The "Problem Of Evil" does not exist

[MindOverMatter]

This all sounds to me like special pleading on the part of one who is determined to believe in a morally good god.

One who seeks objective meaning, including absolute existential and moral fulfilment, will seek God, even if there is even a small possibility of Gods existence. Its the practically rational act of a living person who seeks absolute existential and moral fulfilment. In regards to your arguement concerning specail pleading, you are assuming that you can know the difference between a world that a good God would create and one that God would not. Pete rightly takes the position of agnosticism concerning Gods moral acts, because we simply do not have enough information to trully understand what it means for a God to create a morally sufficient world. While there is much suffering in the world, there is also good, and so there is a basis for beliving that perhaps God holds knowledge that we don’t, and given that God is by definition all knowing, while we are not, we have sufficient ground for supposing or placing our hope in that being true.

A world where there is no pain or suffering might be materially abundent in pleasure, but it may still be a world that will yeild the least moral maturity and spiritual good or perhaps none at all since eternal perfection and love (God) is the ultimate root of hapiness, and thus nobody can be existentially fullfiled if they do not conform their will to that which is perfect love. It is evident that the greatest moral acts of human history has been born out of a reaction to suffering.

If the greatest good (perfect eternal and moral existence) can only be achieved through suffering, then the question is whether the good is infinitely greater then the potential suffering that would or might occur given the existence of human beings. Heaven as the freely chossen end of personal existence is by definition infinitely greater then the finite suffering we will experience in this life.

 

[Oreoracle]

Yes, I agree with that. However, I also think that, in addition to this, there is the understanding that true love is chosen and not just felt.

I’m not trying to make this difficult for you, but could you explain how we “choose” to love someone? As we’ve both discovered, we don’t exactly have an agreement on what constitutes a choice. Or do you just mean that we choose to act on the feelings?

You can, I think, see why this is at least an understandable claim. Many atheists are curiously in agreement with Aristotle and Aquinas on this point. Concepts are immaterial and thus not in the brain … not in any material thing … such is the necessity something being abstract.

As I’ve said, I’m a fence-sitter on this matter.

But perhaps you know of a possible physical foundation for concepts … I would be curious to see it.

Not really. I just don’t think it would be prudent to dismiss the possibility of a physical foundation.

Before I respond to this and the other things you said about morality, what do you mean by “core values and how they cooperate?” Is this something different from emotion?

Somewhat. Emotions, in my view, are caused by the satisfaction and dissatisfaction of preferences. One begins life with certain preferences, and can gain new preferences by conditioning oneself through emotional activity (in this way, older preferences indirectly create newer ones). For example, let’s say you begin with a general value of, or preference for, life. Over the years, several of your family members and close friends die from cancer. This has spurred suffering due to the dissatisfaction of your preferences for life and your friends’ company. After the emotions rage for a while, you come to hate cancer–or, you prefer for cancer to be absent from your life.

Also, is it a good thing that human nature, as you say, imposes our ethical views on others? Or is this simply an irrational inclination of ours (though perhaps unavoidable)?

I’m not trying to sidestep the question or anything, but did you notice that you’re asking me to make an ethical claim about the nature of ethics? I think any answer I give would be circular.

Also, are you saying that sometimes rationality and truth conflict? That’s certainly something rationalists accuse Christians of believing. But are you really saying this as well? Don’t you think there is some intimate connection with rationality and truth? I see what you’re saying by your example, so I want you to clarify the relation between rationality and truth.

I think rationality involves probability. I mean that we say someone’s rational when they believe what is most likely to be true given their knowledge base. With Pascal’s Wager, however, we see a different usage of rationality entirely: it’s most rational to act (in this case, by believing) in such a way that you’ll make your life easier. Both usages seem popular, don’t you think? Unfortunately, neither necessarily involve truth.

Would you discount the possibility that God could implant knowledge into someone? Just out of curiosity.

How would he do that? As far as theistic claims go, this doesn’t seem incoherent, but I don’t know why anyone would think it’s possible to “poof” knowledge into someone else’s head. I will say that I don’t find the idea contradictory at first glance. I question whether one would be justified in believing a “revelation” though.

I have, as well, encountered some Catholics here who claim that God can contradict logic (but I think they are the minority … in my experience … fortunately). This idea, however, goes against all Church accepted Catholic theology, and was really perpetuated by Protestantism, as far as I can see (though not all Protestants believe it).

I’m glad that you aren’t part of the offending group. It’s difficult to talk with those sorts.

Did God invent the laws of logic? Depends what you mean. Logic could refer to the particular way we conceive of being (in which case, I believe, you could say logic was invented), or it could refer to the necessary way being is (in which case, God did not invent it … because “the way being is” is how “God is” … and God did not invent Himself). ** Logic, in this latter sense, is based on God’s nature.** And God’s nature is really the only thing that “limits” God.

I’ve always had a problem with the idea of God as “being.” If being is a necessary component of all that exists, and being exists, wouldn’t being require itself to exist, and that being require itself, and so on ad infinitum?

Well, I’m not sure why those phrases would imply bodily passions. One can chose to incline one’s will to bring about a team victory, and one can chose to no longer work for the maintenance of one’s life.

Certainly, but why do they choose to do that? Is the choice uncaused? Is the inclination to make the choice uncaused?

 

[Areopagite]

I’m not trying to make this difficult for you, but could you explain how we “choose” to love someone? As we’ve both discovered, we don’t exactly have an agreement on what constitutes a choice. Or do you just mean that we choose to act on the feelings?

Good question.

