The epistomological weakness of the logical problem of evil

[Douglas_Kraeger]

To provide an opposing view,

The Contrast Defense

The contrast theodicy argues that God desires to display his positive attributes, such as goodness, mercy, love and justice, to his creation, and this would either be impossible or much more difficult if we had never known things to be any different. Under this argument, evil exists in order to more clearly show God’s goodness by comparison, just as a bright red rose would be difficult to see in a red room but would be far more obvious in one that was painted entirely white.
An omnipotent God would not *need *to cause people to suffer to prove his goodness to them. If it was God’s desire that people know about his positive qualities, he could have used his omnipotent power to instill that knowledge in them directly. Many religions already claim that all people possess an instinctive knowledge of God’s existence that depends on no external experience, so there is clearly nothing contradictory about this idea even according to these religions’ own beliefs. Again, the contrast theodicy fails to alter the conclusion that whatever suffering does exist in the world is unnecessary.
God wants to share with us Himself. He wills to create us to give us a share in His Glory. God is Love, as perfectly exemplified by Jesus dying on the cross. He wants us to choose to sacrifice in a like manner for all, especially those in most need, our enemies, those who do not love, yet. He wants us to be merciful, realizing that we do not really ever merit (because of one sin or many) the gift He wants to give us and therefore we shouldforfgive others their trepasses as we want Him to forgive ours.
When we see “evil” prospering, people doing that which they should not at the expense of other people, we need to remember that since we really do not deserve His gift that we are hopeful for, we should see ourselves as hoping for a reward that we do not deserve, just like those who are “evil” and prospering in this world (getting what they do not deserve).
After always focusing on His mercy that we always need, now I want to try and add His Justice. We see that people expect to profit without effort, and this is wrong. We KNOW people should be rewarded for honest work and the lazy scum should not eat. We KNOW this. We can know that there is perfect Justice, that which should be, and we must trust that the same infinitely perfect God who Is perfect justice, will in the end reward everyone in perfect Justice and Mercy. That we do not understand HOW He can work everything out is not our problem, He is the one able to do it,even if we are not smart enough and do not have all the facts, we just focus on the mercy we need and do not deserve.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

– or … the only way God could have creatures that experience His love – He allowed the possibility of sin and thus evil.

Yes, exactly.

Of course, the arguement of many atheists is that evil does not exist, thus absolute good does not exist, thus God does not exist. The only way to argue THAT is to bring up natural law, and then a whole new debate starts…

 

[reggieM]

The problem of evil is, to many very intelligent people, the most effective, challenging, and fascinating philosophical and theological argument against the existence of an all powerful good God. Christian apologist William Craig called it “atheism’s killer argument.”

I don’t doubt your source, but I find this very surprising. Personally, I don’t think atheism has any “killer arguments” (for reasons I gave earlier). I think the problem that Mr. Craig and many others have is trying to argue against the atheistic view from the atheistic viewpoint.

It’s like trying to prove the truth of Catholicism to a Mormon by using only the Book of Mormon and accepting that Joseph Smith is a true prophet.

I have never seen any good arguments from the atheistic view. Atheism destroys the basis for argument (and for philosophy in general). It’s a negation of reason, meaning, ultimate purpose, free will, conscience and justice.

I think we can try to be charitable and pretend that atheists have a “good argument” in order to engage in a discussion with them, but atheism is an inhuman ideology that is simply the denial of the ultimate good (and therefore of everything that is good). It has no philosophical depth for that reason.

God is the ultimate good, by definition. A denial that God exists denies the existence source of goodness (and truth and beauty).

 

[MindOverMatter2]

you didn’t read the article.

I think that instead of sending people on a while goose chase you should perhaps instead challenge my argument directly. Until you do that, it seems to me that you are simply making assertions in a debate that requires your presence and not links to other writers.

Finally, MindOverMatter2-
The premises were these:

Premise (2): Evil exists.

Yes. Evil exists, thus good exists since evil is a privation of Good and is thus only meaningful in light of Gods existence. One does not need to know how to make evil compatible with God. If you admit of evil in the sense that there is something that “ought” to be present that isn’t, it may appear as if you are contradicting God, but in fact you are admitting of a real absence that only makes sense if good exists. Thus i only need to acknowledge or argue that evil exists, and most of us can see that it is evil to rape a small child or commit genocide. These people have as much reason to think that evil exists as they have reason to think that the universe objectively exists.

