The epistomological weakness of the logical problem of evil

[MindOverMatter2]

Those who claim that evil is contradictory to existence of a good God tend to assume that they have a deductive argument. I.e, evil exist, therefore a good God doesn’t exist, since a good God would never create beings knowing the evil that would occur.

But what a lot of anti-theists fail to realize is the fact that one only has a valid deductive argument if they have all the relevant knowledge upon which they can make a necessary inference. Things evidently can look drastically different when viewing something from a different point of view, especially a divine point of view and we therefore shouldn’t be surprised if we find things to be true that we once thought were false. The point i am trying to make here is, those who argue that they have a deductive argument are finite in knowledge, and thus cannot possibly know what it means when an infinite moral being with infinite knowledge creates a world with free beings; since we are perceiving the world from a finite perspective. God might have a good reason to permit evil that we do not yet know about. Thus with out perfect relevant knowledge, there is no basis upon which to say honestly that this world is not “God Compatible.”

Without perfect knowledge, negative speculation that tries to imply that a good God would not create a world such as this amounts to nothing more than unsupportable conspiracy, because we don’t know what a morally sufficient world would look like. It may very well be a world like this in which we must love perfectly in order to have heaven; which is what revelation, especially the new testament, reveals to us.

From this i conclude that the logical argument from evil is epistemological weak and is therefore invalid.

 

[_Locke]

Before anyone argues, PLEASE READ THIS: Theodicy Defences
Hopefully it will save some time in discussion, as it seems every other thread in the philosophy section is about the PoE.

To summarize, the problem of evil is this:

Assumption (1): God exists.
Assumption (1a): God is all-knowing.
Assumption (1b): God is all-powerful.
Assumption (1c): God is perfectly loving.
Assumption (1d): Any being that did not possess all three of the above properties would not be God.
Premise (2): Evil exists.
Premise (3): An all-knowing being would be aware of the existence of evil.
Premise (4): An all-powerful being would be able to eliminate evil.
Premise (5): A perfectly loving being would desire to eliminate evil.
Conclusion (6): Evil does not exist. (from (1),(3),(4),(5))
Contradiction: But evil does exist. (from (2))
Conclusion (7): There is no being that is all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfectly loving. (from (2),(3),(4),(5))
Conclusion (8): God does not exist. (from (7),(1d))

The arguments against the problem of evil are the Justice, Testing, Eschatological, Free Will, Teaching, Contrast, and Unknown Purpose defenses. If your defense is one of the following, please read the section on the page I posted before you do, so you don’t cover material that’s been refuted, or at least answer the refutation. I guarantee 99% of you people will try one of the defenses on the web page.

MindOverMatter2, the response to your argument would be:

The Unknown Purpose Defense

The final type of theodicy, which almost all theistic replies to the argument from evil eventually seem to fall back on, is the unknown purpose defense. This defense simply states that God has a purpose for allowing suffering, but we do not know what that purpose is. Some versions of this theodicy go further by stating that we can never know what the purpose is and that the answer to the problem of evil is a mystery that lies beyond human comprehension.

Though many who use this defense may not realize it, the unknown purpose theodicy effectively amounts to abandoning the claim of God’s goodness. After all, if God allows evil for reasons unknown to us, then what grounds do theists have for judging him to be morally good? Making that determination requires at least some understanding of motive and intent. If we have no idea at all why God does what he does, if the reasons for his actions are incomprehensible to us, then to be consistent we would have to say that we do not know whether he is good or evil. Certainly there is no obvious reason why disasters happen as they do, so how could any theist know that the true reason, whatever it is, is for the better and not for the worse?

To proclaim God to be good and then assert that he has unknown purposes for allowing evil is an inconsistent position. Most theists do not hesitate to ascribe benevolent motives to God when they believe he has done something that benefits them, such as the miraculous healing of an illness. But when something happens that would tend to cast doubt on God’s goodness, such as a destructive tsunami or an epidemic, they draw back and claim that we cannot understand God’s motives. This is special pleading in its purest form. We would not hesitate to judge a fellow human being’s character by both the good and the bad actions they perform, nor would we go on blithely assuming that they had a sufficient justifying reason no matter how many seemingly evil deeds they commit.

