The Optimist Argument Against the Problem of Evil

[tonyrey]

So, then we do have the freedom to sin in heaven? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Your hectoring tone is quite unnecessary. If you cannot draw the only logical conclusion from what I have stated please reread it:

It would be pointless to state that we have no reason to sin in heaven and ask why would we** choose **(which I emphasised) to do so if we had no freedom to sin in heaven…

 

[FCCopleston]

tonyrey writes:

Strictly speaking it was not foreknowledge because God transcends time and space.

I am using the terminology of Scripture. You can call it whatever you want, the point is God has the ability to know (and, for goodness sake, at least predict) our free decisions. How can God know that heaven will not be empty if He does not know free decisions? He knows those who are His, right? Are you suggesting that, even though He knows that someone will be in heaven from before the foundation of the world, He does not know–nor does He even have an educated guess (!)–as to whether they will choose Him?

Furthermore, this entire discussion is ultimately irrelevant because *omniscience is not a modal property. *By asserting that God knows all true propositions I am not saying that I know them, I am saying that God knows them. The notions of possibility and necessity do not enter into it.

Your argument is falling apart, tony. Abandon ship!

It is not the existence of evil that is the problem but the existence of unnecessary evil - to which Hume adds excessive evil - which implies that this world is far removed from the best possible world. Do you believe the evil in the world is excessive - given the fact of free will?

Was Christ’s death and crucifixion an excessive evil?

The logical problem of evil suggests that there is an incompatibility between God’s attributes and evil in the world. The probability problem of evil suggests that, because there is a heinous amount of evil in the world, God probably does not exist.

 

[FCCopleston]

Your hectoring tone is quite unnecessary. If you cannot draw the only logical conclusion from what I have stated please reread it:

How was my asking you for a straightforward answer using “hectoring tone”? It seems that you are more annoyed at having to answer the question than at my way of asking it.

I am a simple man, tony: yes or no.

 

[FCCopleston]

And, by the way tony, I am *still *waiting for a response to this:

Then how does God know that we will not choose sin in heaven, for all eternity? Since He cannot know this–according to your peculiar view–or even predict it (!!!), why should anyone believe Him when He says it? In fact, you make God a liar, seeing that He is claiming to know and/or predict (that there will be no sin in heaven, and that we will freely choose to live with Him in fellowship for eternity) what He cannot possibly know and/or predict.

As to how God can know a free act after it is performed, my question is: if acts of free will are so elusive and evasive, and God cannot know or predict them even with the knowledge of events which are bound to them, then how does God’s knowledge change after an event of free will has been performed? He already knew the event before the free act was performed. What is it about God’s knowledge that changes after the free act is committed so as to enable Him to know it?

Thanks again,
FCCopleston

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Once again, I do not think that you are grasping my position. I am not arguing for a “better” or “best” world. I am arguing that God (a good and holy God) is consistent with a world corrupted by evil. These points summarize my argument:

1. The potential for sin is necessary in free will creatures.
2. The actualization of sin is not necessary in free will creatures.
3. The potential for sin belongs to original creation
4. The actualization of sin belongs to the fall
5. The original creation belongs to the good will of God
6. The fallen creation belongs to the wrong use of free will

Your dichotomies do not capture that there may be *good reasons *for God allowing the actualization of evil. One is that God loves this world. He does not love any other possible world. He loves the actual world, and has given His Son to die for it. God demonstrates His goodness and His love in the event of the cross. Therefore, there is no inconsistency in the existence of both God and evil, nor is there any incoherency in the affirming the goodness of God in the face of such evil.

You are saying correctly that the world we live in belongs to the lower right corner of my tables.
You say:
“Your dichotomies do not capture that there may be *good reasons *for God allowing the actualization of evil.”
What are those reasons? If you do not know, then the goodness of God is something you are taking on faith.

You are essentially saying: any evidence for God’s love is admissible, while evidence against it is not. Recall in the book of Job, God essentially says to the devil “you can kill Job’s family just not Job himself.” That whole book is dedicated to explaining that God is not bound by our understanding of “goodness” or “virtue.” Keep in mind, I am not arguing that God is immoral, rather that God is amoral, his decisions are essentially random. This proposition is likewise consistent with the world as we know it. He could have randomly sent Jesus, and randomly selected this world from the set of all possible worlds.

