The problem of evil: a theodicy: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » The problem of evil: a theodicy » The problem of evil: a theodicy

The problem of evil: a theodicy

Page: 1 2 3

The problem of evil: a theodicy

Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 35
Total Posts: 392

Posted 07/02/09 - 04:45 AM: Subject: A Solution to the Problem of Evil - A Theodicy	#1
I've also written a solution to the Problem of Evil: A Solution to the Problem of Evil - A Theodicy God is creating the best possible world. In creating the best possible world, God chooses the best possible process, namely the evolution. In showing shortcomings, people may fail the belief of God and replace partially that belief with ideas that lack in quality and therefore adhere to the instance of nothing. The beliefs that lack in quality make people fail. A bad quality is a quality that lacks in greater quality. The bad quality is therefore marked with something that is missing, it is marked with a degree of nothing. Evil is therefore of instance of nothing. So there it is, the world of something and nothing. God is represented with full and all quality. Perfection in this is open to all but it is of course difficult. In making the small great God is going full circle hence God’s own nature and this constitutes the perfect drama of full quality. It doesn’t necessarily end there. It can continue into more circles of even new dramas of the full scale of smaller quality processes into greater quality processes and back again to the full quality of God. The conclusion of this is naturally that we are a part of a perfect drama between the gravities of nothing and all on the path back to God from where we originated. One of the twists in it equates evil with that which reduces something in quality. Evil is a kind of gravitational force pulling ie. reducing objects to nothing. So and so. Maybe I should work on it a little more. It has been commented by bert1 who thinks it's poorly written. I guess that's just lucky me. BTW, Leibniz, I think, defines evil as that which prevents the greater good from happening. (Theodicy, Essays..., Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2001) Edited by Aetixintro on 07/02/09 - 07:01 PM
Efficacy of "for since it is at present manifest to me that even bodies are not properly known by the senses nor by the faculty of imagination, but by the understanding alone" - Descartes, Meditation II I'm always wanting more, Anything I haven't got, Everything, I want it all, I just can't stop - The Cure, Want

sleeter
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 14, 2008

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 18

Posted 07/02/09 - 05:05 AM:	#2
Aetixintro wrote: Evil is therefore of instance of nothing. Evil is clearly something. The rape of a child is something. To say that evil is an instance of nothing is to deliberately try to define it out of existence by demeaning the experiences of those who've suffered the most through no fault of their own. It is a desperate scrabble to defend and retain a beloved idea by belittling those who're in the most pain. In short, it's also an evil thing to do. Evil is not a privation. It might be a falling short of a standard which is objectively defined by a supreme being, but it is a thing to the same degree that good is.

Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 35
Total Posts: 392

Posted 07/02/09 - 06:01 AM:	#3
sleeter wrote: Evil is clearly something. The rape of a child is something. To say that evil is an instance of nothing is to deliberately try to define it out of existence by demeaning the experiences of those who've suffered the most through no fault of their own. It is a desperate scrabble to defend and retain a beloved idea by belittling those who're in the most pain. In short, it's also an evil thing to do. Evil is not a privation. It might be a falling short of a standard which is objectively defined by a supreme being, but it is a thing to the same degree that good is. I hold that full evil is nothing. Surely, a child being raped suffers evil to some degree. Consequently, I try to show that existence is only good given by God due to God's nature. I don't reject the idea that people suffer from time to time a degree of evil and I certainly don't mean to belittle them. As long as people stay in the belief of goodness, they are saved from the full evil. In my version, your soul is saved if you nurture it no matter what the dire situation. People who suffer a degree of evil are being reduced as people so I think it's important that people avoid evil and get out of evil situations with or without the use of force as in self-defence. Is it better?
Efficacy of "for since it is at present manifest to me that even bodies are not properly known by the senses nor by the faculty of imagination, but by the understanding alone" - Descartes, Meditation II I'm always wanting more, Anything I haven't got, Everything, I want it all, I just can't stop - The Cure, Want

jmafoko
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 12, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 68

Posted 07/02/09 - 10:29 AM:	#4
sleeter wrote: Evil is clearly something. The rape of a child is something. To say that evil is an instance of nothing is to deliberately try to define it out of existence by demeaning the experiences of those who've suffered the most through no fault of their own. It is a desperate scrabble to defend and retain a beloved idea by belittling those who're in the most pain. In short, it's also an evil thing to do. Evil is not a privation. It might be a falling short of a standard which is objectively defined by a supreme being, but it is a thing to the same degree that good is. I hope I would not sound like someone who is playing down the suffering of children who have been raped in this post. But for the sake of argument can we not agree with Plato and probably POSTULATE a hierachy of being and say only the GOOD exists and evil its privation. Is it not possible that what "really" hurts with rape is absence of Love rather than rape. When I am thirsty, am I thirsty because of some "thirst" or is it because of lack of water. Just a thought, we are philosophising are we not. ps. Gets me thinking whether a lack-of-something is real. If you have 3 oranges on a table then if you remove them can we say HAVE we 0 zero oranges on the table(how about other things that were there before?). Can we have non-existence of oranges table on the table. I am more bent to think that non-existence is more phychological than physical. There is no such thing such 0 ( as a cardinal/counting number ) in the world. But rather only in our minds. Maybe zero oranges is a memory of what was there initially. Is it not possible that maybe rape and other evils as privations are indeed phychological(exists only in the mind), i.e longing or sorrow for something GOOD. Just thoughts. @Aetixintro You said what I wanted to say. Yours is even better. I like that idea of full evil is nothing. What do you think of Plato's theory of ideas, I think it sounds similar. Edited by jmafoko on 07/02/09 - 10:44 AM