Additionally, if God has an important purpose for permitting evil, then why do we try so hard to stop it? How do theists know they are not working in opposition to God’s will every time they vaccinate a child or give money to a poor man? A consistent follower of the unknown purpose defense would never try to stop suffering, since any suffering that God does allow must be needed for some greater good; otherwise he would not have allowed it. Of course, almost no one actually behaves this way when confronted with tragedy, which is fortunate. Nevertheless, by their compassionate actions, theists show that they themselves do not believe this.

Like all versions of the greater good theodicy, this defense overlooks the fact that if God exists and is omnipotent, then whatever his goal is, he could have achieved it without causing anyone to suffer. An omnipotent being could actualize any desired state of affairs directly and would not have to bring it about as the end result of a chain of intermediate states. Of course, there is no logical reason why such a being could not do this, but if the intermediate states involved vast amounts of innocent suffering while the final state did not, only an evil being would choose the gradual route over the direct one. And yet this is exactly what proponents of this theodicy - or any theodicy - would have us believe God did in fact do. Like all proposed solutions to the problem of evil, the unknown purpose defense fails to overcome the central dilemma: if there is a god who has the power to eliminate evil but chooses not to, such a being could only be considered evil and thus would not be worthy of worship. As it has been said, the only thing that could excuse God is his nonexistence.

 

[reggieM]

Good and evil are measured by the Ends of the action in question.

Since atheism denies an ultimate end, it cannot assert that evil exists.

This is the logical contradiction in the atheistic claim – and the OP points to this.

So, it’s not a matter of an “unknown purpose” on the part of believers that is the problem, but the denial of purpose by atheists which makes the discussion illogical.

Within the materialist worldview, any evil can be justified and any good can be condemned.

In classic Western philosophy, the “good” has its source in Being. Since humans share in this ultimate being, our lives participate in the good.

Atheism simply denies the purpose and orientation of human life and therefore is incapable of judging matters good or evil.

 

[_Locke]

Good and evil are measured by the Ends of the action in question.
Since atheism denies an ultimate end, it cannot assert that evil exists.
This is the logical contradiction in the atheistic claim – and the OP points to this.
So, it’s not a matter of an “unknown purpose” on the part of believers that is the problem, but the denial of purpose by atheists which makes the discussion illogical.
Within the materialist worldview, any evil can be justified and any good can be condemned.
In classic Western philosophy, the “good” has its source in Being. Since humans share in this ultimate being, our lives participate in the good.
Atheism simply denies the purpose and orientation of human life and therefore is incapable of judging matters good or evil.

I feel as though you are making a lot of stuff up, and I’m not even sure what you’re arguing.

Your argument:
Premise 1: Good and evil are measured by the ends of actions (Fallacious, RCC teaches that actions are intrinsically good or evil, regardless of their results)
Premise 2: Atheism denies an ultimate end. (True)
Conclusion 1: Atheists do not believe in good or evil (from 1,2)(Fallacious, premise 1 is wrong)
Premise 3: Any evil can be justified and good condemned, etc., moral relativism. (once again, contrary to RCC teaching)
Premise 4: All good has its source in existence. (nonsensical)
Conclusion 2: Same as conclusion 1, premises 3 and 4 unused

Here’s the problem: you’re assuming that moral relativism exists, and from there saying that good and evil don’t exist. Therefore, no problem of evil! Not to mention the non-theists on this forum would probably be a little insulted that you’re implying there is no morality outside of religion. But then, you also said that there is no good or evil, so…

If you list out your points it makes things clearer, and you won’t feel foolish for using the term “logical contradiction.”

 

[reggieM]

I feel as though you are making a lot of stuff up, and I’m not even sure what you’re arguing.

I can understand your confusion because you have translated the philosohpical term “ends” as “results”.

