because we can't fulfill our role in Creation without God's help (because we once shunned Him), what is called "grace". Nope. God isn't good because he is the source of all good, which is due to the fact that he is the Prime Mover, which is proven because the universe requires a Prime Mover in order to exist. There are so many differnt concepts on how the universe came into being that it requires a thread to properly discuss why God is not the only possible way our universe could come into being. However because God is not the only way the universe can come into being, all the statements you made that are supported by this claim are not facts . As I said earlier, there is wide availability of knowledge about that matter . So your saying that good is caused by something existing instead of not existing? Is mere 'substance' the only thing that is different between good and evil? I can see how one can try to view morality this way, but this is WAY DIFFERENT than traditional Christian morality. It is also not what I am saying. The substance of things is good, but they are not made of substance alone. If you really believe this morality, then murder is not evil (if a person is killed they still exist even if they are only a corpse). Almost anything we do can not be evil because we are just changing the state of something that exist to some other state. Only when we truely destroy matter can we consider such actions as 'evil'. I really don't think this is much differnt that claiming that morality is subjective.. We can't destroy matter anyway. And matter isn't substance. It would help if you were familiar with Thomist ontology. But even if you're not you should beware of drawing conclusions from the feel of words. Again this sounds like you are trying to redefine morality in such a way as give a reason why God created evil. Since I deny that God created evil, this is exactly what it can't sound like . It seems ever time you find one you are turning to a view that very similiar to those that come from Eastern philosophy. Eastern Philosophy is real good at arguing that there is no good or evil. But because these views are so different than the Christian view of the world I do not see how you can use them in order to support your arguement. Exactly. I don't deny evil, I deny the substance of evil. Evil is very real, but it is a deprivation of good (try that in Eastern philosophy ). Shadows are real too, but they do not have substance. This, by the way, is John's (the Evangelist) metaphor for good and evil. I remark that to emphasize the pedigree of my opinions. They are quite Christian .
"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

vordhosbn
Mezzanine

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 17, 2005
Location: USA
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 98

Posted 12/06/05 - 05:35 AM:	#67
BubbaSwitzler wrote: Of course, this is not true on it's face. There is very much disagreement on what "good" and "evil" are. My point is simply that God may have his own idea on this question and that whatever our opinions, they may not be useful for answering the question. The disagreement is the same one that can be seen when two people argue about which ice cream tastes better. The problem is that you may arrice at an incorrect conclusion about what evil is and why it exists. If, for example, you define "evil" as bad things happening to me, then you will have a very narrow understanding of the existence of evil and it's nature. Yes, but it is only through these incorrect conclusions that we finally make way and discover the correct conclusion. So why stop now? Maybe, but then [good and evil] would not be a problem would it? I disagree. For instance: You agree that there is only one God, so does some Islamic fundamentalist fanatic. Calling the existence of good and evil on the basis that there is a problem between the two is like calling the existence of both gods on the basis that there is a problem between the two.
Subterranian Homesick Alien

dclements
Hedonistic Nihilist

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

Posted 12/06/05 - 05:44 AM:	#68
BubbaSwitzler wrote: To answer the question of why there is evil you have to ask what is "good" and "evil"? We think we know but do we? Most often when people ask why God allows evil there is an implicit claim to know better than God how to run the universe. For example, many nonreligious types tend to assume that suffering is evil and that the existence of suffering is therefore evidence of God's nonexistence (or malice). Another example is inequity, an evil to many people. That God might allow evil to exist for a good reason seems not to be considered. To return again to an example, consider the existence of weapons, which many take to be evil things and which, in and of themselves, cause destruction and suffering and yet can be described as good when the things (or people) destroyed are evil. That has already been addressed in this thread. If you are suggesting that there is no morality or morality is subjective, than God can not be good. If you are suggesting a different system of morality than what we think of good and evil, go right ahead - take your pick of any system of morality (or roll your own) and explain why it proves that God is can be both omnipotent and benevolent. Several people have tried this to show that it is possible to conceive (without lapses in logic or reason) that God can be both omnipotent and benevolent at the same time. Nobody has been successful enough to dismiss it and today it is still one of the best arguements against believing in God. If you saying that God has knowledge of good and evil that he can not share with us read the end of post 25 and post 57. To claim that something that someone said may be wrong for reasons unknown to us isn't really saying anything at all because this is true of all facts regarding the world around us. (It can be argued that mental concepts such as math and logic are no bound by this problem but they are abstract concepts and not the same thing as facts that we use to describe the world around us.)
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

BubbaSwitzler
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 02, 2005
Total Topics: 75
Total Posts: 2542

Posted 12/06/05 - 08:35 AM:	#69
dclements wrote: That has already been addressed in this thread. If you are suggesting that there is no morality or morality is subjective, than God can not be good. If you don't mind, I'm going to take exception to the previous arguments all around. For starters, I'm not convinced we (meaning humans generally) are the experts in theology we think we are. I've argued this point elsewhere but never mind that. dclements wrote: If you are suggesting a different system of morality than what we think of good and evil, go right ahead - take your pick of any system of morality (or roll your own) and explain why it proves that God is can be both omnipotent and benevolent. Several people have tried this to show that it is possible to conceive (without lapses in logic or reason) that God can be both omnipotent and benevolent at the same time. Nobody has been successful enough to dismiss it and today it is still one of the best arguements against believing in God. I also am suspicious of the general claims of omnipotence, omnicience, and benevolence. Even those who believe in these will quickly concede that God cannot make a round square and there is little agreement on whether God knows or controls the decisions we generally know of as "free will." But you don't have to agree with me here either. dclements wrote: If you saying that God has knowledge of good and evil that he can not share with us read the end of post 25 and post 57. To claim that something that someone said may be wrong for reasons unknown to us isn't really saying anything at all because this is true of all facts regarding the world around us. (It can be argued that mental concepts such as math and logic are no bound by this problem but they are abstract concepts and not the same thing as facts that we use to describe the world around us.) My argument is simply this: If God's only power is to decide who goes to heaven and who goes to hell then that pretty much determines what is good and what is evil. The fact that you might disagree with God's definition is unimportant. It is a fact that people invent their own concepts of good and evil but, in this context, that's about as significant as people inventing their own science. You can believe what you wish about good and evil but if, in the end, you go to hell then you've pretty much bet on the wrong horse. Now this is a bit cynical but I just wanted to present the argument in its simplest form.
"Can anything good come from Nazareth?"

BubbaSwitzler
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 02, 2005
Total Topics: 75
Total Posts: 2542

Posted 12/06/05 - 08:43 AM:	#70
vordhosbn wrote: The disagreement is the same one that can be seen when two people argue about which ice cream tastes better. Yes, but it is only through these incorrect conclusions that we finally make way and discover the correct conclusion. So why stop now? The issue is not one of starting or stopping but of where to look. Remember the story about searching for your lost keys were the light is bright. vordhosbn wrote: bubba wrote: vordhosbn wrote: Or maybe neither [good and evil] exist. Maybe, but then [good and evil] would not be a problem would it? I disagree. For instance: You agree that there is only one God, so does some Islamic fundamentalist fanatic. Calling the existence of good and evil on the basis that there is a problem between the two is like calling the existence of both gods on the basis that there is a problem between the two. If good and evil don't exist then who cares what they argue about? Why bother resolving the question? No, the reason is that even athiests have their own definition of good and evil (e.g. that religion is evil). The "problem of evil" is that we are not God as we would prefer.
"Can anything good come from Nazareth?"

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Last

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.