Is God capable of evil?

[Sair]

1. If God does not exist nothing is good or evil.
2. There is good and evil in the world.
3. Good and evil require explanation.
4. God is the most cogent explanation.

Are you saying that God is responsible for both good and evil, then?

 

[tonyrey]

Are you saying that God is responsible for both good and evil, then?

God is **ultimately **responsible for everything - just as you are **ultimately **responsible for what your descendants do!

 

[wanstronian]

Fail. Not only do you still refuse to put your argument in logically deductible form, but then you make a naked assertion and accuse me of special pleading. We don’t have a way of KNOWING 3 is the case. We don’t have a way of KNOWING that NASA landed on the moon, historically.

Are you kidding???

But we can see it as the best explanation based on the facts and nature of the event. I already debated you on this. You complained that my objection to the problem was “illogical” and “mental acrobatics”. Here’s what I want from YOU:

Present a LOGICALLY DEDUCTABLE form of the problem of evil. I don’t give a hoot if I’m being “fallicious” or making “ad homenims”. If it’s such a big problem and isn’t just your opinion, it should be easy for a “rationalist” like you to put it in the deductable form.

I don’t need to. To insist I formalise this common sense objection can only be either bluster or idiocy on your part, and it’s only reinforcing my opinion that you can’t explain the evil inherent in God’s inaction.

Shouting at me in child-like extra-large text is the internet equivalent of a tantrum on the floor. Simply explain why God’s inaction is not evil, whereas the equivalent human inaction would be considered evil. Unless you consider the equivalent human action to be perfectly moral, in which case you’re off the hook.

I issued this challenge to you first, so stop trying to dodge the issue.

Since you complained that my objection was illogical and mental acrobatics, by implication because it was emotional in your view, I’m reversing it. Your argument is still emotional. You’re just a complainer. Give me hard logic or admit it.

I gave you a perfectly rational analogy, you’re choosing to ignore it. If you’re unable to work with this, then just say so. And I expect every one of your posts from now on to be phrased in the same “logically deductible” form, otherwise your points are entirely invalid. Do you agree?

And what are you angry about? It could be many things. You could be angry at the concept of God because you think it is “stupid”. You could be angry at theists for being “stupid”. Or maybe you’re angry at theism because in spite of appearing stupid to you, it’s managed to work out every little whine you’ve ever presented to it before you were even born. Quit accusing me of ad homenim and cut to the chase. You made more personal attacks above than I did in my entire stay here on the debate.

Well, as you’ve yet to show that I’m even angry, your little rant above doesn’t really add any value. It’s just more ad hominem. The arguments for God have been rebutted many times before you and I were even born. There are no new arguments, so no new rebuttals are required. But theism hasn’t “worked out” every “little whine” (loaded words there suggest that you’re the angry one, not me!) at all. In fact, it seems entirely unable, in the guise of you, to respond to a very simple question about how God’s alleged benevolence and omnipotence is reconcilable with the suffering and elimination of billions of entirely innocent people all over the world.

So, as you have introduced this arbitrary demand that I format my objection in a very specific way, and I feel that I have phrased it perfectly adequately; and as you have been unable or unwilling to respond constructively to my objection, then I have no choice but to infer that you have no answer. There’s not much point wasting my time trying to get information from you that you clearly don’t have.

So I throw open the question to anybody else who may be lurking. How do you reconcile God’s alleged benevolence and omnipotence, with the suffering of innocent people?

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

So I throw open the question to anybody else who may be lurking. How do you reconcile God’s alleged benevolence and omnipotence, with the suffering of innocent people?

I think if you want an intellectually satisfactory answer you’ll need to define benevolence, ominipotence and innocence a little more clearly, as these can be subject to interpretation. Defining context would be of benefit as well. Are we strictly dealing with moral questions?

 

[wanstronian]

1. If God does not exist nothing is good or evil.
2. There is good and evil in the world.
3. Good and evil require explanation.
4. God is the most cogent explanation.

Ha! I like it! A nice little circular argument. You arbitrarily make the existence of good and evil contingent on the existence of God, thereby building your conclusion into your premise.