Let’s try again.

As St. Thomas teaches:

Question 21. The consequences of human actions by reason of their goodness and malice

When, therefore, a human action tends to the end, according to the order of reason and of the Eternal Law, then that action is right: but when it turns aside from that rectitude, then it is said to be a sin…
The end is twofold; the last end, and the proximate end. In the sin of nature, the action does indeed fail in respect of the last end, which is the perfection of the thing generated; but it does not fail in respect of any proximate end whatever; since when nature works it forms something. In like manner, the sin of the will always fails as regards the last end intended, because no voluntary evil action can be ordained to happiness, which is the last end: and yet it does not fail in respect of some proximate end: intended and achieved by the will. Wherefore also, since the very intention of this end is ordained to the last end, this same intention may be right or sinful.

We can see here that by reason, actions are measured by either their last end or their proximate end. This has nothing to do with “results” but rather with the term “ordained” or “ordered” – it’s the “direction” of the action.
An intrinsically immoral action cannot be ordained to a good final end.

So, again …

1. Materialist-atheism denies a final end or purpose. Death is ultimately victorious over life. I am glad that you accept that as here:

Premise 2: Atheism denies an ultimate end. (True)

You then re-write what I said and put it into terms that, perhaps, are easier for you to either misunderstand or try to refute???

Conclusion 1: Atheists do not believe in good or evil (from 1,2)(Fallacious, premise 1 is wrong)

Again, I said nothing about “atheists” – so you’re quite wildly wrong right at the start. I mentioned only “atheism” which is quite different than “atheists”. Furthermore, I did not say “atheism do not believe in good or evil”, because “atheism” do not believe in anything since it is a worldview or a philosophical position and not a group of people.
“Atheists” (which ones?) can believe that the moon is made out of green cheese and that is completely irrelevant to the point.

So, again, I can see why you’re confused because you’re re-writing my comments. Why not quote what I actually said and ask me what it means? Since you don’t understand it, wouldn’t it be better to try to find out rather than argue against something I didn’t say?

Since materialist-atheism denies an ultimate arbiter of human actions (or an ultimate judge), denies ultimate consequences for human actions, and must necessarily deny the supernatural freedom to choose various actions as well as any ultimate purpose (which is equivalent to “ultimate end” or “last end”), then there is no human action possible which can be considered “evil” in an ultimate sense. Every human action can be justified – simply because it “is”. Physical-matter (the sum total of all reality in the materialist view) just “is” – it does not command or forbid any human action. If there is no transcendent eternal law (or natural law) as atheism proposes, then there can be no good or evil.

If you cannot follow or accept that, I will be glad to discuss it further. But there’s no sense in going further with the discussion if you don’t accept that point above.

If you do accept it, we can continue …

The condemnation of any of God’s actions as being “evil” are a logical contradiction, as I stated. Why? Because in a system that must accept (philosophically) every human action as potentially good (as the atheist, P.Z. Myers, states – there is no morality, only self-interest), then one cannot use a non-existent notion of good and evil to judge God’s actions as evil.

As I stated:
This is the logical contradiction in the atheistic claim.

 

[hatsoff]

But what a lot of anti-theists fail to realize is the fact that one only has a valid deductive argument if they have all the relevant knowledge upon which they can make a necessary inference.

No knowledge is required to draw a valid conclusion from a set of premises other than agreed logical rules of inference (e.g. modus ponens). If an argument against God from evil has valid logical form, then it is unsound only if one or more of the premises is false.

So, if you want to attack some logical problem of evil, here is what I recommend: First, explicitly identify the premises, and once you have done that, identify at least one of them which you regard as false, and show why you believe it to be so.

Please see wikipedia for further information.

 

[reggieM]

Here’s perhaps a simpler way to look at it:

Premise 2: Atheism denies an ultimate end. (True)

We can start here where we’re both agreed.
There is no ultimate end for atheism. There is no ultimate purpose.

Good and evil can only be evaluated or measured in reference to an ultimate end or purpose.

