How would you answer this (discussion of evil)?

[john_doran]

standard to evaluate God’s actions; I don’t need to. (I don’t evoke a normative standard to evaluate the effects of the force of gravity either.) It is enough that he values other things more than the alleviation of suffering and promotion of happiness (if he is all-powerful); I’m not interested in ‘judging’ him or his actions, just thier present and future implications for us.
don’t look now, but that’s a normative argument: all agents act to maximize some value.

and, again, you are applying the standard to god. which is something that can be done only by way of moral fiat.

i’m not sure how to be more clear about this: to say that maximal goodness entails maximizing (human) happiness, is a moral claim, with normative implications. it is also a controverted moral claim - one which i, for instance, reject - so application of the standard to god is something you are doing for which you need to marshall rational support. and that’s the part you haven’t done, nor which, in my opinion, is capable of being (compellingly) done.

MichaelLewis:

In any case, the idea that it is logically possible that there could exist beings who enjoy heaven, but God can not create them directly, entails that God can not create all logically possible states of affairs. What is omnipotence if not the power to do just that?

but god may very well have been able to create them and simply chose not to. and he could have chosen thusly and still be omnibenevolent.

 

[MichaelLewis]

John wrote:

sure, but as i pointed out before, that’s

not at issue - the question isn’t whether or not you are capable, at some time or another, of being happy without suffering. it is a question whether you can be always happy without suffering; whether everyone can always be happy without suffering.
If my mind is malleable, I could enjoy the same set of possible, pleasurable experiences over and over again, forever. If I needed memories of suffering, they could be provided as well. Even if my environment is entirely contrived, the point is that I can enjoy particular experiences. Given that memories are our constructions; at best “based on a true story”, God apparently doesn’t value authenticity much anyway, or is unable to create a mind that can truly model reality. In any case, not all of his creatures value it.

and the conceivability of that

state of affairs is not evident simply from your memory of being hurtlessly happy at some point in the past.

(i mean, it;s not even clear from that sort of memory whether or not your happiness was purchased at the price either of your own or someone else’s future or past suffering…)If necessary we could be given false memories of past suffering so we might enjoy current pleasures. If a mental state is logically possible, an omnipotent God should be able to create and sustain it in an isolated system that does not affect others. God need only regulate mental (name removed by moderator)uts appropriately; no other being need be involved. (Though outside the context of competition for resources or prestige, it is hard to see why humans would ever need to cause one another suffering.)

he might be capable of doing so, but it does not follow that he ought to

do so.
…
you assume, again, that god has a duty to “maximize happiness”. why believe that? i mean, i don’t even believe that’s a human obligation, let alone one for god.As I have said over and over again; I’m not interested in making a moral judgment concerning God (either positive or negative). The most I would say is that many (probably most) of us humans would have liked things to have been arranged differently.

don’t look now, but that’s a normative argument: all agents act to maximize some value.

I’m not suggesting that God is obligated to act in such a way as to maximize any value; I’m just saying that his top priority isn’t our happiness. Perhaps he isn’t a consequentialist, that’s fine. Then perhaps his top value is to be a good Kantian. I don’t know what he wants to do, but if he’s omnipotent I’m sure he’s doing it, and it’s not all about maximizing his creation’s happiness; that goal MUST be subordinate.
(cont.)

 

[MichaelLewis]

i’m not sure how to be more clear about this: to say that maximal goodness entails maximizing (human) happiness, is a moral claim

, with normative implications. it is also a controverted moral claim - one which i, for instance, reject - so application of the standard to god is something you are doing for which you need to marshall rational support. and that’s the part you haven’t done, nor which, in my opinion, is capable of being (compellingly) done.I HAVE NOT BEEN TALKING ABOUT GOODNESS. I don’t know how many times I need to say that I’m not making a moral judgment before you will believe me. This is very frustrating.

but god may very well have been able to create them and simply chose not to. and he could have chosen thusly and still

be omnibenevolent.Well, if omnibenevolence entails maximizing our happiness and he is all-powerful, he clearly isn’t omnibenevolent. If it entails him just doing whatever seems best to him, or if it relates to some value that we humans can’t fathom, who cares if he is omnibenevolent? What is that to us? I understand that there are other goods that some people care about apart from happiness. That’s fine; I’d never say that that is wrong, (I care about other things myself) but I’d still much prefer that God place benevolence before whatever else he does happen to value (if he exists and is all-powerful). I would prefer to live in that sort of world rather than this one. I suspect that a lot of other people, such as the poster’s relatives, feel this way as well. That doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist, as I said. I rather wish discussions of God’s character were completely separated from the question of his bare existence to the extent that this is possible (Some arguments for God’s existence rely upon certain presuppositions concerning his character, I realize.)

Anyway, I think I’ve said about all I can say about this issue.
Thank you John.

Michael

 

[Zooey]

How does he explain the existence of good??? It is not that hard to understand evil–its pretty much just doing what you want, regardless of others.
The burden of proof is on him to explain why, (since there is no reason for it, outside of (A) a creator, (B) the Creator’s rules for how to treat one another),do people do great & wonderful things, &(C) the creation of beauty, joy, & splendour?
Why a Mother Teresa? Why an Albert Schweitzer? Why did people like Corrie Tenboom & Oskar Schindler save Jews?? Why do great artists of all kinds create magnificent beauty if there is no extraordinary source of the knowledge of beauty/goodness??
If there is no God, where do we get the idea of a God who requires things of us that are not to our immediate advantage? (Wouldn’t we just make up a “god” who lets us do as we please??)
That we believe in a God who requires things of His creation that go against immediate advantage, argues that He must exist. An invented “god” would rubber stamp all our fondest desires, not tell us, “Take up your cross & follow Me”!!