How about this then:

1. If Venezuela does not exist, nothing is green.
2. Some things in the world are green.
3. Green things require explanation.
4. The existence of Venezuela is the most cogent explanation.

Who needs maps and explorers and telephones and satellites? I just proved the existence of Venezuela from my office chair!

 

[wanstronian]

I think if you want an intellectually satisfactory answer you’ll need to define benevolence, ominipotence and innocence a little more clearly, as these can be subject to interpretation.

I take your point - I think these are quite straightforward concepts, but I suppose they could be equivocated by the unscrupulous.

So, dictionary definitions (Shorter OED):

1. Benevolent: Desirous of the good of others; of a kindly disposition; charitable
2. Omnipotent: Almighty, infinite in power
3. Innocent: Free from sin or guilt in general; morally pure; untouched by evil. Free from specific guilt; that has not committed the offence in question.

These seem pretty reasonable definitions to me.

 

[danserr]

I take your point - I think these are quite straightforward concepts, but I suppose they could be equivocated by the unscrupulous.

So, dictionary definitions (Shorter OED):

1. Benevolent: Desirous of the good of others; of a kindly disposition; charitable
2. Omnipotent: Almighty, infinite in power
3. Innocent: Free from sin or guilt in general; morally pure; untouched by evil. Free from specific guilt; that has not committed the offence in question.

These seem pretty reasonable definitions to me.

Most philosophers of religion would suggest that it is better to consider omnipotence less in terms of infinite power and more in terms of actualizing potentialities. Just a brief note.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

I take your point - I think these are quite straightforward concepts, but I suppose they could be equivocated by the unscrupulous.

So, dictionary definitions (Shorter OED):

1. Benevolent: Desirous of the good of others; of a kindly disposition; charitable
2. Omnipotent: Almighty, infinite in power
3. Innocent: Free from sin or guilt in general; morally pure; untouched by evil. Free from specific guilt; that has not committed the offence in question.

These seem pretty reasonable definitions to me.

I have several questions then:

• In order to be benevolent, is it contingent on always exercising an active or exertive force? Your definition does not seem to require that to the case, as merely have a kindly dispostion seems to qualify a being to be benevolent.
• Do you mean omipotent apply to paradoxical concepts? In addition, what do you mean by power? A singularity can have infinite gravitational power. I presume you mean the ability to act. If that is the case, is a being’s ability to be omnipoent contingent on always exercising this power.
• In what context you to ascribe someone to be innocent? Absolutely free of all moral sin or guilt? If it is in reference to being free of guilt, it must be in reference to a crime or offences. What are these offences?

I’ll try to get back later to discuss further.

 

[danserr]

Ha! I like it! A nice little circular argument. You arbitrarily make the existence of good and evil contingent on the existence of God, thereby building your conclusion into your premise.

How about this then:

1. If Venezuela does not exist, nothing is green.
2. Some things in the world are green.
3. Green things require explanation.
4. The existence of Venezuela is the most cogent explanation.

Who needs maps and explorers and telephones and satellites? I just proved the existence of Venezuela from my office chair!

The argument is not circular, premise one is simple untrue. I would refine his argument slightly to read

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties exist
3. Therefore God exists.

reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5344

But the point is that there is nothing circular about this. You may dispute the truth of premise one or two, but you may not dismiss them as circular. And there is hardly anything unwarranted about the first premise as you claim. If God does not exist, then our moral values are simply the product of socio-biological conditioning, which hardly makes them objective.

 

[wanstronian]

The argument is not circular, premise one is simple untrue. I would refine his argument slightly to read

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties exist
3. Therefore God exists.

reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5344

But the point is that there is nothing circular about this. You may dispute the truth of premise one or two, but you may not dismiss them as circular. And there is hardly anything unwarranted about the first premise as you claim. If God does not exist, then our moral values are simply the product of socio-biological conditioning, which hardly makes them objective.

The definition of “objective” is open to interpretation. For instance, in the bible, God clearly prompts or condones behaviours that we would consider utterly, horribly immoral in today’s society - behaviours that he then condemns in the ten commandments.

Given this, where could we possibly get “objective” morals from? It can’t be from God, because he doesn’t practice what he preaches.