When measuring something, we have to have the end in mind. If there is no end, there can be no measure of the ultimate goodness or evil of the action.

If there is no ultimate purpose in life, there can be no good or evil in the ultimate, philosophical sense.

 

[_Locke]

There is no ultimate end for atheism. There is no ultimate purpose.

Good and evil can only be evaluated or measured in reference to an ultimate end or purpose.

When measuring something, we have to have the end in mind. If there is no end, there can be no measure of the ultimate goodness or evil of the action.

If there is no ultimate purpose in life, there can be no good or evil in the ultimate, philosophical sense.

Okay I think I get what you’re saying. Atheism cannot argue the problem of evil, because atheism denies evil. (What of secular ethics?)

But the PoE doesn’t necessarily lead us to the conclusion that there is no God, but that God is not all-good AND all-powerful AND all-knowing. Maybe God is only omnipotent and omniscient.

 

[_Locke]

Though I have to give it to you, I’ve never heard someone deny that evil exists.

 

[Douglas_Kraeger]

Though I have to give it to you, I’ve never heard someone deny that evil exists.

My priest once asked in a class for adults in our parish (30years ago) "What is evil?".  I raised my hand and said,"The devil."  He said, "NO." An old friend of mine, Dan Duggan gave The correct answer that, "Sin is evil."  Thepriest said yes and went on to say, Sin is the absense of grace, a turning away from God, an action of the will, not a created thing, so therefore there is no created evil thing. In Genisis we hear God say, "It is good, very good." in regards to all that He created, therefore all space and time and everything, everywhere and everywhen is good in it's nature. Our sins are evil, in that we reject the infinite goodness of God in seeking happiness of some form by ignoring God's helpful Laws as to what will bring true happiness. But our nature's are good in themselves even when we turn from Goodness and turn to sin.  Imagine each soul as a beautiful hot air balloon filled with hot air (grace), beautiful. Now take away all the hot air (grace), you can not recognize the beauty because the hot air (grace) is gone and the ballon (soul) is a pile of unrecognizable fabric. 
    Yes, there are evils in the world, famines, earthquakes disease and so on, as seen by everyone who looks upon events from a worldly viewpoint. But evil events can be allowed by God and used by God (even though He is not the originator of the evil, He allows evil to flow from free will decisions to show us what happens when we reject His helpful laws) because God can bring good from evil actions. The greatest evil, the crucifiction and death of Our Lord Jesus Christ, brought about the greatest good, God reconciling all things (the world) in Himself, 2 Cor. 5:19. How many times has a cancer lead people to the point of death, but also to making peace in their families and with God?
   If people really consider that for there to be evil actions, sins, there must be an absolute moral order that is being violated. Then, if they are helped to see that the only way there can be an absolute moral order is if there is an infinitely powerful Creator God Who has ordained such an order and reveals it to men in a way so that they can learn to choose it in their free wills, then people might learn more easily to see God's goodness in allowing bad effects from sin so we can turn to His good Law. Also, perhapspeoplecan be helped to see the good that has in the past, come as a result of "evils", people sacrificing to come to the aid of other people in dire need.

 

[JohnDamian]

This is a somewhat different argument from free will; using the qualification of infinity / contrarity, and “natural evil”.

Try this (second part essential);

Assumption (1): God exists.
Assumption (1a): God is all-knowing.
Assumption (1b): God is all-powerful.
Assumption (1c): God is perfectly loving.
Assumption (1d): Any being that did not possess all three of the above properties would not be God.

Premise (2): One of two contraries cannot exist infinitely
Premise (2b): Therefore given 1c, what is percieved as Evil cannot be the contrary of Good

Premise (3): Evil does not exist (bar volition)
Premise (3b): What APPEARS to beEvil exists.