Therefore evil is an intellectual problem for me, but it is not an argument against Gods existence.

Premise (3): An all-knowing being would be aware of the existence of evil.

I agree that God is all-knowing and thus knows that some events in the immediacy of their reality do not fulfill what we understand to be “good”** when abstracted from its relationship to other events**. However, in light of other events, we may find that the permission of such evils may be necessary for the fulfillment of all events insofar as the purpose or goal of life is about conformity to the ultimate moral good; and this may require “developmental standards” in order for it to be achieved. If there is a greater good that can only be achieved by permitting evil, it would be contradictory of God not to permit suffering if by permitting that suffering one can bring about a greater good that ought to be. In fact it would be a selfish act on Gods part to deny us the greatest good on the account of suffering. Permission of suffering in itself is not necessarily an evil, and is only evil when it is allowed for selfish reasons, since it is “selfishness” that defines evil rather than “suffering”. We may not understand or “know” why one particular event might occur in light of good, but the greatest good may require a freedom which may very well outweigh all other potential goods in light of the bigger picture which our finite minds cannot yet see.

Premise (4): An all-powerful being would be able to eliminate evil.

An all powerful being cannot eliminate suffering without eliminating the possibility of human beings from existence. In light of that which is logically possible, an all powerful being, as defined by logic, might not be able to eliminate evil in the manner that we want it to be eliminated. God cannot do that which contradicts Gods nature. Once we understand what it means for God to be all powerful, we will understand that there are things which an all powerful being cannot do; such as ceasing to exist. God that is love cannot create free people without allowing for the potentiality of evil, given that God cannot contradict Gods nature.

All you’re arguing is that we don’t have the information to make an argument.

Precisely; we don’t have enough information to make a deductive argument against Gods existence.

Please see The Eschatological Defense

Explain to me why my argument is synonymous to the eschatological defense and why it is wrong. I want to know why you think its wrong. Please don’t post anymore links.

likely no one will.

I assume that you are Catholic? If my epistemological argument is not valid then why don’t you become an atheist? If the possibility of Gods goodness is not a good reason to remain Catholic then why not be agnostic? It seems that you to remain Catholic precisely because you do not think that the deductive argument from evil is epistemologically valid; otherwise you would have no choice but to be atheist. If the problem of evil is the same as saying that you cannot have a square triangle, then we both have an irrational faith. Unless you believe that the logically impossible can happen or perhaps you have chosen to drop the classical description of God?

Emotional answers have nothing to do with it. I am only interested in finding an intelligible answer; and even if i lack one, i do not see it as being a proof of Gods non-existence precisely because the problem of evil is epistemologically weak. I continue to have hope in God because there is still the possibility of Gods existence afforded by the epistemological weakness of the argument. In fact, if you can provide other reasons for believing in God, the problem of evil becomes nothing more than a side issue. Quite frankly the problem of evil has been blown out of proportion. As for William lane Craig, quite frankly, i don’t care if he thinks the problem of evil has a killer blow. I am not impressed by illusions.

I am not patronizing at all. The deductive argument against Gods goodness is epistemological weak, and for that reason it is invalid.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I think that instead of sending people on a while goose chase you should perhaps instead challenge my argument directly. Until you do that, it seems to me that you are simply making assertions in a debate that requires your presence and not links to other writers.

Yes. Evil exists, thus good exists since evil is a privation of Good and is thus only meaningful in light of Gods existence. One does not need to know how to make evil compatible with God. If you admit of evil in the sense that there is something that “ought” to be present that isn’t, it may appear as if you are contradicting God, but in fact you are admitting of a real absence that only makes sense if good exists. Thus i only need to acknowledge or argue that evil exists, and most of us can see that it is evil to rape a small child or commit genocide. These people have as much reason to think that evil exists as they have reason to think that the universe objectively exists.

Therefore evil is an intellectual problem for me, but it is not an argument against Gods existence.