 

[FCCopleston]

Recall in the book of Job, God essentially says to the devil “you can kill Job’s family just not Job himself.” That whole book is dedicated to explaining that God is not bound by our understanding of “goodness” or “virtue.” Keep in mind, I am not arguing that God is immoral, rather that God is amoral, his decisions are essentially random. This proposition is likewise consistent with the world as we know it. He could have randomly sent Jesus, and randomly selected this world from the set of all possible worlds.

Do you accept the Bible as God’s revelation to humanity?

I never said that God is bound by our understanding of “goodness” or “virtue.” I said that we have a limited understanding of “goodness” and “virtue.” Of course, God transcends these, but that does not mean that God has no connection to these virtues and therefore His decisions are totally random.

This is a very implausible conclusion to draw from the fact that we cannot know absolutely why God did not create a world that would never fall into sin.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Do you accept the Bible as God’s revelation to humanity?

Sure, but consider this: if God is random, then any messages he gives us do not necessarily correspond to the reality of God. He might alternately lie and tell the truth, we cannot know. “But God can’t lie,” you might object. However I suggest that there may be good reasons for him to lie just as “there may be good reasons for God allowing the actualization of evil.”

 

[FCCopleston]

Sure, but consider this: if God is random, then any messages he gives us do not necessarily correspond to the reality of God. He might alternately lie and tell the truth, we cannot know. “But God can’t lie,” you might object. However I suggest that there may be good reasons for him to lie just as “there may be good reasons for God allowing the actualization of evil.”

Why should I believe that God’s will is totally random?

Are you saying that because we cannot explain why God has allowed the actualization of suffering, that this translates into the notion that everything God does is random, even the incarnation of Christ?

As I said, you are welcome to entertain possibilities. Because I cannot prove that my current sensory experience is not the result of electrodes sending these images to my brain in a vat, it is possible everything I do only has the illusion of reality. Is it probable? No. Why? Because we have good reasons to believe in the external world.

And outside of your obsession with the actualization of sin in the world, we have good reasons for believing that God is, indeed, good. And, at the very least, that God’s will is not totally random! The historical reliability and veracity of Scripture is one good reason. The historical probability of Christ’s resurrection is the principal reason, however. If Jesus, who claimed to be God, is truly risen from the dead, then everything He says is true. If we merely speculate on the possibility of whether this is just some random event, then we are doing merely that, namely, speculating. If you want to entertain these ideas, then fine. I am just disappointed that our discussion led to this ridiculous conclusion. If that is the case, I will not debate this any further for the same reasons that I will not debate solipsists.

 

[tonyrey]

I am a simple man, tony: yes or no.

We retain our free will in heaven and we could choose to sin but we would not do so because the reason why we are in heaven is that we love God and we know existence without Him would be hell!

 

[FCCopleston]

We retain our free will in heaven and we could choose to sin but we would not do so because the reason why we are in heaven is that we love God and we know existence without Him would be hell!

Okay. I think we have some agreement here.

However, how does God know that, for example, person X will go to heaven, but not know that person X will choose to go to heaven? How can He not even predict this, knowing that person X will be in heaven?

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Why should I believe that God’s will is totally random?

Why should I believe that God is totally good?

Randomness allows us to fully explain the problem of evil. God chose this world at random from the set of all possible worlds. Since the majority of possible worlds will contain some evil and some good, it is likely that a world chosen at random will have some mix of the two. That is exactly what we observe. God also randomly decided he would give us a chance for repentance through Jesus, but also that he would randomly destroy people like in the great flood or Sodom and Gomorrah, prematurely ending those people’s opportunities for repentance. He told us to love one another, but also created at least one person for whom it “would be better for him if he had never been born,” hardly a loving action. He encourages compassion and non-violence, but also tells his people to slaughter and “show no mercy” to the Canaanites, Amorites, etc. These all seem like random and arbitrary decisions to me.

 

[awatkins69]

Why should I believe that God is totally good?

