The problem of Evil: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

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

The problem of Evil

dclements
Hedonistic Nihilist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 26, 2004
Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 1129

Posted 11/29/05 - 09:45 AM: Subject: The problem of Evil	#1
Before Christ was born there was a Greek by the name of Epicurus (born in 341 BC) who was the first person to recorded to describe the problem of an omnipotent, benevolent God and at the same time there to be evil in the world. A quote of his on the subject: "Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. ... If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. ... If, as they say, God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?" I remeber long ago reading about why before Christianity that no religion wanted to claim that their God was all powerful and cared anything about the world because of the problem of evil would make the religion not rational to others. 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. It is kinda funny that an athesist arguement that was created even before Christianity would still be to this day one of the biggest reasons as to why someone would not believe in God. Feel free to post your thoughts on the subject.. Wikipedia link to the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil
_____________________ 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

Mariner
Longing

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Brazil
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 4201

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/29/05 - 10:05 AM:	#2
Augustine (and Boethius) solved the problem quite neatly, by explaining the relationship between free will and evil. It is, I agree with Wiki, the only tenable solution to the problem (atheists are not prone to give solutions that explain the origin of evil, they prefer to point it out and let it stand at that). I find it more curious that atheists put so much emphasis on the Problem of Evil without realizing that it brings another problem to the fore, the "Problem of Good". Why should there be goodness in the universe? What is goodness? Just as evil demands an origin, so does goodness; but there is only silence on that matter. To focus on "the Problem of Evil" is to accept a naive theology that is not consistent with itself or with the world. Epicurus was simply one of a long line of sophists who embraced that route.
_____________________ "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

EcceQuiTollisPeccataMundi
Hanzai kienai eien ni

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 08, 2004
Location: Kansas City, MO. US.
Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 125

Posted 11/29/05 - 10:10 AM:	#3
I would suggest looking into the Irænian Theodicy of John Hick. He basically argues that although evil exists it is divided into two categories, moral evil and non-moral evil. The former being a direct result of man's action or inaction; the latter being events that are percieved as evil or bad by men that are in fact natural events(earthquakes, tornadoes and the like), mere consequences of being. Additionally he asserts that evil cannot be a realistic co-equal contrary to the reality of God and his goodness(What can oppose an omnipotent God?). John Hick's seminal text on theodicy was titled "Evil and the God of Love." And ironically, that paradox that you bring up is dealt with in that book(And that quote is there in its entirety, too). I would love to write out how Hick resolves it exactly, but I am away from my books at the moment. Maybe later on. Edit: The Irænian Theodicy of John Hick is markedly distinguished from the Augustinian theodicy in a number of areas; namely regarding the purpose of evil. Once again, I'll wait until I have his book in my hands to clarify that way I do not butcher the argument. Edited by EcceQuiTollisPeccataMundi on 11/29/05 - 10:17 AM
_____________________ The Optimist: I do believe that it was a life-changing experience. From this point on, every chicken sandwich I eat will be compared to that one and I know they'll all fall short...What a terrible world. Hyena: Or you can say that with the rarity of such a chicken sandwich, all the low quality sandwiches you are going to eat from then onwards would always remind you of how lucky you are for being one of the few who have been able to taste such an extraordinary sandwich.

abba
Servant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 05, 2005
Location: Sarasota
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 391

Posted 11/29/05 - 10:48 AM:	#4
Thanks for the book. Here's an Amazon link to it & others. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060639024/103-0...
_____________________ Lord, I love thee for thyself alone and not from my desires or fears; hide not thy face from me; if it be thy will. - (adapted from medieval Christian mystic prayer) May you always be covered by the dust of your rabbi. - (Talmudic prayer) Allaahummah dinee feeman hadaita wa 'aafenee feeman 'aafaita wa tawallanee feeman tawallaita,... (Muslim Supplication in Witr: O Allah, guide me among those You have guided, and preserve me among those You have preserved, and take me for a friend among those whom You have taken for friends,...)