I agree that God is all-knowing and thus knows that some events in the immediacy of their reality do not fulfill what we understand to be “good”** when abstracted from its relationship to other events**. However, in light of other events, we may find that the permission of such evils may be necessary for the fulfillment of all events insofar as the purpose or goal of life is about conformity to the ultimate moral good; and this may require “developmental standards” in order for it to be achieved. If there is a greater good that can only be achieved by permitting evil, it would be contradictory of God not to permit suffering if by permitting that suffering one can bring about a greater good that ought to be. In fact it would be a selfish act on Gods part to deny us the greatest good on the account of suffering. Permission of suffering in itself is not necessarily an evil, and is only evil when it is allowed for selfish reasons, since it is “selfishness” that defines evil rather than “suffering”. We may not understand or “know” why one particular event might occur in light of good, but the greatest good may require a freedom which may very well outweigh all other potential goods in light of the bigger picture which our finite minds cannot yet see.

An all powerful being cannot eliminate suffering without eliminating the possibility of human beings from existence. In light of that which is logically possible, an all powerful being, as defined by logic, might not be able to eliminate evil in the manner that we want it to be eliminated. God cannot do that which contradicts Gods nature. Once we understand what it means for God to be all powerful, we will understand that there are things which an all powerful being cannot do; such as ceasing to exist. God that is love cannot create free people without allowing for the potentiality of evil, given that God cannot contradict Gods nature.

Precisely; we don’t have enough information to make a deductive argument against Gods existence.

Explain to me why my argument is synonymous to the eschatological defense and why it is wrong. I want to know why you think its wrong. Please don’t post anymore links.

I assume that you are Catholic? If my epistemological argument is not valid then why don’t you become an atheist? If the possibility of Gods goodness is not a good reason to remain Catholic then why not be agnostic? It seems that you to remain Catholic precisely because you do not think that the deductive argument from evil is epistemologically valid; otherwise you would have no choice but to be atheist. If the problem of evil is the same as saying that you cannot have a square triangle, then we both have an irrational faith. Unless you believe that the logically impossible can happen or perhaps you have chosen to drop the classical description of God?

Emotional answers have nothing to do with it. I am only interested in finding an intelligible answer; and even if i lack one, i do not see it as being a proof of Gods non-existence precisely because the problem of evil is epistemologically weak. I continue to have hope in God because there is still the possibility of Gods existence afforded by the epistemological weakness of the argument. In fact, if you can provide other reasons for believing in God, the problem of evil becomes nothing more than a side issue. Quite frankly the problem of evil has been blown out of proportion. As for William lane Craig, quite frankly, i don’t care if he thinks the problem of evil has a killer blow. I am not impressed by illusions.

I am not patronizing at all. The deductive argument against Gods goodness is epistemological weak, and for that reason it is invalid.

 

[R_Daneel]

I don’t doubt your source, but I find this very surprising. Personally, I don’t think atheism has any “killer arguments” (for reasons I gave earlier). I think the problem that Mr. Craig and many others have is trying to argue against the atheistic view from the atheistic viewpoint.

Which is the only valid method to argue. You should always argue on the playing field of your “opponent”, since that is the only method they will accept.

I have never seen any good arguments from the atheistic view. Atheism destroys the basis for argument (and for philosophy in general). It’s a negation of reason, meaning, ultimate purpose, free will, conscience and justice.

You got to be kidding. Atheism is the denial of “irrationality” and the denial of “blind faith”. Of course it denies “ultimate purpose”, since that is a meaningless proposition. But it does not deny reason, free will, conscience, justice, and a whole lot of other concepts.

I think we can try to be charitable and pretend that atheists have a “good argument” in order to engage in a discussion with them, but atheism is an inhuman ideology that is simply the denial of the ultimate good (and therefore of everything that is good). It has no philosophical depth for that reason.

The denial of “ultimate good” does not entail the denial of “all good”. What you say is totally irrational. I wonder what is the philosophical “depth” you speak of… not that it really matters.

God is the ultimate good, by definition. A denial that God exists denies the existence source of goodness (and truth and beauty).

By your definition. And that definition is meaningless. If “good” cannot be separated from God, then there is no “objective” good.

 

[JohnDamian]

Which is the only valid method to argue. You should always argue on the playing field of your “opponent”, since that is the only method they will accept.