The view is that the will can choose to act on feelings (which could be either or a good or bad thing … depending on the situation) or it can even choose against feelings (which also could be a good or bad thing).

The understanding about what goes on in an ongoing loving relationship is this: at first a person chooses to love another because it feels good. As time progresses, the feelings start to go away (or at least are not as constant and in full force as before) at which time the will must strengthen one’s hold on the person, doing it out of “true love” (loving the person out of one’s will alone) and not so much out of the love of the feelings for that person.

I hope that sheds some light on this position.

Emotions, in my view, are caused by the satisfaction and dissatisfaction of preferences. One begins life with certain preferences, and can gain new preferences by conditioning oneself through emotional activity (in this way, older preferences indirectly create newer ones). For example, let’s say you begin with a general value of, or preference for, life. Over the years, several of your family members and close friends die from cancer. This has spurred suffering due to the dissatisfaction of your preferences for life and your friends’ company. After the emotions rage for a while, you come to hate cancer–or, you prefer for cancer to be absent from your life.

I’m still unclear what you mean by “values” (and also unclear about what you mean by “preferences”). You said emotions are caused by the satisfaction/dissatisfaction of preferences … but what are preferences? You can’t say they are a kind of emotion because then you would have to say “Emotions are caused by emotion” or something to that effect. Am I reading you right?

I’m not trying to sidestep the question or anything, but did you notice that you’re asking me to make an ethical claim about the nature of ethics? I think any answer I give would be circular.

Clever. Well, nevermind then.

I think rationality involves probability. I mean that we say someone’s rational when they believe what is most likely to be true given their knowledge base. With Pascal’s Wager, however, we see a different usage of rationality entirely: it’s most rational to act (in this case, by believing) in such a way that you’ll make your life easier. Both usages seem popular, don’t you think? Unfortunately, neither necessarily involve truth.

Interesting. I’ve never heard this objection before. I don’t know, however, if Pascal is saying that believing in God will make your life easier though. Why do you say that?

How would he do that? As far as theistic claims go, this doesn’t seem incoherent, but I don’t know why anyone would think it’s possible to “poof” knowledge into someone else’s head. I will say that I don’t find the idea contradictory at first glance. I question whether one would be justified in believing a “revelation” though.

Well, knowledge pertains to what is in your intellect, no? Why can’t God (if He exists of course) give implant the knowledge directly into your intellect without you having to discover it yourself by ordinary means?

I’ve always had a problem with the idea of God as “being.” If being is a necessary component of all that exists, and being exists, wouldn’t being require itself to exist, and that being require itself, and so on ad infinitum?

“Being” (as defined by Aristotle and Aquinas) simply means “that which can exist.” So obviously, anything that exists would be a being. It’s not that being is a component of all that exists … rather, all that exists is being.

Well, that might be very confusing. But perhaps I need another objection to understand the possible problem you see.

Certainly, but why do they choose to do that? Is the choice uncaused? Is the inclination to make the choice uncaused?

Good question. I would say that one must indeed be inclined in a direction to make a choice in that direction. However, with human nature, our inclinations can be bifurcated. One’s physical passions can lean one way, and one’s will can lean another. One’s physical passions lean toward things that the body perceives as good. And one’s will inclines toward things that the intellect perceives as good. Sometimes, both these things can desire the same thing (which is awesome … but not always happening). If there is an option to which neither one of the these inclinations lean, then that option cannot be chosen.

Now, in a case where the passions lean one way and the will another, the will can choose to go along with its rational inclination or incline itself with the passions. The things that determines which way the will goes is entirely up to the will. In that sense, it’s uncaused. However, this must be qualified. The existence of the will itself is not uncaused (because God created human wills), but the will’s ability to move this way or that is not determined by anything except the will itself.

Now, I’m almost dead certain this is what the majority of Catholic philosophers and theologians say. I may be wrong (in one small aspect or another), and if I am, I hope I am hastily corrected.

 

[Sair]

One who seeks objective meaning, including absolute existential and moral fulfilment, will seek God, even if there is even a small possibility of Gods existence. Its the practically rational act of a living person who seeks absolute existential and moral fulfilment.

I think I understand where you’re coming from, but your argument appears to depend upon equating existential and moral fulfilment with a being of the nature of God - I’m not sure I see how that follows. Surely existential and moral fulfilment, as the basis for true happiness, are ends to be sought for their own sake. You may, of course, choose to seek such things through religious belief, but that is surely a choice, not a necessity.

In regards to your arguement concerning specail pleading, you are assuming that you can know the difference between a world that a good God would create and one that God would not. Pete rightly takes the position of agnosticism concerning Gods moral acts, because we simply do not have enough information to trully understand what it means for a God to create a morally sufficient world. While there is much suffering in the world, there is also good, and so there is a basis for beliving that perhaps God holds knowledge that we don’t, and given that God is by definition all knowing, while we are not, we have sufficient ground for supposing or placing our hope in that being true.

The reason it seems like special pleading - to me, at least - is that whether or not your god is morally good seems largely irrelevant to our experience of the world. Suffering and evil exist in abundance, whether there is a god permitting them or not. Happiness and goodness clearly exist as well, and are worth striving towards for their own sake, regardless of whether a god is responsible for them or otherwise. I’m not sure I’m explaining myself adequately here, but I’ll try to come to the point - the thing is, in order to believe in a morally good god, it is necessary to infer that he (for the want of an appropriately gender-neutral pronoun) is acting from knowledge and motives beyond our comprehension. Either that, or that at least one of the ‘omni’s’ is lacking. It’s not so much special pleading for the goodness of god, but special pleading for the existence of god. Clearly, if we are unable to know god’s motives - and this god certainly hasn’t been forthcoming with an explanation - whence our need to believe that said god exists and is relevant to our lives? Good and evil will continue to exist in the world regardless, and we will still have to deal with them and act in accordance with our own best knowledge and perception. Once again, grafting a god onto this picture is a matter of choice, not necessity.