Premise (4): What we percieve as Evil in nature is not truly Evil
Premise (4b): This is so because:
Premise (4b i): Evil / Good cannot be univocally applied to infinites and finites OR
Premise (4b ii): Our flawed conceptions cannot nessecarily know Evil or Good OR
Premise (4b iii): Evil / Good cannot be univocally applied to “natural” things OR
Premise (4b iiii): What is “Percieved Evil” is merely a human error of judgement,

Premise (5): Human Evil (or evil par of the soul) is not contrary to Good
Premise (5b): The potential for Human Evil is the nessecary consequence of infinite Good
Premise (5b i): Infinite good nessecitates the gift of free will (as evidenced by human creation, elected by the infinite wisdom of God)
Premise (5b ii): Human Evil then is symptomatic of a Good God; if not proof for God’s existence itself, it certainly indicates that if so, he must be Good. *

Conclusion (6): There is no contradiction (original argument’s contradiction false); as no true evil (that is not the product of Good) exists; there only exists that which is percieved as such – to presume greater than thus is to proffess omniscience and as such declare oneself God (in which case God exists - jk)

*Other arguments for God’s existence are stronger, but the initial argument of the problem of Evil by no way disproves God; if anything it qualifies that “were God real, he would be essentially Good”.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

No knowledge is required to draw a valid conclusion from a set of premises other than agreed logical rules of inference (e.g. modus ponens).

We know that a square cannot be a triangle, only because we know what a square is and what a triangle is.

If an argument against God from evil has valid logical form, then it is unsound only if one or more of the premises is false.

I have showed one of the premises to be false by showing that we, with our finite minds, cannot possibly know for certain that God doesn’t have a morally justifiable reason for creating us in a world where potential evils can exist. In other words, in order to give a deductive argument form the problem of evil for the nonexistence of God, one must have the relevant knowledge that is intrinsic to Gods perspective as a good creator. You are assuming that there cannot be justifiable circumstances beyond what we can grasp. A finite mind would be humble enough to say that appearances can be false. For all we know potential suffering and moral evil is the only basis on which the good things of human existence can exist.

Thus the question then becomes “does the potential good of humanity out way the potential defects”.

If my life has value than i would expect God to create me even if that means my suffering. If eternal heaven is my potential inheritance then i would say that this out ways the potential finite defects given that i an God values my existence.

So, if you want to attack some logical problem of evil, here is what I recommend: First, explicitly identify the premises, and once you have done that, identify at least one of them which you regard as false, and show why you believe it to be so.

Okay…you cannot know and thus you cannot positively prove that God doesn’t have good reasons for creating this particular world. Thus the problem from evil, as a “deductive” argument is invalid.

 

[_Locke]

Okay I’m beginning to think some of you didn’t read the article I posted since we’re having an argument about the nature of evil, and whether it even exists. Can we define it as “unnecessary suffering” and say that yes, it does it exist?

Yes, there are evils in the world, famines, earthquakes disease and so on, as seen by everyone who looks upon events from a worldly viewpoint. But evil events can be allowed by God and used by God (even though He is not the originator of the evil, He allows evil to flow from free will decisions to show us what happens when we reject His helpful laws) because God can bring good from evil actions. The greatest evil, the crucifiction and death of Our Lord Jesus Christ, brought about the greatest good, God reconciling all things (the world) in Himself, 2 Cor. 5:19. How many times has a cancer lead people to the point of death, but also to making peace in their families and with God?

You’re making a couple good but arguable points here

1. Evil flows from man’s decisions, a sort of divine justice
   "The major problem with this explanation is that it fails the test of common experience; evil is plainly not distributed fairly. Everyone knows of instances where the evil have prospered while the good have suffered unjustly. In fact, too often it seems that it usually happens this way. Wars tend to disproportionately harm civilians who had nothing to do with the reasons for fighting; diseases usually strike those who had the closest contact with other sufferers rather than those who deserve it the most. Newborn babies and children suffer as well, sometimes from horrific diseases such as epidermolysis bullosa, cystic fibrosis or Tay-Sachs disease - what sins could they possibly have committed to deserve such a fate? Even Psalm 73 of the Bible notes such a phenomenon. The indiscriminateness, the sheer randomness of suffering refutes this explanation. "
2. God uses evil to bring about a greater good
   (please read my previous post regarding the unknown purpose)

Also, before you bring up original sin as the cause of all natural evil, keep in mind that homo sapiens have only been around for a couple thousand years, and there is ample evidence of earthquakes, tsunamis, plague and disease before then.