Absolutely true; you must speak the language of those you want to convert - that is, if I wish to convert atheists - I must speak in terms that they understand ;; appealing to scriptures, threats and blind faith not only fail to win the argument - but also compound their opposition to theism.

If I want to convert someone, citing a scripture they do not believe will acheive nothing. If theists think before they speak, just because we believe something does not mean that the person we are trying to persuade does - in the same way that a Muslim or a Bhuddist citing scripture I would just shrug it off - an atheist will do the same with Catholic teaching. As R Daneel rightly says, we have to argue on the playing field of our opponent; using examples and proofs that are relevant and compelling to our opponent and not just ourselves.

 

[Douglas_Kraeger]

Which is the only valid method to argue. You should always argue on the playing field of your “opponent”, since that is the only method they will accept.

You got to be kidding. Atheism is the denial of “irrationality” and the denial of “blind faith”.
My understanding of the meaning of “atheism” is, " The belief that there is no infinite creator." Is this correct? What is the irrefutable (that which can not be understood any other way than your way) proof you have that proves this faith is not "blind faith?

Of course it denies “ultimate purpose”, since that is a meaningless proposition. But it does not deny reason, free will, conscience, justice, and a whole lot of other concepts.
Justice? We all have subjective opinions as to what is “just”. Some people say it is morally wrong and evil to kill a cow to feed my family. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT If there are many subjective opinions, and there is no absolute, objective, true Justice, no absolute objective moral order, then you can have your opinion and I can have my opinion and there is no true absolute justice, and therefore there is no justice at all, just subjective opinions of people who are no more than a collection of atoms and molecules that seem to think they are important and have inherent value when they are not important and do not have any more objective, true value than the pile of dirt that a woodchuck piles up outside his hole. How do you conclude that there can be true, objective JUSTICE if there is no Infinitely Powerful Creator to ordain said Justice?

The denial of “ultimate good” does not entail the denial of “all good”. What you say is totally irrational. I wonder what is the philosophical “depth” you speak of… not that it really matters.
Same idea. What is the source of the Objective, absolute source of the deternmination that something is “good” ? Is it the sum total of many subjective opinions, similar to the subjctive opinion of millions of ants? If there is no absolute, objecitve source of the determination that something is good, (like a parent sacrificing for a child ) what truly makes it good or not good, truly makes it?

By your definition. And that definition is meaningless. If “good” cannot be separated from God, then there is no “objective” good.

Actually, would you please try and explain what can be the source of "truly objective good ", other than a true God?

 

[redhen]

To accept that there is evil you must judge it against something. The thing you judge it against is an absolute good.

Philosophical evil includes things we would avoid. like pain and suffering. You don’t need a divine measuring stick to determine if something is painful or not.

Let’s use the bear analogy …> snip …The moral of the story? That like the bear does not have the full picture, neither do we. God knows why things happen, we don’t.

Ok, the bear does not know that it is being helped. But your analogy fails; we know the greater good that offsets the pain and suffering of the bear. So what’s the greater good that compensates for millions of years of gratuitous pain and suffering?

And why did God not make a world where suffering wasn’t possible? Because he gave us free will. We messed it up, and are now blaming God for the problems.

That works for moral evil, but not for natural evil. William Craig Lane is correct, the evidential (not logical) problem of natural evil is the atheists killer argument.

 

[Slowlearner]

I don’t doubt your source, but I find this very surprising. Personally, I don’t think atheism has any “killer arguments” (for reasons I gave earlier). I think the problem that Mr. Craig and many others have is trying to argue against the atheistic view from the atheistic viewpoint.

It’s like trying to prove the truth of Catholicism to a Mormon by using only the Book of Mormon and accepting that Joseph Smith is a true prophet.

I have never seen any good arguments from the atheistic view. Atheism destroys the basis for argument (and for philosophy in general). It’s a negation of reason, meaning, ultimate purpose, free will, conscience and justice.

I think we can try to be charitable and pretend that atheists have a “good argument” in order to engage in a discussion with them, but atheism is an inhuman ideology that is simply the denial of the ultimate good (and therefore of everything that is good). It has no philosophical depth for that reason.

