The Optimist Argument Against the Problem of Evil

[tonyrey]

Consider it this much simpler way. God is going to make a world with one person, and that person is going to have time to make exactly one moral decision before the world ends. There are exactly two possible worlds he could create from a morality standpoint. He could create the world where the one person chooses evil, or he could create the world where the one person chooses good. There might be several possible good decisions and several possible evil ones, but all the decisions can be categorized as either good or evil. What an omniscient God cannot do is create a world where he does not know what is going to happen.

Omniscience does not cover the ability to know the unknowable! There are reasons to believe an authentically free choice is unpredictable. We are made in God’s image and have the astonishing ability to defy and frustrate His Will. He shares His supernatural power so that we have the capacity for love. He could withdraw this gift but God is not inconsistent. He does not do so because we would cease to be persons - which would defeat the purpose of having created us as persons!

Since Jesus is like us in all things but sin we are like Him in all things except spiritual and moral perfection. Our resemblance to God explains our immortality and the immense value of life. That is why hell is not a myth but a fact. The diabolical nature of evil is due to its divine origin! If free will didn’t exist there would be no unnecessary misery and suffering.

The world is out of God’s control in direct proportion to the extent that it is under human control. Yet, paradoxically enough, that is why it is the best of all possible worlds! If we were biological machines it would be a world no different from countless others. We are appalled by the horrific amount of needless cruelty on earth but that is only one side of the picture. We are also inspired by the incredible courage and unselfishness of those who follow the example of Jesus and fight against injustice.

Now consider if God decides to allow the man to make 2 moral decisions. There are now 4 possible worlds from a morality perspective. G = good, E = evil. Here are the 4 possible morality distributions:s
EE, EG, GE, GG
God can freely choose to create any one of those 4 worlds.

Yes, there is just as much “potential” for an evil decision in world 16 as there is in world 7, what differs is the amount of actualization. God could very easily simply set the “actualization of evil” knob to 0 without affecting the “potential” knob.

I may be mistaken about the intrinsic inscrutability of free will but not about its divine origin. It cannot be subjected to statistical analysis because it is a spiritual power that cannot be adjusted like voltage. Love is not love when it is regulated. The capacity to love oneself rather than others never disappears if we can genuinely choose for ourselves how to live. If we cannot opt for the one we cannot opt for the other. There are no one-way systems in the spiritual life. It is a case of either-or!

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Omniscience does not cover the ability to know the unknowable! There are reasons to believe an authentically free choice is unpredictable. We are made in God’s image and have the astonishing ability to defy and frustrate His Will. He shares His supernatural power so that we have the capacity for love. He could withdraw this gift but God is not inconsistent. He does not do so because we would cease to be persons - which would defeat the purpose of having created us as persons!

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=5057
God knows the future.

The world is out of God’s control in direct proportion to the extent that it is under human control. Yet, paradoxically enough, that is why it is the best of all possible worlds! If we were biological machines it would be a world no different from countless others. We are appalled by the horrific amount of needless cruelty on earth but that is only one side of the picture. We are also inspired by the incredible courage and unselfishness of those who follow the example of Jesus and fight against injustice.

I thought we decided this was obviously not the best of all possible worlds.

I may be mistaken about the intrinsic inscrutability of free will but not about its divine origin. It cannot be subjected to statistical analysis because it is a spiritual power that cannot be adjusted like voltage. Love is not love when it is regulated. The capacity to love oneself rather than others never disappears if we can genuinely choose for ourselves how to live. If we cannot opt for the one we cannot opt for the other. There are no one-way systems in the spiritual life. It is a case of either-or!

So you are saying that free will inevitably leads to sin? What I am saying is that any of those example worlds could be created, and that the people in them would have exactly the same amount of free will. Moreover I am saying that our world, the real and actual one, corresponds to a column in some very large table. Why do you think that our column allows us to have free will while some any other column does not?

How big would the table for our world be?
Total number of people that have existed: 106 billion
Maximum rate at which a human can make decisions, 10 decisions / second
Average lifespan for everyone: 70 years (a large overestimate)

With this data there are [2.34x10^21](http://www.wolframalpha.com/(name removed by moderator)ut/?i=%2870+years+in+seconds%29*+106%2C000%2C000%2C000+*+%2810+%2Fseconds%29) decisions as of the time of this posting, which corresponds to a table with 2^(2.34x10^21) possible worlds. Very large, yes. Infinite, no.