A world where there is no pain or suffering might be materially abundent in pleasure, but it may still be a world that will yeild the least moral maturity and spiritual good or perhaps none at all since eternal perfection and love (God) is the ultimate root of hapiness, and thus nobody can be existentially fullfiled if they do not conform their will to that which is perfect love. It is evident that the greatest moral acts of human history has been born out of a reaction to suffering.

If the greatest good (perfect eternal and moral existence) can only be achieved through suffering, then the question is whether the good is infinitely greater then the potential suffering that would or might occur given the existence of human beings. Heaven as the freely chossen end of personal existence is by definition infinitely greater then the finite suffering we will experience in this life.

I think part of the reason that so many acts of goodness are born out of suffering (although I would not go so far as to say that suffering is necessary for the achievement of goodness) is because, first of all, we understand suffering, on a fundamental level, to be something to overcome, and prevent if possible. It is in overcoming suffering - something we comprehend to be bad - that we achieve something we comprehend to be good - the relief or absence of suffering. The goodness becomes more apparent in the contrast. Secondly, overcoming suffering is an empowering experience - through it, we learn to recognise our strengths, we come to understand that we can cope with bad things, and we reduce our fear. Once again, I don’t see where it is necessary to infer the existence of a god, or indeed of an afterlife, in order to achieve a net positive through the existence of suffering.

 

[Oreoracle]

You are assuming all human behaviour is explicable naturalistically. How would you prove that?

Actually, you are the one making the claim by saying that torture is unnatural. The burden of proof is on you.

If we all avoid suffering by default it is an objective natural evil.

No. You are saying, “We avoid suffering, therefore suffering should be avoided.” The conclusion does not follow from the premise. You can’t derive an ought from an is. Now you could say, “Well, whatever we wish to avoid is evil” but that is a meta-ethical claim that cannot be proven. It can’t be proven because ethics are still prescriptive and not descriptive in their nature.

Suffering is evil because it interferes with the ability to lead a normal life, e.g. the pain caused by the accidental or deliberate fracture of a limb.

You’re tying yourself into knots here. First you said that suffering is caused by unsuccessful lifestyles, and now you’re saying that suffering causes unsuccessful lifestyles. Which is it?

Hatred, scorn and enmity prevent human beings living in peace, security and harmony which are essential for developing our full potential for physical, intellectual, scientific and personal development.

Why should we assume that peace, security, harmony, and the development they cultivate are natural ends? How do you tell? Maybe someone thinks that our potential can only be realized by destructive competition. How would you prove your end is natural and theirs isn’t?

It becomes an objective physical fact.

You’ve misunderstood. There is a fine difference between “Tony feels that killing is wrong” and “killing is wrong.” One is factual, the other is not. The latter is rather a vain attempt to objectify a sentiment. Acknowledging the existence of a sentiment isn’t the same as holding the gist of the sentiment as fact.

You regard a feeling or choice as subjective but, being a physicalist, you also regard it as an objective fact.

I’m not a physicalist. I’ve told you that multiple times, in fact. Maybe I should call you a Satanist every time you call me that. It would make just as much sense.

But you believe even altruism is ultimately egoistic… that we are dominated by the desire for our own satisfaction and happiness…

Bingo! What’s the problem? That view isn’t as depressing as you might think. I would rather someone help me because they enjoy helping me than because it’s the right thing thing to do according to some metaphysical Natural Law. One involves genuine caring, the other mere obedience.

The key phrase is “For most people”… Life is not only good insofar as it leads to happiness but because it leads to other activities which are intrinsically valuable but not always productive of happiness. The discovery of the truth often makes us sad but it is more valuable than living in ignorance… than being in a fool’s paradise…

We seek truth mostly because it makes life easier (think of the inventions that follow from knowledge). Occasionally we do so to appease our curiosity. Either way, we’re pleasing ourselves. And I don’t see anything inherently wrong, valueless, or distasteful about living in a fool’s paradise, as you call it. Some people quite simply cannot handle the truth and need to hear comforting lies just to get through the day. Sometimes the lies are harmless, sometimes they aren’t.

Do you really believe hatred is the true natural end? How do you reconcile it with your belief that human beings have evolved to feel empathy? It is also ironic that you ask me that question when you believe happiness is the sole good!

The question was hypothetical and not a belief of mine. I don’t believe in natural ends. When a leaf falls from a tree, I see no reason to assume that nature intended it. It would be arrogant to think differently regarding my own eventual fall. Natural Law is just another product of the human ego stroking itself.

Communicating is always valuable even when it is used to deceive others. Telling the truth may be the greater of two evils but it does not follow that communicating is normally valueless. You are constantly citing exceptional cases in a vain attempt to evade the truth…

The exceptions to a rule effectively disprove the rule. You aren’t espousing the truth, just generalizations.

Is the success of science an arbitrary idea? Is the success of science based on true or false beliefs?

What do you mean by “success” in this usage? You seem to switch definitions constantly.

In your scheme of things when the act of loyalty leads to death the “process” is not continued nor is there “ample happiness”…

Well, there are two possibilities: a) the person didn’t know they were going to die or b) they didn’t want to live knowing they had failed to remain loyal. If you look only at happiness, and not suffering (or vice-versa), you’re only looking at half of the equation.