God is the ultimate good, by definition. A denial that God exists denies the existence source of goodness (and truth and beauty).

reggieM, thank you for your insightful posts. Right on. I see in your responses and those of others, a full answer to the PoE.

I must say that I was rather disappointed when I read the linked references in this thread and the Theodicy/PoE thread. The references contained lengthy refutations of theistic defenses to the PoE (In the Theodicy/PoE thread the reference was at the Stanford Encycl. of Philosophy). Yet both references contained only conclusory statements regarding the existence of evil. They completely ignore the 500 pound gorilla in the room. This makes me wonder if the PoE isn’t a false-premise/trap argument used by atheists.

The false premise of PoE argument is the existence and definition of evil. Evil is not defined but simply assumed. If one points out that evil is not defined or that evil cannot exist in a purely positivist sense, then you have fallen into the trap and get responses such as “how can you deny that suffering is bad or that X was a horrible disease/natural disaster” or worse yet you might get “Christians are heartless people who embrace suffering.” This trap is evident in the reference contained in the second post in this thread. A lengthy list of sad cases, which is meant to appeal to our emotions and thus establish the existence of evil. The argument then shifts gears, and takes on a scholarly, philosophical tone in laying out the PoE defenses and their refutation. (The ebonmusings piece is actually very poorly reasoned.)

By the way, certainly there are those who deny evil. Moral skeptics and nihilists deny the existence of any objective morality. For these people, I respect the consistency of their thinking, but I pray (yes, like it or not, I love any of you moral skeptics and nihilists reading this) that their hearts could experience the joy of God’s love.

As a practical matter (i.e. I am switching from philosophy to theology/evangelization), as you have noted, for many who refuse to come to God, the PoE provides a strong rationalization. There are strong emotional underpinnings to the PoE – ability to express moral outrage at evil and suffering – that support the rationalization. Those that really examine the issue will become either nihilists or believers. Ultimately, however, I believe that the basic underpinning for people who rely on the PoE, is a refusal to submit to God, to be subservient. Jesus teaches that we are to accept our situation and suffering whatever it may be (carry our cross) and follow him (act in love). Underlying the PoE is the thinking, “I will not accept my situation if it involves suffering. A God that causes me, or others, to suffer is not one I will accept.” But by failing to accept their cross, to accept what whatever situation God gives them and then act in love, one turns away from the cure to suffering: entrance to God’s kingdom, both here on earth and in heaven. (The forgoing is not offered a judgment of nonbelievers – to the extent it could be a judgment, it is a judgment of my former life – rather it is offered as an analysis in hopes that somehow it may lead to increased joy for those suffering.)

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Philosophical evil includes things we would avoid. like pain and suffering. You don’t need a divine measuring stick to determine if something is painful or not.

No, we don’t. True.

Ok, the bear does not know that it is being helped. But your analogy fails; we know the greater good that offsets the pain and suffering of the bear. So what’s the greater good that compensates for millions of years of gratuitous pain and suffering?

WE know the greater good that offsets the pain and suffering of the bear. But the bear does not. We humans are like the bear; we may not know the pain and good that results, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t there.

That works for moral evil, but not for natural evil. William Craig Lane is correct, the evidential (not logical) problem of natural evil is the atheists killer argument.

Once again, I reiterate: natural evil is around in order to produce a greater good.

 

[R_Daneel]

Absolutely true; you must speak the language of those you want to convert - that is, if I wish to convert atheists - I must speak in terms that they understand ;; appealing to scriptures, threats and blind faith not only fail to win the argument - but also compound their opposition to theism.

If I want to convert someone, citing a scripture they do not believe will acheive nothing. If theists think before they speak, just because we believe something does not mean that the person we are trying to persuade does - in the same way that a Muslim or a Bhuddist citing scripture I would just shrug it off - an atheist will do the same with Catholic teaching. As R Daneel rightly says, we have to argue on the playing field of our opponent; using examples and proofs that are relevant and compelling to our opponent and not just ourselves.

Thank you very much.

 

[R_Daneel]

My understanding of the meaning of “atheism” is, " The belief that there is no infinite creator." Is this correct?