 

[inocente]

This means not only that God knows the Past, Present, and Future, but also that God knows all of the infinite possible worlds that could occur; that, because of His omnipotence, can create any of these possibilities He so wishes; and that God, because of His benevolence considering also all future possibilities will always choose to create the best world. This does not mean there will be no evil, it just means that the world created will be the best of the infinite options.

Leibniz was wishful thinking before the Holocaust but after is insane. Would he dare argue today that all those people died pointlessly through benevolence?

 

[Loml]

If someone enjoys their own “suffering,” it is not really suffering then.

So suffering is a perception, not an objective reality to form a moral basis on.

If someone wishes suffering on others, they would at least not wish suffering on themselves.

It’s true then that minimising suffering is not universally recognised as good.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

This is like arguing about how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin?

 

[FCCopleston]

TheTrueCentrist writes:

In the interest of staying on topic, I’ll drop the discussion of irrelevant side issues.

So now, instead of introducing irrelevant issues, you are erasing all of the relevant issues but one? It seems you have fallen off the opposite side of the horse.

You continue:

The parent/child analogy is fundamentally flawed. Parents do not have the ability to effectively choose the attributes of their child. The methods by which they can are typically immoral. God can effectively choose all the attributes of the world he creates.

First of all, it is an analogy. It has limits, of course; but your effort to describe it as faulty is simply an attempt to steer the analogy from its proper direction.

Secondly, the illustration can be regarded as a thought-experiment wherein it is possible for the parents to effectively choose the attributes of their offspring. In such a case, I do not see how your objections either affect the validity of my illustration or contribute to our discussion, and therefore, I will dismiss them as “irrelevant.”

In Christ,
FCCopleston

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

First of all, it is an analogy. It has limits, of course; but your effort to describe it as faulty is simply an attempt to steer the analogy from its proper direction.

Secondly, the illustration can be regarded as a thought-experiment wherein it is possible for the parents to effectively choose the attributes of their offspring. In such a case, I do not see how your objections either affect the validity of my illustration or contribute to our discussion, and therefore, I will dismiss them as “irrelevant.”

In Christ,
FCCopleston

Ok, consider that in the not-too-distant future, parents may be able to exactly decide the attributes of their children through personalized genetic therapies. No babies are destroyed in the process and it is as safe as routine vaccinations. I think that it would not be immoral for them to do so. In fact it would likely be immoral for them to either introduce genetic defects into their child or fail to correct genetic defects that they detect. Just like we would not condone deaf parents want to deafen their children, it would be considered wrong to impair your child by giving them usher syndrome or failing to prevent krabbe disease.

God could have made us with free will and without the disease of sin, but he did not.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

So suffering is a perception, not an objective reality to form a moral basis on.

Which is your objection? Are we incapable of perceiving objective reality or are we incapable of forming a moral basis?

It’s true then that minimising suffering is not universally recognised as good.

No, I am saying that their desire for others suffering both causes them suffering and is caused by past suffering. Therefore, such a person would admit that if their own suffering was reduced, they would not wish suffering on others.

 

[FCCopleston]

Ok, consider that in the not-too-distant future, parents may be able to exactly decide the attributes of their children through personalized genetic therapies. No babies are destroyed in the process and it is as safe as routine vaccinations. I think that it would not be immoral for them to do so. In fact it would likely be immoral for them to either introduce genetic defects into their child or fail to correct genetic defects that they detect. Just like we would not condone deaf parents want to deafen their children, it would be considered wrong to impair your child by giving them usher syndrome or failing to prevent krabbe disease.

God could have made us with free will and without the disease of sin, but he did not.