 

[Oreoracle]

While it may be dishonest to claim that one has certain knowledge of Gods goodness; this arguement doesn’t apply in regards to having faith in Gods goodness since we do not know that God does not have good reasons for permiting evil, especailly if one has other good reasons for beliving in the existence of God. For an atheist to suggest that we do know that God doesn’t have good reasons, only goes to show the poor degree of thinking that some people are willing to employ.

And for us to think that 45-year old man had no good reason to beat and rape his 6-year old daughter…I mean honestly!! How presumptuous we can be! If we don’t know every detail of the circumstances, we’re obviously in no position to judge, right? I mean, it seems like the father could have handled the situation differently, but who are we, the fallible mortals, to judge?

How does the old saying go again? If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and tastes like a duck, it’s probably a duck.

And yet they don’t seem to think that potential suffering is a problem when they participate in the creation of more people Like you; instead they are boastful of their rationality but have little to show for it. Perhaps a world of potential suffering is the only world in which the greatest good can be achieved. That you have no value for faith is not proof that it ought not to be valued.

If God is omnipotent, then he can achieve this greater good you cling to by snapping his fingers. If he must produce unwanted results in the process, he isn’t omnipotent. If he doesn’t care, then he isn’t good. I don’t know how to make it any more simple than it is.

 

[Fran65]

Regarding judgement of what seems obvious - you give the example of the father commiting a terrible evil. The act was evil - but it is still possible to question culpability.

There was a case in the US in 1966 of Charles Whitman who went on a murderous rampage, murdered his mother,his wife and shot and killed 14, and injured 38. Post mortem he was found to have a massive tumour on his amygdala. He had sought help in the years leading up to the murders for his aggresive fantasies and urges and been offered counselling. No amount of talk therapy or social support could override the irrestible drive originating from his damaged amygdala. The amygdala can override the neocortex - effectively rendering the individual helpless in the face of murderous rage and terrifying urges.

brainmind.com/Amygdala44.html

But still people looked at the case and blamed him. He was a victim of the tumour - which does not detract from the suffering of his victims or from the intrinsic evil of the act.

Sometimes things that look and sound like ducks turn out to be geese.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Your finite example really doesn’t compare with an infinite example, does it? If we can jump from “there are a lot of X” to “there are infinite X” then we’re setting ourselves up for some wild inductions. We can become reasonably certain that something is the case and use an induction, but we never get close to infinity, so we can’t be reasonably certain.

A: There are a lot of particles that obey the laws of physics, in fact every one we’ve analyzed.
B: All particles obey the laws of physics.

Is this a valid inference? I think so, although it certainly could be wrong. But you say:

Any display God could provide us would only be a finite sample of any given infinite quality, and as I’m sure you know, no amount of finite units will ever add up to infinity. Saying that God must be infinitely powerful because he performed miracles would be like saying there must be an infinite number of leaves in a forest because, frankly, we don’t have the time to count them.

We don’t have time to examine every particle, either. Can we not draw conclusions about them?

(The leaves in the forest analogy doesn’t work because it gives us no reason to believe that for every x number of leaves, there will be an x+1 number of leaves. We inductively know that to be untrue, through other means. But we have no inductive reasons to suspect that there will not be an x+1 for every x, when we look at either laws of physics or miracles.)

Well, you would know some of God’s properties. If he had a conversation with you, you would know he is intelligent. The point is that you would only have a finite understanding of his properties; we can’t comprehend infinity, therefore we can’t know infinity.

I wasn’t talking about comprehension. That’s why we use the term “induction” to refer to inferences. We cannot comprehend the full effects of the earth’s magnetic field on objects, but we can infer the magnetic field exists.

Like what?

Isn’t that putting the cart before the horse? If you will agree that there is a possible body of evidence, E1, that would justify a person in believing in God, then we can dialectically consider what such a body of evidence would look like. Do you agree to those terms, or are you committed to the idea that even if God exists, He would not even have the power to let us know about Him? (Sounds like an awfully impotent omnipotent being to me!)

 

[MindOverMatter]

And for us to think that 45-year old man had no good reason to beat and rape his 6-year old daughter…I mean honestly!!

This is the fundemental problem with your understanding of the current issue; you either refuse or fail to realise that the above context is infinetly different from the context of an objectively perfect reality creating free personal entities. We know that the old man has no good reason for raping his six year old duaghter. The same is not true for God. If the greatest good is as such that the only way humanity can exist and have the objective infinite goodness of heaven is for them to have the freedom to make there own moral choices with out Gods direct interference, then God is justified in creating human beings and permiting evil because he is the greatest good for humanbeings. If you value humanity then you will give them the greatest good, regardless of the potential suffering that might result. Non-existence is not the greatest good, partly because its not real and thus cannot be called good because objective truth exists only in being, and fundementally because being itself is objectively good according to the Christian conception of God and objective moral truth. God is perfect Love, and love by definition cannot force its direct will on a personal being that exists. Perfect existence is good, God is perfect existence. Thus it cannot be imperfect to bring a being into imperfect circumstances so long as the existential end of such a being is the freedom to become united with the perfect goodness of God. However God can influence events to the extent that the greatest justice will be achieved.

How presumptuous we can be!.

You are very presumptions and you desire the negative, which is the reason why you cannot see your error. The fact is you don’t know that God doesn’t have good reasons for creating human beings with the freedom to do evil, and neither do you have any knowledge that would justify the assertion that there is no posibility for good reasons; and that is simply because you cannot know what it is to be a perfect being that creates a universe of personal beings, since you are not God. Thus, outside of devine revelation you do not know what is ultimately best for humans, even though you might know what is good for you in a particular situation when considering human relationships which are within your range of knowledge and experience.