Close, but not exactly. Atheism is the lack of the belief in a “god” or “gods”. The distinction between the two propositions: “I do not believe in God”, and “I believe that there is no God” is not just a semantic trickery.

What is the irrefutable (that which can not be understood any other way than your way) proof you have that proves this faith is not "blind faith?

Faith can mean sevaral things. To believe something for which there is no cartesian certainty can be called “faith”, and also something for what there is no evidence at all, or a belief, which is refuted by evidence. These two latter ones are blind faith".

Justice? We all have subjective opinions as to what is “just”. Some people say it is morally wrong and evil to kill a cow to feed my family. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT If there are many subjective opinions, and there is no absolute, objective, true Justice, no absolute objective moral order, then you can have your opinion and I can have my opinion and there is no true absolute justice, and therefore there is no justice at all, just subjective opinions of people who are no more than a collection of atoms and molecules that seem to think they are important and have inherent value when they are not important and do not have any more objective, true value than the pile of dirt that a woodchuck piles up outside his hole. How do you conclude that there can be true, objective JUSTICE if there is no Infinitely Powerful Creator to ordain said Justice?

Well, to begin with, the concept of “justice” is just another human concotion. When someone does something “good”, and gets a reward, we call it a “just reward”, if it is commensurate to the deed. Not too much, and also not too little. The same principle applies if someone does something “bad”, and gets a punishment. If the punishment is commensurate to the act, then we call is a “just punishment”. It should not be too lenient, nor too severe. No “God” is required for this.

Same idea. What is the source of the Objective, absolute source of the deternmination that something is “good” ? Is it the sum total of many subjective opinions, similar to the subjctive opinion of millions of ants? If there is no absolute, objecitve source of the determination that something is good, (like a parent sacrificing for a child ) what truly makes it good or not good, truly makes it?

You are hung up on this “absolute” stuff. There is not such thing as “absolute” good. It cannot even be defined.

Actually, would you please try and explain what can be the source of "truly objective good ", other than a true God?

Same thing. The word “good” can mean different things. First, the concept of “good” cannot be defined in a universe without living beings. A pebble on the beach gets washed by the waves and it becomes nice and smooth. It is neither “good” nor “bad” for the pebble. For a living organism to “survive” is good, to die is bad. But a tree does not have a nervous system, it does not know if there is abundant rain and sunshine, it just exists. For living organism with a nervous system, well-being is good, pain is bad. It is the nervous system that decides what is “good” and what is “bad”. Living beings seek out pleasant existence, and avoid painful existence - without any philosophy. For a predator, to kill a prey is good, for the victim is bad - and this is true, without an appeal to God. There is no “universal, absolute, objective good”.

What you exposed here is one of the fundamental problems. You keep asking about “absolute” whatevers, and you cannot even define what you mean. And then, with a twist, you argue that without an “absolute” standard, there is no standard at all. Sheer nonsense. And these questions keep on coming up, day after day, year after year. It gets pretty boring after a while.

 

[R_Daneel]

WE know the greater good that offsets the pain and suffering of the bear. But the bear does not. We humans are like the bear; we may not know the pain and good that results, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t there.

Bad analogy. The bear does not have the mental capacity to understand an explanation. How do you know that we are also unable to understand an explanation? After all God never came to explain it. And it is absolutely certain that the useless and purposeless death is not beneficial for the animals who burn in a wildfire. Even if their death would somehow carry and unknown benefit, the way they perish (burning to death) does not add any extra value. Therefore the pain of burning to death is gratitous suffering, contradictory to a benevolent God.

Once again, I reiterate: natural evil is around in order to produce a greater good.

Any evidence for that? Or is that just a blind belief?

 

[Slowlearner]

You got to be kidding. Atheism is the denial of “irrationality” and the denial of “blind faith”. Of course it denies “ultimate purpose”, since that is a meaningless proposition. But it does not deny reason, free will, conscience, justice, and a whole lot of other concepts.

Atheists can subscribe to various belief systems. Among atheists there are different schools of thought regarding the concepts of reason, free will, conscience, justice, and a whole lot of other concepts. The only philosophically consistent belief system for atheists is nihilism and/or moral skepticism.