**JohnDamian **- Your logic gave me pause until I realized that a number of your premises were drawing conclusions, which were finally used in the last conclusion. A premise is a proposition from which a conclusion is drawn, not a conclusion in itself. In other words, I don’t think you’re following a valid logical form. Example:

Premise (2): One of two contraries cannot exist infinitely
Premise (2b): Therefore given 1c, what is percieved as Evil cannot be the contrary of Good

Premise (2b) is really a conclusion from 1c and 2, just as Premise (3) and on all seem to rely on previous premises.

Finally, MindOverMatter2-

MindOverMatter2:

I have showed one of the premises to be false by showing that we, with our finite minds, cannot possibly know for certain that God doesn’t have a morally justifiable reason for creating us in a world where potential evils can exist. In other words, in order to give a deductive argument form the problem of evil for the nonexistence of God, one must have the relevant knowledge that is intrinsic to Gods perspective as a good creator.

You’re not showing any of my premises to be false. The premises were these:
Premise (2): Evil exists.
Premise (3): An all-knowing being would be aware of the existence of evil.
Premise (4): An all-powerful being would be able to eliminate evil.
Premise (5): A perfectly loving being would desire to eliminate evil.
All you’re arguing is that we don’t have the information to make an argument. As hatsoff pointed out,

hatsoff:

No knowledge is required to draw a valid conclusion from a set of premises other than agreed logical rules of inference.

---

MindOverMatter2:

If my life has value than i would expect God to create me even if that means my suffering. If eternal heaven is my potential inheritance then i would say that this out ways the potential finite defects given that i an God values my existence.

Please see The Eschatological Defense

And lastly, your statement

MindOverMatter2:

Thus the problem from evil, as a “deductive” argument is invalid.

I’ve already shown you why this is wrong, but I’d like to point out something:
For centuries philosophers and theologians from St. Augustine to Albert Camus have attempted to answer this question. 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.” So please don’t be patronizing and downplay the significance of this question; no one has invented an intellectually and emotionally satisfying answer and it is likely no one will.

 

[reggieM]

Okay I think I get what you’re saying. Atheism cannot argue the problem of evil, because atheism denies evil.

Yes, that’s right. Atheism denies the ultimate (last) end of man, and therefore denies the ultimate (last) good or evil. In order to measure something, we have to know the end. With the measure of good and evil, we need the End or Purpose. Since atheism proposes that there is no end except death and nothingness, then there is no ultimate purpose and we cannot know if an action is ultimately evil or good (or ultimately anything) since everything is transient and will pass with death.
There can be no true, ultimate justice in atheism either because death ends everything and no recompense can be made.

(What of secular ethics?)

Secular ethics would be what St. Thomas would call actions directed to a Proximate End (not an Ultimate End). So, the end would be for practical reasons (the smooth running of businesses and government) – but these are transient and temporal reasons. Plus, the reason for secular ethics ends with death – again for atheism, death and nothingness has the only victory.

So, when we ask “why” about secular ethics, eventually we end up with something like hedonism at the end – a self-centered reason for doing things. The practical ends of secular ethics are based on some over-riding reasons. They can change based on environment, custom, popular vote. There is no higher power that one can appeal to in a secular system either.

Atheism is fully consistent with Nazism as a moral code. This sounds harsh and insulting, but we’re talking about a view that could propose “the greatest good for the most people.”

If the greatest good was material comforts, then this view would say it’s perfectly moral to kill people who threaten one’s material comfort. They’re all going to die anyway … etc.

But the PoE doesn’t necessarily lead us to the conclusion that there is no God, but that God is not all-good AND all-powerful AND all-knowing. Maybe God is only omnipotent and omniscient.