You are, once again, failing to consider free will, as well as God’s *non-causal *relation to evil. Let me outline this for you:

1. God created the world in perfection.
2. God did not introduce, create, or desire the entrance of evil into the world
3. Evil is the result of the wrong use of free will in God’s creatures
4. For God to eliminate all possible fallen worlds is functionally equivalent to eliminating free will from creation altogether
5. God is both the perfect Creator of an originally perfect world and the perfect Redeemer of a world fallen into sinful rebellion

You are the one creating a faulty analogy by comparing God’s role in creation to parents who desire defects in their children. There is no contradiction or inconsistency in God’s goodness and the reality of evil in the world.

In Christ,
FCCopleston

 

[FCCopleston]

Since Jesus is like us in all things but sin we are like Him in all things except spiritual and moral perfection. Our resemblance to God explains our immortality and the immense value of life. That is why hell is not a myth but a fact. The diabolical nature of evil is due to its divine origin! If free will didn’t exist there would be no unnecessary misery and suffering.

The world is out of God’s control in direct proportion to the extent that it is under human control. Yet, paradoxically enough, that is why it is the best of all possible worlds! If we were biological machines it would be a world no different from countless others. We are appalled by the horrific amount of needless cruelty on earth but that is only one side of the picture. We are also inspired by the incredible courage and unselfishness of those who follow the example of Jesus and fight against injustice.

I ask you again, tonyrey:

“Did Christ have a free will? Did God not both predict and know (before the foundation of the world, mind you) that Christ would suffer and die upon the cross for the sins of the world?”

Thanks,
FCCopleston

 

[FCCopleston]

What is most interesting in this discussion–I believe–is that those who hold that God’s ways are, at least to our understanding, morally questionable, are entirely incapable of providing any adequate definition of what *the good *is. They simply take for granted that when we speak of good and evil, we are speaking of the minimization of suffering and the maximization of suffering. When asked why either the minimization or the maximization of suffering is to be identified with the good, they have no plausible response. Contrariwise, the position that God’s nature itself defines and determines the good is a plausible end to the otherwise infinite regress of justifications of the good, seeing that God is, by definition, the Metaphysical Ultimate, i.e., the Greatest Conceivable Being.

It has already been stated that the entire notion of a “best possible world” is nonsense (i.e., there can always be a better possible world, therefore making that world the “best,” ad infinitum). Furthermore, it has already been shown that the existence of evil in this world is not inconsistent with God’s goodness (God created a perfect world with genuinely free creatures who had the potential of choosing to disobey Him, and He continued to love the world though it did choose to disobey Him, even entering it to be crucified for its sins against Him.) And, further still, it has been shown that God is the only plausible final explanation for what the good is.

What is there left to discuss?

In Christ,
FCCopleston

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

What is most interesting in this discussion–I believe–is that those who hold that God’s ways are, at least to our understanding, morally questionable, are entirely incapable of providing any adequate definition of what *the good *is. They simply take for granted that when we speak of good and evil, we are speaking of the minimization of suffering and the maximization of suffering. When asked why either the minimization or the maximization of suffering is to be identified with the good, they have no plausible response. Contrariwise, the position that God’s nature itself defines and determines the good is a plausible end to the otherwise infinite regress of justifications of the good, seeing that God is, by definition, the Metaphysical Ultimate, i.e., the Greatest Conceivable Being.

Explain to me then, what describing some x as good tells us about that x in concrete terms using that definition of good.
E.g. those who define “good” as suffering reduction would answer “x is good means that x reduces suffering.”

It has already been stated that the entire notion of a “best possible world” is nonsense (i.e., there can always be a better possible world, therefore making that world the “best,” ad infinitum).

It is hardly nonsense for several reasons:
Objection#1|God, being omniscient and infinite, can consider the infinite set of all possible worlds and choose the best one. If there existed a possible world that was better than any of the infinite possible worlds he selected as best, that would mean there is a possible world outside the set of all possible worlds, which is a contradiction
Objection#2|God is omnipotent and therefore capable of creating a perfect world.
Objection#3|Even if there exists no world that is perfect in all respects, there exists at least one morally perfect possible world (i.e. without evil.)
All of these objections allow the following conclusion: since the world we live in is not morally perfect, God chose to create a world with more evil than he could have.