It is true, however, that you have some idea of what is morally correct and whats morally incorrect; but it doesn’t follow that you have all knowledge regarding all contextual situations in respect of moral choices. Different situations demand different considerations. For example, in most instances it is wrong to kill. But there is another instance where the act of killing is not murder, but justified self defence. In which case no wrong has been done, because the context in which the death has taken place is different from the context of somebody taking life for selfish reasons. Pain and Suffering in themselves are not neccesarily immoral. Inorder for such things to become immoral, the pain and suffering in qeustion has to be cuased by selfish motives, or the negativity of an effect has to out weigh the good of the end to which it acts. If potential suffering brings into being the possibility of a great good that cannot be avoided or substituted for lesser end, then there is good reason to seek the greater good, for to do otherwise would be to seek that which is not good.

 

[MindOverMatter]

If we don’t know every detail of the circumstances, we’re obviously in no position to judge, right? I mean, it seems like the father could have handled the situation differently, but who are we, the fallible mortals, to judge?.

But we know the existential context in which the choice is being made, and we know that within that particular context the act itself is immoral. In fact we know that there is no context in which rape would be good, because we fully understand what it means to rape somebody. But we cannot presume to know what it means for God to permit evil just because of the mere fact that we know what it means for a “created man” to permit evil; since God may very well undertand that in order for all men to come to him freely, evil must permited. An act is good because the ultimate existential end to which it acts is Good. If God is the ultimate end, then God has reason for permiting evil. The point is, you do not know or have a full understanding of the existential context of Gods choices since you are not God. They may very well be knowledge that God has that you don’t. Given that God is the ultimate reality, i don’t think it to be unreasonable to consider that possibility.

How does the old saying go again? If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and tastes like a duck, it’s probably a duck…

Well, if thats the degree of critical thinking you use, then its not suprising that you find it difficult grasp such a simple thing as context and justifiable knowledge. Your arguementative abilities are very simple indeed!

If God is omnipotent, then he can achieve this greater good you cling to by snapping his fingers. .

You continue to expose your ignorance about God, but i don’t think you care. Your so called refutation is based upon a common strawman conception of what it means for God to be omnipotent. A mature philosopher was trully interested in the facts would have left that starwman behind a long time ago.

God cannot do the metaphysically impossible and it has never been implied by any inteligent Christian that God could do such a thing. Given that the logically impossible doesn’t exist and has no meaning, it cannot be said that God is limited by being restricting to what is metaphysically true of Gods being, since perfect existence is fundemetally logical in the fact that it absolutely opposes nothingness/non-reality. Therefore the ultimate reality of all things is absolute and expresses only that which is metaphysically possible. God is all powerful, in so far as he is the source of all power and has all the power that is true of a perfect existence. Anything that is not true of a perfect existence is a limitation and is thus not a limiting factor regarding what God can do and what he can’t do. God can do all things that are perfect. Creating beings who have the freedom to do Gods will, which is to love perfectly, is a perfect act. The fact that you don’t like it, given the fact that your only concern in life is to exploit the senses for your own self glory, is telling of truth that you have dislikes, but it has no bearing on the objective truth of Gods perfection.

I am sorry that you find it so hard to understand; i am trying to be as clear as possible. But you are still young. Give your mind some time to develop. Don’t be so arrogant and sure that you know the truth of something just because it looks like a duck.
It is already evident to me that you don’t even know what the Christian God is, let alone whether or not God would permit evil.

If he must produce unwanted results in the process, he isn’t omnipotent. If he doesn’t care, then he isn’t good. I don’t know how to make it any more simple than it is.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I think I understand where you’re coming from, but your argument appears to depend upon equating existential and moral fulfilment with a being of the nature of God - I’m not sure I see how that follows. Surely existential and moral fulfilment, as the basis for true happiness, are ends to be sought for their own sake. .

Human beings are created to be existentially fullfiled by the good. The end of that which is good is that which fundementally fullfills us as persons. Thus there is no difference in seeking the good, and seeking that which will fundemetally fullfils you as an existential person. If you didn’t desire existential fullfiment as a person, there would something wrong with you or you would be acting immorally. We seek the good, because it is good, and we know its good because it is that which ultimately leads to our fullfilment. A good that does not lead to an end that is ultimately good and fullfiling of that which is good, i.e the moral and existential fullfilment of a living person, is not really the greatest good. There is no such thing as an objective good that does not ultimately fullfil that which acts in its favor of it since the gretest expression of love is eternal heaven. Therefore there is nothing wrong in seeking a good for its own sake and seeking existential fullfilment at the same time since these are both goods in themselves; they stem from the same concept.

We have been created to desire the good. But we are also free to choose between our own self glory or the glory of God. Those who seek there own glory act against love, and do not share the good of existence. Those who live to serve love, no matter the sacrifice, are seeking good for its own sake, and are thus existentially and ultimatly fullfiled by it. But a good that came at the sacrifice of man fullfiment is no good at all.

Good has no objective meaning outside of the existence of God and mans existential fulfilment.

So to seek a good that does not ultimatley fullfil you as a person is not trully good. We seek the good because its nature is good, and its nature cannot be seprated from its existentially fullfiling qualities because to be existentially fullfilied is to be united with the eternal will of that which is ultimatley good, and it is this good that man ought to desire.

The reason it seems like special pleading - to me, at least - is that whether or not your god is morally good seems largely irrelevant to our experience of the world. .