What does “objective” mean? Does it mean “immutable?” Then how come God was able to breach this “objective” moral code at will?

How do we know what this “objective” moral code states? The Bible’s “be nice to each other” is not only vague, but obvious, and is a cornerstone of societal interaction that was being practiced by human societies thousands of years before the bible was penned. It’s infinitely more likely that this fundamental social imperative was written to reflect normal human morality, than that it was mandated by some supernatural entity thousands of years after the human race would have died out were it not already practicing good citizenship.

So I think you have two options: admit that “objective” morality does not exist, at least in the sense of “immutable” and “prescribed;” or admit that it equates to “whatever God says, regardless of what God does.”

So to analyse your argument:

1 - is a false premise. There may, or may not, be “objective” morality… but if there is, there’s zero reason to ascribe its existence to God.
2 - cannot be shown to be true. In fact, all the evidence suggests that it’s false, as (a) moral standards have demonstrably changed according to era and geography, (b) nobody can describe what this “objective” moral code should be (have we reached it yet? Do you think the slave owners of the 18th century thought they were moral people?) and (c) no reasonable source for this “objective” morality has ever been suggested.

Given the inherent weakness of (1) and (2), then 3 is quite clearly unreliable.

 

[Pieman333272]

Wanstrontian, you have consistently refused my request for a logically deductible form of the problem of evil and have instead focused on minor details and statements in my post as if they were the entire point. I am taking this, as well as your repeated angry insults and miscalled fallacies, as a way of saying you cannot present it in a logically deductible form. Let me know when you want to look smarter than a 5-year old, I’m unsubscribing from this thread.

 

[wanstronian]

Wanstrontian, you have consistently refused my request for a logically deductible form of the problem of evil and have instead focused on minor details and statements in my post as if they were the entire point. I am taking this, as well as your repeated angry insults and miscalled fallacies, as a way of saying you cannot present it in a logically deductible form. Let me know when you want to look smarter than a 5-year old, I’m unsubscribing from this thread.

Hmmm, well on the off-chance that you do check here, your pretence at umbrage doesn’t really work. We both know my objection was perfectly well-defined, and that your response is nothing but bluster to cover for the fact that you have no answer.

Maybe I’m not as smart as a five year old; I suspect a five year old would have realised sooner that you’re just a bag of hot air.

 

[wanstronian]

Anyhoo, now that Pieman’s bottled it under such laughably disingenuous circumstances - anybody else like to rationalise a benevolent god who sits idly by while millions of innocent people suffer and die?

Or must I phrase my question in Greek, while sitting in a bathtub of yoghurt?

 

[Pieman333272]

Hmmm, well on the off-chance that you do check here, your pretence at umbrage doesn’t really work. We both know my objection was perfectly well-defined, and that your response is nothing but bluster to cover for the fact that you have no answer.

Maybe I’m not as smart as a five year old; I suspect a five year old would have realised sooner that you’re just a bag of hot air.

Every time I’ve gotten in a debate with you, you’ve started spewing insults, psychoanalysis and strawmen.

QUIT IT.

It is clear you know NO LOGIC and cannot put ANY of your pseudo-arguments into a deductible form. This is **not **an irrational request. If you came to your position with such logic, than it should be effortless to present this in a deductible form. I have a response to the problem of evil but it is emotional. There is a logical one I have but it is inapplicable to a non-deductive form of the PoE. I’ve presented the other one to you. Twice. All you did was attack it ad homenim.

Get off. Get some substance, and start thinking. I don’t care what you think of me, it is clear that you have NO ARGUMENT and NO LOGICAL BASIS FOR YOUR POSITION on God’s benevolence. And somehow I’m the irrational one who rides on rhetoric.

And if that doesn’t motivate you, I’ve decided to stay a little longer. If I see another personal attack against me or any other Catholic for our position on the issue, I will report you to the mods.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Anyhoo, now that Pieman’s bottled it under such laughably disingenuous circumstances - anybody else like to rationalise a benevolent god who sits idly by while millions of innocent people suffer and die?

Or must I phrase my question in Greek, while sitting in a bathtub of yoghurt?

I believe I have a number of questions still awaiting clarification.

 

[wanstronian]

Every time I’ve gotten in a debate with you, you’ve started spewing insults, psychoanalysis and strawmen.