Furthermore, it has already been shown that the existence of evil in this world is not inconsistent with God’s goodness (God created a perfect world with genuinely free creatures who had the potential of choosing to disobey Him, and He continued to love the world though it did choose to disobey Him, even entering it to be crucified for its sins against Him.) And, further still, it has been shown that God is the only plausible final explanation for what the good is.

I will consider the position that the existence of evil is not inconsistent. I contend that good, when defined this way, no longer has any meaning. Since God chose to create a world with more evil than other possible worlds, an allegedly good being preferred the a world that contained evil over one that did not. If it is possible to choose evil over good and still be good, then good is meaningless. Certainly God does not make choices for us, but it was his decision to create the creators of evil.

Lastly, a world without evil would not subvert our free will. God has always known all the decisions each and every one of us will make for the entirety of our existence. When God chose to make this world, he chose it already knowing our decisions. We would have exactly as much free will in a world where everyone chose good. There would be exactly as much potential for evil. The only difference would be the amount of actualization of evil. Basically it comes down to: if free will is reconcilable with God’s omniscience in this world, it is also reconcilable with God’s omniscience in a perfect world.

 

[veritas82]

1. God created the world in perfection.
2. God did not introduce, create, or desire the entrance of evil into the world
3. Evil is the result of the wrong use of free will in God’s creatures
4. For God to eliminate all possible fallen worlds is functionally equivalent to eliminating free will from creation altogether
5. God is both the perfect Creator of an originally perfect world and the perfect Redeemer of a world fallen into sinful rebellion

Leaving the very human-centric nature of this thread I did want to ask something about the above:
It kind of says to me that God, in this sense, has His ‘hands tied.’ So is He letting the creatures rebel? If so why? Does He not have the power to stop them? If the World is redeemed then why is there still sin? These were just a few thoughts that came to mind. I’d like to understand the Catholic theology of the universe better (admittedly more medieval) for my research on legal theory. In what you have stated it does sound like there is this ‘problem of evil.’ The bit I know about Thomistic metaphysics doesn’t seem so problematic, but it has been a while there was something about a distinction about between natural and *moral *evil.

 

[tonyrey]

Omniscience does not cover the ability to know the unknowable! There are reasons to believe an authentically free choice is unpredictable. We are made in God’s image and have the astonishing ability to defy and frustrate His Will. He shares His supernatural power so that we have the capacity for love. He could withdraw this gift but God is not inconsistent. He does not do so because we would cease to be persons - which would defeat the purpose of having created us as persons!

                             [forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=5057](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=5057)God knows the future.

God knows what is knowable about the future. He does not know what cannot be known because it is an absurd proposition. Only God knows everything that is knowable because only God is omniscient.

The world is out of God’s control in direct proportion to the extent that it is under human control. Yet, paradoxically enough, that is why it is the best of all possible worlds! If we were biological machines it would be a world no different from countless others. We are appalled by the horrific amount of needless cruelty on earth but that is only one side of the picture. We are also inspired by the incredible courage and unselfishness of those who follow the example of Jesus and fight against injustice.

                             I thought we decided this was obviously not the best of all possible worlds.**You **have but I have made it clear that it must be the best of all possible worlds if God is omnipotent and perfect. Why would He create an inferior world?

I may be mistaken about the intrinsic inscrutability of free will but not about its divine origin. It cannot be subjected to statistical analysis because it is a spiritual power that cannot be adjusted like voltage. Love is not love when it is regulated. The capacity to love oneself rather than others never disappears if we can genuinely choose for ourselves how to live. If we cannot opt for the one we cannot opt for the other. There are no one-way systems in the spiritual life. It is a case of either-or!

                             So you are saying that free will inevitably leads to sin? What I am saying is that any of those example worlds could be created, and that the people in them would have exactly the same amount of free will. Moreover I am saying that our world, the real and actual one, corresponds to a column in some very large table. Why do you think that our column allows us to have free will while some any other column does not?

How big would the table for our world be?
Total number of people that have existed: 106 billion
Maximum rate at which a human can make decisions, 10 decisions / second
Average lifespan for everyone: 70 years (a large overestimate)

With this data there are [2.34x10^21](http://www.wolframalpha.com/(name removed by moderator)ut/?i=%2870+years+in+seconds%29*+106%2C000%2C000%2C000+*+%2810+%2Fseconds%29) decisions as of the time of this posting, which corresponds to a table with 2^(2.34x10^21) possible worlds. Very large, yes. Infinite, no.“the same amount of free will” is a category mistake. Free will is a spiritual power that cannot be measured statistically. Your calculations are relevant to material objects but not to persons. Why do you think the buck stops with us?