Well, this provides philosophical problems because of the argument from perfection. If God is not all good, then is He always getting better? If not, why not? He has an infinite amount of time to become more good every day.

By definition, God is the maximal being. If God lacks some being, where will He get it from?

Evil, is a lack of the fullness of being. Like ignorance. No created being can create itself. It must receive existence from something else. So, by defnition we say that God is uncreated being – the fullness of being.

So, if God was evil (or possessed evil) it would be a lack in His being. First, he couldn’t be all powerful because it would be possible to have a being more powerful than God (one that had more fullness of being and not that amount of evil). Plus, He couldn’t be all-knowing, because evil is a defect in perfection. To be all knowing, one would have to be perfect in knowledge. A being that is evil cannot be perfect in knowledge.

When we talk about something being “better” or “worse” in any way – we’re always measuring against perfection as an end point. Perfection is complete goodness without flaw or defect or anything lacking at all.

 

[reggieM]

Though I have to give it to you, I’ve never heard someone deny that evil exists.

Yes, I haven’t either. But none of our brethren who are believers would ever deny that evil exists, of course.
Atheists will not deny evil either, but only because they really haven’t thought about the ultimate end of life and what materialism really means.

If all of human life is reduced to blind, unintelligent matter and physical laws, where did evil come from? Clearly, there should be no evil in that worldview – in the same way that molecules or rocks or plants do not concern themselves about evil.

But I think one thing we will hear people deny is that an ultimate good exists. They also deny that ultimate justice exists.

 

[reggieM]

If people really consider that for there to be evil actions, sins, there must be an absolute moral order that is being violated. Then, if they are helped to see that the only way there can be an absolute moral order is if there is an infinitely powerful Creator God Who has ordained such an order and reveals it to men in a way so that they can learn to choose it in their free wills, then people might learn more easily to see God’s goodness in allowing bad effects from sin so we can turn to His good Law. Also, perhapspeoplecan be helped to see the good that has in the past, come as a result of “evils”, people sacrificing to come to the aid of other people in dire need.

That was a good summary. It’s right also that sins are what create evil effects in the world, because sin disrupts God’s justice.
This is a major problem for atheism because first, atheism does not believe that there is sin at all (since sin is directed to God).
But at the same time, atheists would not ever be able to make reparation for their crimes.
Any moral faults that they commit against others – people that they don’t know, or people who died … those crimes cannot be repaired. Who judges whether reparation has been made for those crimes? What kind of justice could be done?
If an atheist stole thousands of dollars from someone and the person died – that’s a crime of injustice. The dead person lost and could never regain the funds. The atheist cannot repay the person, ever. Who could possibly determine how to fulfill justice in that case? If the atheist paid the equivalent sum to a charity – what good would that do to the dead person who lost the money? What about the dead person’s family and children – or perhaps one child got a disease because of the lack of money and that child died. Now there’s even more injustice building up. Then another family member turned to drugs because of the theft, and had children who were drug addicted. Those children then became dangerous criminals, etc. etc.
The spiral of evil continues.
How could the atheist even know what kind of justice was needed? He would be perpetually the cause of evil himself with no way to repair the damage.

That’s why Jesus died on the Cross – to free us from our sins that we could never repay or make just reparation for. Only through God can the balance be put right – so He does work miracles to restore justice.

Those people who try to condemn God for allowing suffering in the world, are the cause of suffering themselves – through their sins. This is one of the worst aspects of atheism – sins which are never repented and repaired.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Let’s try this:

To accept that there is evil you must judge it against something. The thing you judge it against is an absolute good. This absolute God is manifested in God. Therefore, evil is proof of God.