QUIT IT.

It is clear you know NO LOGIC and cannot put ANY of your pseudo-arguments into a deductible form. This is **not **an irrational request. If you came to your position with such logic, than it should be effortless to present this in a deductible form. I have a response to the problem of evil but it is emotional. There is a logical one I have but it is inapplicable to a non-deductive form of the PoE. I’ve presented the other one to you. Twice. All you did was attack it ad homenim.

Get off. Get some substance, and start thinking. I don’t care what you think of me, it is clear that you have NO ARGUMENT and NO LOGICAL BASIS FOR YOUR POSITION on God’s benevolence. And somehow I’m the irrational one who rides on rhetoric.

And if that doesn’t motivate you, I’ve decided to stay a little longer. If I see another personal attack against me or any other Catholic for our position on the issue, I will report you to the mods.

Great! I had a feeling you might stick around, actually.

Will you answer this question?: Imagine a truck driver, whose brakes have failed. His truck is hurtling down a hill towards a schoolyard full of kids. The driver has no brakes, but can still steer the truck. However, he chooses to just sit there in the driver’s seat as the truck plows through the yard, killing and maiming dozens of kids. Do you consider the truck driver to be benevolent?

Just answer that one question. I cannot see any reason why you should be unable to do so.

 

[Pieman333272]

Great! I had a feeling you might stick around, actually.

Will you answer this question?: Imagine a truck driver, whose brakes have failed. His truck is hurtling down a hill towards a schoolyard full of kids. The driver has no brakes, but can still steer the truck. However, he chooses to just sit there in the driver’s seat as the truck plows through the yard, killing and maiming dozens of kids. Do you consider the truck driver to be benevolent?

Just answer that one question. I cannot see any reason why you should be unable to do so.

I do not consider the driver benevolent. No. But how does this discussion end with you forming a logical argument?

 

[wanstronian]

I have several questions then:

• In order to be benevolent, is it contingent on always exercising an active or exertive force? Your definition does not seem to require that to the case, as merely have a kindly dispostion seems to qualify a being to be benevolent.

Benevolence in itself does not need action, I don’t think. One can be benevolent without having an opportunity to exert some effort. That’s why benevolence is only part of the equation.

• Do you mean omipotent apply to paradoxical concepts? In addition, what do you mean by power? A singularity can have infinite gravitational power. I presume you mean the ability to act. If that is the case, is a being’s ability to be omnipoent contingent on always exercising this power.

I understand the common theist objection to God’s being able to, for example, create a square circle. I think it’s generally used as a distractionary technique, but I’m not going to die in a ditch about it. Let’s limit it to non-paradoxical events. I think the common definition of omnipotence is in reference to an ability to act, as far as I’m aware it’s a fairly unequivocal meaning.

• In what context you to ascribe someone to be innocent? Absolutely free of all moral sin or guilt? If it is in reference to being free of guilt, it must be in reference to a crime or offences. What are these offences?

Well, I’m not sure how important that is actually. Various people could be considered guilty of various different deeds. So to take an example, let’s take the Haitian earthquake. Many of the people who were left dead or suffering were doubtless guilty of some heinous crimes - crimes for which a court of law would probably sentence them to years in jail (but of course, if this were to happen, there would be evidence of the crime, and fair trial). But also, there must have been thousands who were guilty of no more than speeding offences, or spraying graffiti or, in the case of newborns, guilty of nothing at all. Did they deserve their fate?

So how does one reconcile an allegedly benevolent God, who presumably could use his omnipotence to prevent this wholesale slaughter,with the fact that he does nothing to intervene? Why has he allowed billions of innocent people to suffer and die, when he could act to prevent it? When he should act to prevent it?

 

[tonyrey]

You arbitrarily make the existence of good and evil contingent on the existence of God, thereby building your conclusion into your premise.

On what do you base the existence of good and evil?

 

[wanstronian]

I do not consider the driver benevolent. No. But how does this discussion end with you forming a logical argument?

Okay - so now the truck is an earthquake, the schoolkids are the citizens of the city where the earthquake occurs, and God is in the driving seat. Why does he not turn the wheel?