 

[FCCopleston]

TheTrueCentrist writes:

Explain to me then, what describing some x as good tells us about that x in concrete terms using that definition of good.
E.g. those who define “good” as suffering reduction would answer “x is good means that x reduces suffering.”

You are asking for a justification for why the Good (God) is the Good? **God’s nature defines the good. ** This is a plausible end to the otherwise infinite regression of justifications of the good, which those who define good as “minimization of suffering” are left to wallow in. Why is the “minimization of suffering” good? Because we desire minimization of suffering? How does the fact of what we desire lead to the value statement of what we ought to desire? Etc., etc., etc.

you continue:

It is hardly nonsense for several reasons:
Objection#1|God, being omniscient and infinite, can consider the infinite set of all possible worlds and choose the best one. If there existed a possible world that was better than any of the infinite possible worlds he selected as best, that would mean there is a possible world outside the set of all possible worlds, which is a contradiction
Objection#2|God is omnipotent and therefore capable of creating a perfect world.
Objection#3|Even if there exists no world that is perfect in all respects, there exists at least one morally perfect possible world (i.e. without evil.)
All of these objections allow the following conclusion: since the world we live in is not morally perfect, God chose to create a world with more evil than he could have.

Let’s say God chooses a world wherein there is no suffering at all. Can this world be made better still? Sure it can. It can include one more person who is happy, satisfied, and experiencing no suffering at all, but only a blissful rapture of permanent happiness. No matter how great the world is, it can always be greater, better, etc. The fact that God cannot create the “best of all possible worlds” is, therefore, true; not because He is not omnipotent, but because He is omnipotent, i.e., because the “best of all possible worlds” is self-referentially incoherent.

And, once again, God’s picking and choosing a world wherein there would be no free choice of evil is functionally equivalent to eliminating free will from creation altogether. If we are going to talk seriously about the reality of free will, then we must acknowledge the necessary potential for evil. There is nothing immoral, and there is nothing we cannot apprehend, in the fact that a perfect God created this world in perfection, and that, in consequence of free will, human beings fell into sin. The only morally objectionable action suggested on this thread would be for God to choose the “best of all possible worlds,” only after consulting His truth-table.

You go on:

I will consider the position that the existence of evil is not inconsistent. I contend that good, when defined this way, no longer has any meaning. Since God chose to create a world with more evil than other possible worlds, an allegedly good being preferred the a world that contained evil over one that did not. If it is possible to choose evil over good and still be good, then good is meaningless. Certainly God does not make choices for us, but it was his decision to create the creators of evil.

Again, God did not create an evil world. The world became evil through the wrong use of free will in God’s creatures.

Moreover, God’s ability to take an evil and turn it into good (for instance, the crucifixion of Christ) does not in any way equate evil with good; the evil is evil and the good is good. Yet, good triumphs over evil. This is the eschatological argument against the problem of evil, namely, that God will heal the world of every evil on the Last Day, i.e., that God created a world without evil, and that, despite our fall into sin, He will return heaven and earth to this pre-fallen state for all eternity.

You conclude:

Lastly, a world without evil would not subvert our free will. God has always known all the decisions each and every one of us will make for the entirety of our existence. When God chose to make this world, he chose it already knowing our decisions. We would have exactly as much free will in a world where everyone chose good. There would be exactly as much potential for evil. The only difference would be the amount of actualization of evil. Basically it comes down to: if free will is reconcilable with God’s omniscience in this world, it is also reconcilable with God’s omniscience in a perfect world.

Is there a possible world in which God (a good, holy, loving, and perfect God, i.e., the God of Jesus Christ) and evil exist?

FCCopleston

 

[FCCopleston]

God knows what is knowable

 

[tonyrey]

Is omniscience–according to your use of the term–knowing everything that is* possible* to know?