It is relevant, because men and women believe they have come in to contact with that which is objectively and existetially good, whether that be through devine revelation of their experience of moral choice. This reality that we percieve as objectively good has the potentility to fullfill us existentially as persons. Given this fact, Gods existence is very important to anybody that takes life seriously. Anybody that doesn’t take the question of God seriously is either somebody whom tends to take life for granted or is somebody whom believes that a greater good is to be found in ones own existential glory and they percieve the concept of God as a threat to what they’ve decided to be the greatest good, since to serve God is to sacrifice ones own self created ends.

We have all expereinced a sense of moral truth. We expereince good as much as we expereince guilt when we believe that we have done wrong or harm to a living person. That we ever concieved of the problem of evil is testement to the fact that we experience things that we feel ought not to happen to a personal being, not just in opinion, but in objective truth. We feel this to be objectively true, and this much we gain from our exprience of being personal. But if there is trully such a thing as the objective good, then there is truly such a thing as the objective standard of good. Thus there is reason to question if there is really a problem of evil, and whether we trully have a ligitimate frame of reference from which we can honeslty consider the evidence and make judgements.

Plus the usual arguements that are made against Gods existence or goodness, i have found to be fundmentally ignorant of what God is.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Suffering and evil exist in abundance, whether there is a god permitting them or not. Happiness and goodness clearly exist as well, and are worth striving towards for their own sake, regardless of whether a god is responsible for them or otherwise. I’m not sure I’m explaining myself adequately here, but I’ll try to come to the point - the thing is, in order to believe in a morally good god, it is necessary to infer that he (for the want of an appropriately gender-neutral pronoun) is acting from knowledge and motives beyond our comprehension.

Either that, or that at least one of the ‘omni’s’ is lacking. It’s not so much special pleading for the goodness of god, but special pleading for the existence of god. Clearly, if we are unable to know god’s motives - and this god certainly hasn’t been forthcoming with an explanation - whence our need to believe that said god exists and is relevant to our lives?.

You are saying that if Gods motive does not fall within what you can comprehend then there is no reason to think that God exists. But you are assuming that what you can comprehend is the basis for thinking that God doesn’t exist. In principle, whether we know of an answer to the problem of evil or not, I don’t think its unreasonable to assume that the creator of all things has an understanding that transcends humanities ability to comprehend. Thats not to say we cannot comprehend somethings about God, but that doesn’t mean we can comprehend everything, and there is no reason to think that we can.

I think part of the reason that so many acts of goodness are born out of suffering (although I would not go so far as to say that suffering is necessary for the achievement of goodness) is because, first of all, we understand suffering, on a fundamental level, to be something to overcome, and prevent if possible. It is in overcoming suffering - something we comprehend to be bad - that we achieve something we comprehend to be good - the relief or absence of suffering. The goodness becomes more apparent in the contrast. Secondly, overcoming suffering is an empowering experience - through it, we learn to recognise our strengths, we come to understand that we can cope with bad things, and we reduce our fear. Once again, I don’t see where it is necessary to infer the existence of a god.

I never said that one need to infer the existence of God. I said that there is no neccesary contradiction between the existence of evil and the existence of a perfectly good God, so long as the potential experience of natural suffering and pain is a neccesary requisite for the maturity and moral development of human beings. Also with moral evil, perhaps humanity would not exist at all if God did not permit moral evil, since love cannot force its will on human beings. If the natural end of existence is eternal hapiness, then this out weighs any potential evil that may occur, because God knows that eternal hapiness is better then non-existence. God might permit a great evil if God sees that it will lead to a greater good. If human beings refuse to or can’t learn according to Gods way, there has to be other means by which they will learn. For instance we value life because we witness death, disease and the fragility of human existence. We desire perfection because we experience imperfection. We desire knowledge and truth because we see the error of ignorance etc. Out of these expereinces human beings aquire a natural knowlege of some moral vitures, while still maintaining a degree of freedom to decide whether or not they wish to act on those vitures.

With out the problem of natural pain and suffering, perhaps there would be no good in human beings or at least, not to the degree that we have now, and a perfect being will neccesarily act for the greatest possible good.

 

[Oreoracle]

I am not sure that you understand the point of the arguement. There is such a thing as “practical reason”. For instance, when it comes to epistomological certitude, it might be logical to discount the existence of an objective universe because you cannot prove that it exists emprically outside of your head, but it is not a product of “practical rationality” to do so. It would be irrational to jump to your death if in fact you want to live. It is practically irrational not to seek that which fullfils your existence.

Firstly, I would love to hear your definition of “rational.” It’s probably one of the most abused words in the English language.

Secondly, believing in God has not fulfilled me in the past. Indeed, there was a time when I desperately wanted to believe, but I couldn’t ignore the absurdity of “having faith.” My mind eventually ejected the belief in God of its own accord. It took my longer to acclimate to atheism, of course–one doesn’t just wake up and say, “Well, I don’t believe in God anymore!” It’s a gradual process, filled with emotional turmoil. To me, this emotional devastation was caused mostly by the realization that this was probably the only life I would ever live…I wasn’t going to Heaven or even Hell after death. Only nothingness awaits, and that’s a scary prospect to consider, much less come to terms with. The thought that your identity, your feelings, your achievements, and even your own memories of such would instantly vanish as if they never happened is mortifying, though theists insist that it must be more comforting than considering going to hell or whatever brand of torture chamber they believe in. I assure you that they are mistaken.

The qeustion of God is not just a question of proving that some enitity exists. The question of Gods existence is a question of human fullfilment in regards to life and death, purpose and meaning.