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2449

Posted 11/29/05 - 01:44 PM:	#5
Many people look to free will to solve the problem of evil. Unfortunately, this solution has also been soundly defeated. If one accepts that there can be individuals who have free will but choose good because of their nature, then one cannot accept the free will solution. The solution is also untenable because even creatures with free will and of such a nature that they may act for evil need not be placed in situations where the choice to do evil will arise. Finally, much ill is done not by choices, but by the world acting on its own. The solution of free will is thesolution of saying that God wanted to provide the opportunity for evil to occur, knowing that it would occur. That is hardly the act of an all good being.
_____________________ "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

periculum
Initiate

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

Posted 11/29/05 - 02:12 PM:	#6
The solution of free will is thesolution of saying that God wanted to provide the opportunity for evil to occur, knowing that it would occur. That is hardly the act of an all good being. I've been posting with mariner about this in another thread, and I think this sums up my (and others) argument against the freewill explanation quite well. With only a single god, from whence all things come, freewill and evil must also come from him, thus freewill is not the true origin of evil b/c freewill is originated by god, ergo god is creating evil, even if indirectly. Now, mariner asked for an atheistic concept of where evil (and good) originate from. Since such a concept inevitably lacks a deity, we can not define evil as turning away from god, thus we shall define it as "That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction." With this definition in place, I then put forth the notion that evil (and good) is not actually an objective force in the world but merely an adjective we apply to unfortunate events. I maintain that moral evil doesn't actually exist, as even the actions of man are natural events and morals are a relative cultural trend. Only the non-moral evils exist, and that means that evil as an objective force is nonexistent. It is merely an adjective we apply to natural events (mere consequences of being) that have negative consequences for our point of view. And good vice versa.
_____________________ "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible god's out there, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

Whooopa8
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 11, 2005
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 77

Posted 11/29/05 - 02:16 PM:	#7
From what I've read from Evil and the God of Love, Hick gives a theodicy that is a fuses the free will and greater good defense to give birth to his idea of the “Vale of Soul-Making”. “Soul-Making” refers to the process of becoming more god-like through pain and suffering in this world. This belief stems from Hick’s view of how mankind was created. According to him, instead of Adam and Eve being born perfect and falling into the present state due to temptation, he believes that when man and woman were created, they were still in the process of becoming more like God, which means they were not created perfect. The fall from the garden only complicated the process but did not mean that we can not obtain Zoe (what he calls the state of being god-like). God put temptation, suffering, and pain in this world in order for us to pass these obstacles in order to reach the state of Zoe, since “...one who has attained to goodness by meeting and eventually mastering temptations, and thus by rightly making responsible choices in concrete situations is good in a richer and more valuable sense than would be one created ab initio...”. Hick argues that Zoe reached through freedom of choice rather than God’s demand is better, and the final stage where those who have reached Zoe are with Him is the “plan” that God has for the strong. A parent-child analogy beautifully demonstrates this. A parent who “...loves his children, and wants them to become the best human beings that they are capable of becoming, does not treat pleasure as the sole and supreme value”, instead, he or she “...foster[s] quality and strength of character in their children...” even if it means their children suffering many hardships during life because these obstacles makes everyone stronger. This is a world of soul-making; a learning environment filled with dangers as to turn out better beings that has chosen to love God by themselves. So, according to this article, God has created the perfect place for his children to grow up, so the company up in heaven will be more enjoyable. His theodicy, probably one of the better ones, does not solve the problem and raises many issues. First, this would only mean that the strong and the able would only be able to reach the state of Zoe since the weak are less apt to resist temptation. This would imply that God favors the strong and abandons the weak, and sends them to hell, which, to me, seems extremely, morally wrong for a perfect God. Hell leads to the second problem. If the point of evil and suffering in this world is to toughen us by resisting temptations through our free will, then what is the point of Hell? I do not know of any parent, no matter what grave mistakes their children have made, that will send their kids to hell. In my opinion, any good parent would try to reason with their children to win them back. My third and last problem with this theodicy is the degree of suffering and pain God has put in this world. If the world is a learning exercise, then why can’t the hardships be toned down just a little? We, who have access to the internet and other modern, convenient commodities, live a comfortable life. There are millions, perhaps billions, who endure hardships we can't even imagine. There are many other problems with this idea, but i don't have the time to type them up in the moment. His book doesn't convince me one bit.
_____________________ Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it. --- Andre Gide

Taku
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 20, 2005
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 5