Yes. We don’t know what the limits of possible knowledge are because we are not omniscient. We don’t know, for example, whether God knows how He exists. His existence may be an absolute truth beyond which it is impossible to proceed. Only God knows the answer to that question - and possibly those to whom He has revealed the answer.

 

[veritas82]

Evil
I think Aquinas’ argument goes a bit like this…
If the complaint was:
God is the creator of everything
Evil is a thing
Therefore, God is the creator of Evil
Then he - as I mentioned before - argues evil is not a thing and so this does not necessitate God as its creator. It is not a substance but a lacking of what should be, it deprives something of its potential, like blindness stopping a person seeing. So what causes the evil? There maybe a slight sidestep here, in that evil is caused by a secondary cause (unlike the primary, being God) a good is intended but an evil may be a necessary by-product, for example a punishment because the act of punishing is evil but it serves a higher purpose of justice - a good. So why allow evil? Well there is no logical reason to not do so, He has freedom and evil cannot be attributed to Him so then He is still All Good and still All Powerful.
It is much more complex than I have stated here of course, but its the gist

This analogy is false - Answers the OP’s question?
The analogy we seem to be going down is one where we link a wise person to God, He being All Wise. Two possible outcomes arise and so the wise man would choose the good one and so in creating one of two outcomes God would choose the good one, being more wise. However this analogy does not hold since the object of choice in each case is different. For God, creation is good because he has willed to create it, while for the wise man, the choice is good before he chooses, and it is his wisdom that allows him to see this fact. Since there choices are so vastly different then there is no analogy between human deliberation and Divine Wisdom. Specifically, the analogy fails because in the case of the wise man, there is some one best choice for him to see clearly, which doesn’t apply to God. God does not Will necessarily he doesn’t have to! unlike the Wise man. The only thing necessary is God’s Being. Some of the things that he wills are defective (in the sense of evil above), but that belonging to the nature of the thing willed not God’s Will. Since a creature is lesser being then it must be defective as all created good.

 

[FCCopleston]

Yes. We don’t know what the limits of possible knowledge are because we are not omniscient. We don’t know, for example, whether God knows how He exists. His existence may be an absolute truth beyond which it is impossible to proceed. Only God knows the answer to that question - and possibly those to whom He has revealed the answer.

First, if we do not know the limits of possible knowledge, then how do we know it is not possible for God to know the decisions of free will?

Second, you are erroneously turning omniscience into a modal property (are you an open theist?), when omniscience is simply a factual statement, namely, that God knows all true propositions (p) and no false propositions (not p).

Third, how do you justify your position in light of Scripture and the teaching of the Church? For instance, how can God say that He knows those who are His (namely, His elect), and that their names are written in the Book of Life? How can God say that His Church will be preserved until the end of days, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it? How can Christ tell Peter that he will deny Him three times before the rooster crows? How can Christ tell Paul that he is God’s chosen vessel to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles?

Don’t you realize that, according to your view–which, by the way, is not that of traditional Christian theology–you turn God into a liar?

In Christ,
FCCopleston

 

[Loml]

If someone enjoys their own “suffering,” it is not really suffering then.

So suffering is a perception, not an objective reality to form a moral basis on.Which is your objection? Are we incapable of perceiving objective reality or are we incapable of forming a moral basis?

Sorry if I confused you, the second quote is not my position. I was trying to draw the logical conclusion which would have to be made if what you said in the first quote were true:

You suggest in the first quote that objective reality (suffering) does not exist; that whether something is suffering or not depends on the perception of the sufferer. If this is true then we cannot form an objective moral basis based on reducing suffering because we do not perceive suffering objectively.

Sorry but I do not want to continue this line of debate partly because I haven’t given it a lot of consideration but principally because it will take attention away from my first objection:

That ‘reducing suffering is universally recognised as good’ is not true.

My response to the first quote should have been that there are people who do not enjoy their own suffering but who intentionally cause themselves suffering anyway.

Therefore, such a person would admit that if their own suffering was reduced, they would not wish suffering on others.

This is not true. There are people who would cause themselves a greater suffering in order to cause a lesser suffering to others. There are people who would not admit what you state they would.

Thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my posts.