 

[Sair]

You are saying that if Gods motive does not fall within what you can comprehend then there is no reason to think that God exists. But you are assuming that what you can comprehend is the basis for thinking that God doesn’t exist. In principle, whether we know of an answer to the problem of evil or not, I don’t think its unreasonable to assume that the creator of all things has an understanding that transcends humanities ability to comprehend. Thats not to say we cannot comprehend somethings about God, but that doesn’t mean we can comprehend everything, and there is no reason to think that we can.

Actually, what I’m saying is that if God’s motives don’t fall within human comprehension, there is no reason to care whether a god exists or not. Since human comprehension is, by definition, the only means we humans have of understanding this world, we can choose to accept that the world is the way it is just because it is that way, or we can choose to think that there is a god pulling the strings who made the world the way it is because that was the best world that could be made - I don’t see that this choice makes any difference at all to the way the world is. We still have only our human comprehension with which to understand and deal with it, god or no god.

In fact, I would be inclined to agree with Warpspeedpetey that there actually is no problem of evil, because thinking that there is such requires the belief in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent god. It’s hardly surprising that human reason finds this a hard concept to swallow, given the suffering and evil present in the world. However, the presence of evil and suffering are much easier to comprehend and deal with if you take god out of the equation, and stop supposing that it’s somehow god’s will that his creations should suffer.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Firstly, I would love to hear your definition of “rational.” It’s probably one of the most abused words in the English language…

There are different kinds of reasoning for different kinds of investigation; all of them imploy logic. That you are not aware of it, is not my problem. I have given you an oppertunity to see it; and that is enough.

Secondly, believing in God has not fulfilled me in the past.

Indeed, there was a time when I desperately wanted to believe, but I couldn’t ignore the absurdity of “having faith.”.

Given you current posts, i strongly suggest that you get a proper understanding of what the faith actually teaches and not the propaganda fallacies that you like indulging in.

My mind eventually ejected the belief in God of its own accord…

I suspect that it was of your own desire since nothing you say makes me think that you have good reasons to doubt, since most of everything you say is reliant upon false premise. When an atheist is pushed to a point where they have to deny the existence of objective logic, objective morality and also believe that there can be such a thing as an objective nothing just so that you can get out of a valid arguement then that quite simply a desperate atheist. Your fooling nobody but yourself lad.

It took my longer to acclimate to atheism, of course–one doesn’t just wake up and say, “Well, I don’t believe in God anymore!” It’s a gradual process, filled with emotional turmoil. To me, this emotional devastation was caused mostly by the realization that this was probably the only life I would ever live…I wasn’t going to Heaven or even Hell after death. Only nothingness awaits, and that’s a scary prospect to consider, much less come to terms with. The thought that your identity, your feelings, your achievements, and even your own memories of such would instantly vanish as if they never happened is mortifying, though theists insist that it must be more comforting than considering going to hell or whatever brand of torture chamber they believe in. I assure you that they are mistaken…

Nice story but not very convincing. What have i learned beside the fact that you are a very negative person.

To you, maybe. Not everyone feels the same way. That’s one of the perks (and difficulties) of being an individual: your feelings are your own. Don’t try to speak for others…

I know people

Tell me: Do you believe that ghosts exist? I’m speaking specifically of poltergeists. When a family insists that they really saw a ghost in their house, that it really threw a knife at them across the kitchen, and that it is really following them, do you believe them? If not, how is the resurrection story any more credible? In both cases, we have a few eyewitnesses who claim to have seen a supernatural event. The fact that one testimony caused a religion to form is irrelevant.

There is a huge qualitative difference of the events involved. Somebody doing miracles and rising from the dead as a confirmation of his devine identity is a huge difference from seeing a knife fly across the room. But if making false comparisons makes it easier for you to be an atheist, then so be it; its your life. I just hope that those who really need God are not decieved by your fallacious arguements.

 

[Oreoracle]

There are different kinds of reasoning for different kinds of investigation; all of them imploy logic.

We weren’t talking about reasoning. We were talking about rationality, and as I’ve said, the term is among the most abused in our language. We say that it’s “rational” to invest in certain businesses, that it’s “rational” to accept certain standards of evidence, that it’s “rational” to regard some people with a certain degree of suspicion, that it’s “rational” to make certain moral decisions, that it’s “rational” to fear certain things, and that it’s “rational” to love certain people. Each item in this broad range of uses has an “irrational” counterpart as well. Most of these contexts use “rational” subjectively, as there is obviously no objective way to determine morals, what should be feared, what you should be suspicious of, whom you should love, etc. I want to see you devise some sort of definition of “rationality” that covers all of these bases. Until then, I would prefer that you cut the nonsense from future posts that are directed toward me. Save your empty phrases like “practical reason” for the gullible.

That you are not aware of it, is not my problem. I have given you an oppertunity to see it; and that is enough.

One of the most annoying habits of the faithful is their tendency to speak for others of similar faiths. You act like you’re speaking for all Christians, and that I’ve misunderstood the positions of others, but you fail to realize that there are nearly as many versions of Christianity as there are Christians. This isn’t surprising, of course. Whenever faith is made tantamount to actual evidence, the sky’s the limit! There are no boundaries when we allow others to believe whatever they want about reality and adhere to destructive morals all because a lot of people happen to believe some supernatural tales from 2000 years ago.