Randomness allows us to fully explain the problem of evil. God chose this world at random from the set of all possible worlds. Since the majority of possible worlds will contain some evil and some good, it is likely that a world chosen at random will have some mix of the two. That is exactly what we observe. God also randomly decided he would give us a chance for repentance through Jesus, but also that he would randomly destroy people like in the great flood or Sodom and Gomorrah, prematurely ending those people’s opportunities for repentance. He told us to love one another, but also created at least one person for whom it “would be better for him if he had never been born,” hardly a loving action. He encourages compassion and non-violence, but also tells his people to slaughter and “show no mercy” to the Canaanites, Amorites, etc. These all seem like random and arbitrary decisions to me.

The proposition that God randomly chose to have a divine plan to bring humanity to salvation is hard to understand at best, and probably contradictory, no?

 

[FCCopleston]

TheTrueCentrist writes:

Why should I believe that God is totally good?

Christ.

However, do you really believe that the only options are that either God is totally good or He is totally amoral? I mean, I have heard some argue that God is perhaps not wholly good or not wholly evil; I have never heard anyone posit the notion that God’s will is totally random. (and I am sure that there are very good reasons for this).

You continue:

Randomness allows us to fully explain the problem of evil. God chose this world at random from the set of all possible worlds. Since the majority of possible worlds will contain some evil and some good, it is likely that a world chosen at random will have some mix of the two. That is exactly what we observe. God also randomly decided he would give us a chance for repentance through Jesus, but also that he would randomly destroy people like in the great flood or Sodom and Gomorrah, prematurely ending those people’s opportunities for repentance. He told us to love one another, but also created at least one person for whom it “would be better for him if he had never been born,” hardly a loving action. He encourages compassion and non-violence, but also tells his people to slaughter and “show no mercy” to the Canaanites, Amorites, etc. These all seem like random and arbitrary decisions to me.

So, even though the Bible says that Christ was slain before the foundations of the world were laid, and even though Israel was given continual promises of Christ, and even though God became a man, suffered for our sins, died for our sins, and was raised again for our sins, and even though God has promised to return on the Last Day and to judge the living and the dead, and even though He has promised eternal joy to those have been given faith in Christ, that all of this is random?

And even though we have very good reasons for trusting in the reliability of Scripture (99.7% accuracy, internal evidence, external evidence, etc.), and even though there exists objective moral values which we call moral and immoral, and even though there is no inconsistency between God and evil, and even though there is no incoherency in God allowing a free decision to actualize sin, and even though God has given us His commands, all of this is random?

Randomness is not the inference to the best explanation here. Randomness is an excuse not to look for the best explanation.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

And outside of your obsession with the actualization of sin in the world, we have good reasons for believing that God is, indeed, good. And, at the very least, that God’s will is not totally random! The historical reliability and veracity of Scripture is one good reason. The historical probability of Christ’s resurrection is the principal reason, however. If Jesus, who claimed to be God, is truly risen from the dead, then everything He says is true. If we merely speculate on the possibility of whether this is just some random event, then we are doing merely that, namely, speculating. If you want to entertain these ideas, then fine. I am just disappointed that our discussion led to this ridiculous conclusion. If that is the case, I will not debate this any further for the same reasons that I will not debate solipsists.

If Jesus rose from the dead, it does not logically follow that everything he said was true. Claiming that he was God and would rise from the dead is a small subset of “everything he said.”

Also, what other conclusion can we draw from this formulation of the problem of evil? If there was a convincing argument that evil is in fact a problem, what would it show? It would show that God was not good as we understand the term. Neither, however, could God be evil because we have an equivalent “problem of good.” Our alternatives are “God doesn’t exist” or “God is neither inherently good nor inherently evil”

 

[FCCopleston]

If Jesus rose from the dead, it does not logically follow that everything he said was true. Claiming that he was God and would rise from the dead is a small subset of “everything he said.”

Also, what other conclusion can we draw from this formulation of the problem of evil? If there was a convincing argument that evil is in fact a problem, what would it show? It would show that God was not good as we understand the term. Neither, however, could God be evil because we have an equivalent “problem of good.” Our alternatives are “God doesn’t exist” or “God is neither inherently good nor inherently evil”

If you insist upon isolating Christ from the history and fulness of God’s revelation, perhaps. But in context, and not simply as some arbitrary miracle, if Christ rose from the dead, then He was God; and God, according to Christ, could not lie.