Posted 11/29/05 - 02:50 PM:	#8
What does evil have to do with God? If God is a Creator, the Creator, CREATOR, then the creation of evil and good is no less of a creation as day and night. There are 2 ways one can examine this: 1-From a structural point in creation. 2-From the evaluation of Human debate of the Truth. 1-The aspect of God as Creator allows differentiation. We all agree that if all were the same: sameness, then there is nothing different. No creation. We also can agree that if all was different: differentness, then also there could be nothing the same. Again no creation. We can then understand that if we did not have light and darkness then there could be no form. The dynamics of sameness/differentness create the perception of meaningful relations. 2-Human perspective is that mankind experiences value judgements. Each culture has given birth to evaluations, questions, more evaluations, ect. Most of mankind has adjusted cultural beliefs to be Truths. Some of these truths are massive, some are contained. Today, head hunting and cannibalism is banned. Religions claim sanctity to the Truths of God and God's words. In one hundred years in the future, well, God only knows what Truth will be and the evil and good. I am curious to read what history will record about President Bush in this light. I hope he will find this website and another one, Holophany.com. He may change his mind about Good and Evil.

Mariner
Longing

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Brazil
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 4201

Posted 11/30/05 - 10:22 AM:	#9
periculum wrote: I then put forth the notion that evil (and good) is not actually an objective force in the world but merely an adjective we apply to unfortunate events. I maintain that moral evil doesn't actually exist, as even the actions of man are natural events and morals are a relative cultural trend. Only the non-moral evils exist, and that means that evil as an objective force is nonexistent. It is merely an adjective we apply to natural events (mere consequences of being) that have negative consequences for our point of view. And good vice versa. And then there is no Problem of Evil. 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). Note that the Problem of Evil is not invoked as an inconsistency within theism. It is supposedly a moral blemish upon the God of theism that he allows evil to exist. As Kwalish Kid said, and you agreed. Now, that is an inconsistent view when taken in conjunction with your notion that evil is "an adjective that we apply to unfortunate events". After all, in a universe without a God, being eaten by a lion is only unfortunate for the victim . In the absence of objective evil, there is no Problem of Evil. That you disagree with the Augustinian solution is not the same as claiming that it is wrong, by the way. There is no leap in the argumentation, there is no flaw that you have shown, you only are uncomfortable with the conclusion.
_____________________ "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: 38
Total Posts: 1129

Posted 11/30/05 - 11:48 AM:	#10
Mariner wrote: Augustine (and Boethius) solved theproblem quite neatly, by explaining the relationshipbetween free will and evil. It is, I agree with Wiki, the only tenable solution to the problem (atheists arenot prone to give solutions that explain the origin of evil, they prefer to point it out and let it stand at that). I don't believe Augustine solved the problem by saying that God gives people free will and allows us to choose between good and evil. 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. This is like saying the a parent giving up their child right after it is born is more moral than a parent that tries to take care of their child because the child will have more free will by learning everything on their own and will be a better person. 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. But if we can not understand why is 'good' then how do we know that he is 'good'? Even if God's version of 'good' is different than ours, even he would realize that he must show us a way (through reason) that he is good. If we believe he is 'good' through faith and not reason than we do not know if he is good. Although Christains believe he is good through their faith while the non-Christains are left to believe that either God is not good or he is not omnipotent. Mariner wrote: I find it more curious that atheists put so much emphasis on the Problem of Evil without realizing that it brings another problem to the fore, the "Problem of Good". Why should there be goodness in the universe? What is goodness? Just as evil demands an origin, so does goodness; but there is only silence on that matter. The fact that 'good' or 'evil' exist does not prove the existance of an benevolent and omnipotent God. Mariner wrote: To focus on "the Problem of Evil" is to accept a naive theology that is not consistent with itself or with the world. Epicurus was simply one of a long line of sophists who embraced that route. The Epicurean paradox is merely simple logic not a form of theology preaching one religious belief over another. If it happens favour one religious schism over another it not intentional. The problem of evil is a question that is raised by almost all faiths regardless of their beliefs. 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. The only arguement that I believe is valid is that either God is benevolent or omnipotent, but not both. Edited by dclements on 11/30/05 - 01:02 PM
_____________________ 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

Mariner
Longing

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Brazil
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 4201

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: 38
Total Posts: 1129

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: 5
Total Posts: 4201

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: 5
Total Posts: 4201

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: 5
Total Posts: 4201

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

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: 5
Total Posts: 4201

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: 23
Total Posts: 2362

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
_____________________ 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 A prolonged peace favours the predominance of a mere commercial spirit, and with it a debasing self-interest, cowardice, and effeminacy, and tends to degrade the character of the nation. - Immanuel Kant

dclements
Hedonistic Nihilist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 26, 2004
Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 1129

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

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.