My proposition is that moral skeptics and nihilists are rational, as are Christians, but humanist atheists are not rational. By humanist atheists I mean atheists who act on the belief that there is some objective good, or justice, or some other objective concept. Moral skeptics reject anything that cannot be objectively proven and are consistent in their thinking. Christians base their belief system on faith in something that cannot be objectively proven, but are very clear about this. Humanist atheists base their belief systems on faith in some objective first principle but generally do not admit this, or, when pressed toward their first principles, it seems that their very analytical behavior suddenly breaks down into hand waving. They’ll argue for days very carefully about whether something in particular is good, but when you ask them to define “good” they offer inconsistent or incomplete responses. Reminds me of the line in the movie Patton, where Gen. Patton is speaking to Gen. Bradley about British General Montgomery:

Hell, I know I’m a prima donna.
I admit it.

What I can’t stand about Monty is,
he won’t admit it.

Except I’d say, God, I know I rely on faith, I admit it. What I can’t stand about the humanists is they won’t admit it.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Bad analogy. The bear does not have the mental capacity to understand an explanation. How do you know that we are also unable to understand an explanation? After all God never came to explain it. And it is absolutely certain that the useless and purposeless death is not beneficial for the animals who burn in a wildfire. Even if their death would somehow carry and unknown benefit, the way they perish (burning to death) does not add any extra value. Therefore the pain of burning to death is gratitous suffering, contradictory to a benevolent God.

The difference between a bear and a human is quite large. The difference between a human and God is much larger, so it makes perfect sense that we would not understand God’s explanation… And how do you know that the way the animals perish carries no extra value? I am not omniscient. I can’t predict every possible consequence of every action, so I can’t say that they would;ve been better off not dying in a wildfire.

Any evidence for that? Or is that just a blind belief?]

That is the best way to reconcile belief with a loving God with the presence of natural evil ,which is what I’m doing. I have no absolute evidence yet, but on the other hand the world hasn’t ended yet.

 

[redhen]

Once again, I reiterate: natural evil is around in order to produce a greater good.

And that would be … ?

(Could you perhaps use your analogy without the human addition, i.e. a bear cub caught alone in a forest fire. This highlights the gratuitous part which you left out. Nothing benefits from the cub being burnt alive, except for maybe bacteria and fungi that help decompose the corpse.)

and how do you know this?

 

[R_Daneel]

The difference between a bear and a human is quite large. The difference between a human and God is much larger, so it makes perfect sense that we would not understand God’s explanation… And how do you know that the way the animals perish carries no extra value? I am not omniscient. I can’t predict every possible consequence of every action, so I can’t say that they would;ve been better off not dying in a wildfire.

How do you know that we are “unable” to comprehend such a possible explanation? Was it ever tried? And to whom does the burning death (very painful) give some benefit? To the animals themselves it does not, since they perish. Maybe to God, whose nostrils appreciate the smell of burnt offerings? But the same stench would be there, if all those animals died a quick painless death, and only their carcass would be consumed by the flames… Mind you, someone (a long time ago) actually said (seriously) that maybe those animals did die a painless death. The minor fact that the carcasses exhibited signs of extreme pain obviously eluded him. Or maybe he thought that God artificially “molded” the expressions of those carcasses into a picture of pain just to “fool” us. I am wondering, why are you guys willing to portray God into a manipulating and cheating being? Is a cheating, lying God better than an indifferent one?

That is the best way to reconcile belief with a loving God with the presence of natural evil ,which is what I’m doing.

That is a very honest answer, indeed. Of course, this is what I call blind faith. Anything is preferable to facing the reality?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Anything is preferable to facing the reality?

What a ridiculous statement. You presume to know what reality is and then you try to make out that my friend is deluded on a blind assumption. That is a shame.

 

[R_Daneel]

What a ridiculous statement. You presume to know what reality is and then you try to make out that my friend is deluded on a blind assumption. That is a shame.

Reality is the burning death of animals in wildfires. Reality is the horrible pain to drowning in a tsunami. Reality is the crushing of bodies in Earthquakes. Reality is the black plague. Reality is leprosy. Reality is the fever of malaria. And zillions of other examples. That is reality… not the sugar daddy in the sky, who allegedly “loves” his creation, but allows all that horror to happen. With a “love” like that… who needs “hate”?