I do not believe that evil is a problem for God. God has defeated evil in Christ.

 

[jessica9976]

**tonyrey **writes:

Thanks for the clarification

Two questions:

1. Do you believe that this is the best possible world?
2. How do you define the best possible world?

Thanks again.

You continue:

Why do you make an exception with this world? Before this world was created (and, therefore, when it was a possible world), free will was “a part” of this world, was it not?

You go on:

So, according to your view, suffering is an essential part of any physical world? And, moreover, the non-existence of suffering in the world in as contradictory as the notion of a square circle?

Perhaps you are entertaining a different view of “inconsistency” than I, but I do not see how suffering is essential to the world. Mind you, friend, that there will not be a total absence of the physical in heaven. Will suffering be essential there as well?

You conclude:

First of all, I do not see how my regarding the argument of Leibniz to be weak has any bearing upon my standing as a Christian or a Catholic.
Second, I have already stated my reasons for rejecting the aforesaid argument, namely, the very notion of a best possible world is–to use your language–“inconsistent.” That is to say, it is self-referentially incoherent. What, exactly, is the best possible world? All possible worlds are, by definition, finite, and therefore, all possible worlds, no matter how wonderful they are and no matter what their final outcome is, can always be made better (e.g., one more morally upstanding person, one less suffering child, one more day of sunshine, etc.).

In Christ,
FCCopleston

 

[tonyrey]

Strictly speaking it was not foreknowledge because God transcends time and space.

God does not foresee or predict because God always knows everything that is knowable.

How can God know that heaven will not be empty if He does not know free decisions? He knows those who are His, right? Are you suggesting that, even though He knows that someone will be in heaven from before the foundation of the world, He does not know–nor does He even have an educated guess (!)–as to whether they will choose Him?

Let me repeat once again that God knows what people decide but that is quite different from anticipating their decisions before they make them. Do you believe free will is a natural or supernatural power?

Furthermore, this entire discussion is ultimately irrelevant because omniscience is not a modal property. By asserting that God knows all true propositions I am not saying that I know them, I am saying that God knows them. The notions of possibility and necessity do not enter into it.

(Without reference to possibility and necessity ) God knows all true propositions but no one except God knows the full scope of all true propositions. Therefore we cannot know for certain what is intrinsically unknowable.

Your argument is falling apart, tony. Abandon ship!

Such remarks are irrelevant to a philosophical discussion. If your argument were genuinely irrefutable it wouldn’t need bolstering…

It is not the existence of evil that is the problem but the existence of unnecessary evil - to which Hume adds excessive evil - which implies that this world is far removed from the best possible world. Do you believe the evil in the world is excessive - given the fact of free will?

Was Christ’s death and crucifixion an excessive evil?
It was excessive in the sense that man need not have sinned.

Do you believe the evil in the world is excessive - given the fact of free will?

The logical problem of evil suggests that there is an incompatibility between God’s attributes and evil in the world. The probability problem of evil suggests that, because there is a heinous amount of evil in the world, God probably does not exist.

In that case it is irrational to believe in God - a view which is certainly consistent with the view that this not the best of all possible worlds…

 

[jessica9976]

Sorry was just tryin to say “hi”. I did not mean to post all that other stuff

 

[awatkins69]

If you insist upon isolating Christ from the history and fulness of God’s revelation, perhaps. But in context, and not simply as some arbitrary miracle, if Christ rose from the dead, then He was God; and God, according to Christ, could not lie.

I do not believe that evil is a problem for God. God has defeated evil in Christ.

^Yeah. Given the fact that Scripture predicts the Messiah in the Old Testament, and that many prophecies were fulfilled, it seems reasonable to conclude that God doesn’t just act randomly. In fact, in the Scriptures we see a long plan of salvation throughout history, starting with Israel even up until today.

Also, we know from design arguments that the fine-tuning of the universe is such that it’s vastly improbable that a universe which would give rise to intelligent, moral, free, and spiritual creatures just happened by chance. We can use the same argument to argue that God didn’t just choose this universe randomly and by chance.

 

[tonyrey]

Sorry was just tryin to say “hi”. I did not mean to post all that other stuff

A warm welcome, Jessica! Many of us make mistakes to begin with… Let’s have your opinions.