Imagine, for a moment, how society would view Christians if they had only a few thousand members. They would be dismissed by most simply because the argument from popularity wouldn’t apply. The particularly Evangelical denominations would be written off as cults, and no one, save for a few loyal members, would lend an ear to their frenzied ravings of hellfire and brimstone. Face it: Christianity’s “credibility” is based off the number of Christians. New people join because of the large numbers, the numbers grow, and others join for the very same reason. Religion is like a leviathan; as it sucks things up, it gets bigger, and as it gets bigger, it can suck things up more quickly. But in the end, the popularity of an idea means nothing, and history has proven that numerous times.

Nice story but not very convincing. What have i learned beside the fact that you are a very negative person.

What does being negative have to do with it?

I know people

So do I. Not everyone feels the same way you do. Christianity isn’t one-size-fits-all.

There is a huge qualitative difference of the events involved. Somebody doing miracles and rising from the dead as a confirmation of his devine identity is a huge difference from seeing a knife fly across the room. But if making false comparisons makes it easier for you to be an atheist, then so be it; its your life.

Then I can just make the poltergeist story seem more impressive by adding dramatic details of inexplicable events. It changes nothing. Would you believe it, or would you not?

You act as though I have to struggle to be an atheist. That’s cute. You always manage to make the most ironic statements. Trust me, I would believe in God if I could. Your refusal to believe that others can genuinely disagree without some sort of ulterior motive shows your narcissism. Yep, humanity’s collective consciousness revolves around your perspective. Keep dreaming.

I just hope that those who really need God are not decieved by your fallacious arguements.

If someone truly needs to believe in God to get through the day, they won’t be persuaded by me. You don’t have to worry about that. Emotions rule in the end, after all.

 

[Oreoracle]

But we know the existential context in which the choice is being made, and we know that within that particular context the act itself is immoral. In fact we know that there is no context in which rape would be good, because we fully understand what it means to rape somebody.

You know no such thing–not according to your standards, at least. The father could have been disciplining his daughter the only way he could: by the brutal humiliation resulting from rape. This could have easily served a greater good in the Christian mindset. Humility is a virtue, is it not? And honoring one’s parents is a Commandment. Plenty of good could have resulted from the rape depending on your interpretation of God’s puzzling morality.

Given that God is the ultimate reality, i don’t think it to be unreasonable to consider that possibility.

 

[Sair]

It is relevant, because men and women believe they have come in to contact with that which is objectively and existetially good, whether that be through devine revelation of their experience of moral choice. This reality that we percieve as objectively good has the potentility to fullfill us existentially as persons. Given this fact, Gods existence is very important to anybody that takes life seriously. Anybody that doesn’t take the question of God seriously is either somebody whom tends to take life for granted or is somebody whom believes that a greater good is to be found in ones own existential glory and they percieve the concept of God as a threat to what they’ve decided to be the greatest good, since to serve God is to sacrifice ones own self created ends.

We have all expereinced a sense of moral truth. We expereince good as much as we expereince guilt when we believe that we have done wrong or harm to a living person. That we ever concieved of the problem of evil is testement to the fact that we experience things that we feel ought not to happen to a personal being, not just in opinion, but in objective truth. We feel this to be objectively true, and this much we gain from our exprience of being personal. But if there is trully such a thing as the objective good, then there is truly such a thing as the objective standard of good. Thus there is reason to question if there is really a problem of evil, and whether we trully have a ligitimate frame of reference from which we can honeslty consider the evidence and make judgements.

The search for what theists often refer to as an ‘objective’ good is the search for meaning beyond human parameters - in other words, the search for a transcendent entity that knows us better than we know ourselves. It actually seems to me to be a convenient moral cop-out to say that evil happens because there’s a god who has some ‘higher’ purpose - it absolves us from the need to do anything to make the world a better place for ourselves and each other.

The fact that we are able to perceive what we understand to be ‘good’ is a function of our existence as rational beings with the capacity for self-awareness and abstract thought. We are able to imagine, and thus to empathise - to imagine ourselves in another’s place - and make inferences about whether what appears good to us also appears good to others. That, I believe, is a more solid foundation for understanding ‘goodness’ than deferring to a superhuman god whose motives and feelings are beyond our understanding.

Ultimately, our human frame of reference is all we have when it comes to understanding what we perceive to be good and evil - to deny us that frame of reference or to dismiss it as ineffective is, to paraphrase your signature, truly insane.

 

[tonyrey]

The fact that we are able to perceive what we understand to be ‘good’ is a function of our existence as rational beings with the capacity for self-awareness and abstract thought. We are able to imagine, and thus to empathise - to imagine ourselves in another’s place - and make inferences about whether what appears good to us also appears good to others. That, I believe, is a more solid foundation for understanding ‘goodness’ than deferring to a superhuman god whose motives and feelings are beyond our understanding.

How do you explain the fact that we exist as rational beings with the capacity for self-awareness and abstract thought? Is the existence of rational beings good, evil - or neither good nor evil?

 

[Sair]

How do you explain the fact that we exist as rational beings with the capacity for self-awareness and abstract thought? Is the existence of rational beings good, evil - or neither good nor evil?

Our existence as rational beings is the result of evolution - which is in itself the result of local laws obeyed on the microcosmic level.

The capacity for self-awareness and abstract thought are a product of our evolved brains, which are in their turn a product of physical local laws, obeyed on a microcosmic level, giving rise to change on a macrocosmic level.

That pretty much exhausts my capacity for anything approaching a scientific explanation. However, my point still holds - if morality can be understood as a product of our biological evolution, where is the need for a supernatural cause?

Take the example of two individuals, one a Christian and one an atheist. Both choose to follow what they believe to be an ethically sound system of doing unto others as they would have done to themselves; the primary difference is what they believe to be the source of their morality. What do you theists expect to be the qualitative difference in their actions?