Why does God allow us to suffer? Let’s use the bear analogy. You are a bear. You are about to unwittingly walk into a trap in the ground. Once you are caught you will be brutally killed by bear-hating lunatics. A good, non bear hating hunter sees you. He acts fast by quickly shooting the branch above your head. The branch is quite large. It crashes into you and knocks you into the ground, dazing you and gashing your face. You are stunned. The hunter runs over. You roar in anger at this evil hunter who has trapped you and gashed your face. Then the hunter takes out a hypodermic needle full of tranquilizer (What? You don’t carry tranquilizer around with you?) and stabs you in the neck. Your last thought before you black out is how much you hate the hunter. When you wake up, you’re in a cage. Your face where the gash was has been sprayed with alochol and hurts a lot. You curse the hunter forevermore.

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.

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.

 

[reggieM]

Let’s try this:

To accept that there is evil you must judge it against something. The thing you judge it against is an absolute good. This absolute good is manifested in God. Therefore, evil is proof of God.

That is an excellent point. I never thought about it that way before. If evil exists, then good exists. We judge good and evil against the absolute good (maximal possible good). Something is better or worse based on the comparison with the absolute perfect good. Every human being knows the concepts of better and worse – every one measures against the absolute and the perfect.

There are a few ways the world could work:

– Random accident of blind, unintelligent forces. This is meaningless and cannot produce good and evil.

– God could have created the world like His toy. He forces everything to happen. There cannot be good or evil here either since no person can be given credit or blame for their actions (they’re forced by God to do everything).

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

 

[_Locke]

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.

The problem with this defense is that a being who created evil, or allowed it to come into existence, could not rationally be considered good at all. We would never accept, much less praise, such an explanation of equivalent actions performed by a human being. For example, how would we judge a fireman who went around setting people’s houses on fire so that he could prove how heroic he was by rescuing them from the danger that he himself created? How would we judge a doctor who deliberately infected patients with infectious diseases so that he could show off his consummate skill by later curing them? Surely, we would not judge such people to be good at all, but evil; to do otherwise would be a moral absurdity. And this conclusion would only be further reinforced if they only saved *some *of the people their actions put in danger and left others to die. There is nothing good or praiseworthy about saving people from a danger of your own making.

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.

 

[reggieM]

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.

That is not an opposing view but an entirely new one.
Nobody that I have seen has made this argument.

The argument I presented was that God could have forced people to recognize him (which means that nothing those people did would be to their credit or blame) or give them a chance to experience the freedom of love (which requires a risk).
This “contrast” view is arguing against different point.

Under this argument, evil exists in order to more clearly show God’s goodness by comparison,

As above, this was not the point. But even if it was (it’s a weak argument) it can even be defended against this counterargument.

The problem with this defense is that a being who created evil, or allowed it to come into existence, could not rationally be considered good at all. We would never accept, much less praise, such an explanation of equivalent actions performed by a human being. For example, how would we judge a fireman who went around setting people’s houses on fire so that he could prove how heroic he was by rescuing them from the danger that he himself created?

Can you see how distorted this example is? We have the proposal that God “created evil” – as if evil was necessarily forced on people. Then he says “or allowed it”. Through what means was it “allowed”? This is not addressed. Instead, the example compares God with a fireman who deliberately burns down people’s houses.

At this point, it’s not even worth going farther. The example is pathetic and it’s arguing a weak point in the first place.

I’m guessing this was written by an atheist.

How do we judge a parent who deprives his child of the sugar and fatty foods that the child wants, causing pain and frustration to the child? Obviously, that is not a “good parent” at all??? How do we judge a court justice who imposes punishments on people who are living morally out of control? He is inflicting pain – and therefore is evil? How do we judge a military man who defends his country by physical force and sometimes causing harm to his enemies? The invading forces were pushed back and hurt – therefore the defender is evil???

How would we judge a doctor who deliberately infected patients with infectious diseases so that he could show off his consummate skill by later curing them?

I return to my prior remarks. If you are an materialist-atheist – no rational judgement could be given in this case. If you’re a Catholic, you wouldn’t be making such a ridiculuous argument.

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.

Again, this is forcing people to do and believe things – which is the opposite of giving people the chance to experience the freedom of love and the consequences of free choices.