Crackers
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 28, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 519

Posted 07/02/09 - 02:55 PM:	#5
To summarise: "that which is godless is evil." It seems, as though the fish detests all places without water, the believer is fearful of all which is godless. Could the fish survive without water? Could the believer survive without God? Is it that the believer, though he willfully enslaves himself unto a god, is envious and resentful of all that is godless, all that is free? Do the enslaved look upon the free with green eyes? Is it that the believer has lost his love for himself and loves only his God? Does the man who loves himself not want to exert himself on to the world, does he not wish to conquer all of which he is not present? Does the man who loves God want to exert God on to the world, does he not wish to conquer all of which his God is not present? Does the believer wish to make it easier for God to conquer the world by naming all that which is unconquered, all that which is free, as evil? Does the believer wish to gain support for the godly cause by labelling the opposition as something abhorrent, something evil? God is represented with full and all quality. God lacks imperfection and therefore all possibility for improvement. One that has everything does nothing. God is, by definition, the most useless of all beings. There is a quality in things which strive to improve and better themselves; there is a quality in things which strive at all. God lacks this quality. A tree strives to grow tall; a tree has quality that God has none. God is creating the best possible world. A world where God is uninvolved is the best possible world. If the world is created by a god then the world is indebted to that god. Thus, the world is imperfect. If everything is owed to a god, then everything is unable to exist for itself. If all my actions are judged by a god then the value of my own judgements is absolved; I am worthless. Nothing would be a thing of its own; everything would be a thing of God. If my actions are in accordance with what God wants me to do or what God doesn't want me to do then my actions are merely reduced to that which affirms or rejects the will of God, rather than being free actions in and of themselves. If God is perfect then what is this world? Imperfect. If there is no God then the world merely is, it is neither inherently perfect or imperfect. It is entirely subject to interpretation. Thus, human intepretation gains it's freedom and significance. God reduces all to worthlessness.

the PC apeman
Philosophy Consumer

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jun 24, 2007

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 170

Posted 07/02/09 - 03:18 PM:	#6
Aetixintro wrote: God is creating the best possible world. "Best possible world" can only be a subjective valuation as far as I can see. There are multiple competing criteria from which to select as well as weighting to be applied if more than one criterion is selected. If there was an objective measure for this it might make a good premise for a theodicy. Otherwise, not so much. Do you think there is an objective measure for "best possible world"?

aufbau87
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 08, 2008
Location: Southern California

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 62

Posted 07/02/09 - 04:08 PM:	#7
Aetixintro wrote: I've also written a solution to the Problem of Evil: A Solution to the Problem of Evil - A Theodicy God is creating the best possible world. In creating the best possible world, God chooses the best possible process, namely the evolution. In showing shortcomings, people may fail the belief of God and replace partially that belief with ideas that lack in quality and therefore adhere to the instance of nothing. The beliefs that lack in quality make people fail. A bad quality is a quality that lacks in greater quality. The bad quality is therefore marked with something that is missing, it is marked with a degree of nothing. Evil is therefore of instance of nothing. So there it is, the world of something and nothing. God is represented with full and all quality. Perfection in this is open to all but it is of course difficult. In making the small great God is going full circle hence God’s own nature and this constitutes the perfect drama of full quality. It doesn’t necessarily end there. It can continue into more circles of even new dramas of the full scale of smaller quality processes into greater quality processes and back again to the full quality of God. The conclusion of this is naturally that we are a part of a perfect drama between the gravities of nothing and all on the path back to God from where we originated. One of the twists in it equates evil with that which reduces something in quality. Evil is a kind of gravitational force pulling ie. reducing objects to nothing. So and so. Maybe I should work on it a little more. It has been commented by bert1 who thinks it's poorly written. I guess that's just lucky me. BTW, Leibniz, I think, defines evil as that which prevents the greater good from happening. (Theodicy, Essays..., Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2001) Your idea is intriguing, but I think it may be a bit confused. What on earth does this mean: In showing shortcomings, people may fail the belief of God and replace partially that belief with ideas that lack in quality and therefore adhere to the instance of nothing. ? People that fail to believe in God do not have to "replace" it with anything. Moreover, why do we have to say God created the best of all possible worlds? If He didn't, how would this make Him less moral or imperfectly moral?

Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 35
Total Posts: 392

Posted 07/02/09 - 06:25 PM:	#8
jmafoko wrote: @Aetixintro You said what I wanted to say. Yours is even better. I like that idea of full evil is nothing. What do you think of Plato's theory of ideas, I think it sounds similar. Thanks for this comment. It warms me! The impression I have of Plato is that he thinks of this realm of perfect forms. Aristotles thinks of nature as perfect in itself. I'm in between these two in that I believe that nature holds perfection and that there is this substance that is missing that represents the key to holding the answer of what God finally is and the completion of a perfect image of nature. At one point, I've been considering myself a follower of Plato, but now that I know his texts I know I'm certainly not. Still the same, unconsciously, some bits may have been flying around inside my head computed into this present image. Crackers, I want to have it cleared right away that I don't believe in a God different from this universe or separate from it. To me, God is nature, reality, the whole of all, perhaps with the exemption of this nothing that is evil. My theory is quite young still and there's more work to be done on it. Have this in mind, I don't believe in some traditional God! The entity God may be some kind of dormant matter, something fantastic beyond our imagination. It may also go this way: I give you life and this life you're given is dealt with in your life as given by some parameters. Depending on your performance you are given pleasure or opportunities anew when you're life ceases. Do you mind asking specific questions? It seems to me that your post is your thinking and I'm uncertain of where you're going. Crackers wrote: One that has everything does nothing. I disagree. One that has everything can do something or several some that encompass an image all. I have this on my website: "God plays with one's self. And playing with one's self is as perfect as God self." It is God that is playing with God's own nature and it has to be as perfect as God's self and nothing less. the PC apeman wrote: "Best possible world" can only be a subjective valuation as far as I can see. There are multiple competing criteria from which to select as well as weighting to be applied if more than one criterion is selected. If there was an objective measure for this it might make a good premise for a theodicy. Otherwise, not so much. Do you think there is an objective measure for "best possible world"? The "best possible world" is actually a logical truth since God is incapable of creating something lesser than God's self. Besides, this has been written in March, 2008. You can find it on my website, t-lea.net/philosophical_notes.html. parameter wrote: Your idea is intriguing, but I think it may be a bit confused. What on earth does this mean: In showing shortcomings, people may fail the belief of God and replace partially that belief with ideas that lack in quality and therefore adhere to the instance of nothing. ? People that fail to believe in God do not have to "replace" it with anything. Moreover, why do we have to say God created the best of all possible worlds? If He didn't, how would this make Him less moral or imperfectly moral? I've set it that way because I don't want to allow an epistemology where people are necessarily correct everytime they consider something. If God represents all in nature, every bit of quark and so on, people must be conjuring ideas that are faulty in order to be mistaken about nature ie. God and these ideas obviously lack in quality. If there are no cases where the ideas may be mistaken, there is a linearity straight into God's being and course of nature may be lightning quick. I don't consider perfection and moral perfection apart from one another. If God is then perfect, I think it follows that every place God creates must be the best ie. perfect. You may read the whole post to have a better impression of what I'm trying to say. Edit: a clarifier. When I use the word "world" I mean the whole universe. This universe can be seen as a shred of God, God's creation. I consider God to be the universe and all other universes (gravitational systems) as well as being beyond them. This turn is necessary for having the infinity cycle. I don't know if people feel it's any good, but infinity will always play the trump card in my explanations. I can't think of a perfect God if I don't get infinity with it. Infinity now! Edited by Aetixintro on 07/02/09 - 08:39 PM
Efficacy of "for since it is at present manifest to me that even bodies are not properly known by the senses nor by the faculty of imagination, but by the understanding alone" - Descartes, Meditation II I'm always wanting more, Anything I haven't got, Everything, I want it all, I just can't stop - The Cure, Want

the PC apeman
Philosophy Consumer

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jun 24, 2007

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 170

Posted 07/03/09 - 03:29 AM:	#9
Aetixintro wrote: The "best possible world" is actually a logical truth since God is incapable of creating something lesser than God's self. You seem to be avoiding the issue I brought up. Does this God hold subjective values? Do any of them pertain to what constitutes a "best possible world"?

Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 35
Total Posts: 392

Posted 07/03/09 - 03:42 AM:	#10
the PC apeman wrote: Does this God hold subjective values? Do any of them pertain to what constitutes a "best possible world"? When it comes to perfection, there can be only one objective set of principles, qualities, whatever. I think it's impossible for God to hold subjective values. Generally, God's just spurting universes, quite unable to do anything else than what consists in perfection. God is necessarily a prisoner of perfection. Otherwise one faces a host of ontological problems, like having a Flying Spaghetti Monster around. Since there's no subjective values in God, there's only this one set of perfect principles that constitutes a "best possible world". There may be several worlds equally created to the same "best" standard.
Efficacy of "for since it is at present manifest to me that even bodies are not properly known by the senses nor by the faculty of imagination, but by the understanding alone" - Descartes, Meditation II I'm always wanting more, Anything I haven't got, Everything, I want it all, I just can't stop - The Cure, Want

Page: 1 2 3

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.