The "Problem Of Evil" does not exist

[Sair]

All you have pointed out is the weakness in the “straw-men” that you continue to invent and attribute to the Christian God.

Why is omnipotence a straw man? Is not one of the defining characteristics of the Christian God supposed to be omnipotence? Or are we now quibbling over the meaning of ‘all-powerful’?

In reality, you have little understanding of God. You have come to the debate with false preconceptions that has nothing to do with God. But is your pride going to let you admit that?

Again you assume features of a poster’s personality that you have no way of actually knowing. You seem to be building your own straw men here.

And getting back to the OP, if I recall correctly, Warpspeedpetey’s contention was that there is no problem of evil because none of us have sufficient understanding of God to know his motives.

 

[Oreoracle]

I think the real problem is people getting stuck on the idea that God, in order to be kind, should be illogical. That is a very liberal and feminine idea (and is largely why it was Eve who was tempted).

There’s a reason why the tendency to nurture is considered feminine while the tendency to destroy is considered masculine. Knowing your tactics, you’ll likely call me a homosexual for siding with my feminine side on this one.

And while I’m not liberal, I do acknowledge the fact that anything I say on a site filled with conservatives will appear to be liberal. But despite what conservatives think, tradition doesn’t trump truth or exempt an issue from scrutiny.

If an all powerful god creates an entire universe and within it there is life, that life must necessarily experience evil.

…Unless God simply changes what it means to live. For someone who believes in God and the Creation account, you have little imagination.

For one, God could eliminate physical pain entirely by changing the physical world. Do you agree with that much? I see no reason why he can’t change our psychology as well.

This is true simply because by having anything trying in one direction, the opposite direction must exist and present some resistance. Such is not a matter of choice. It is a logical necessity. Logic is the realm of God’s rules.

You’re comparing apples and oranges: biological/psychological conditions aren’t comparable to logical laws. This is just another one of your rationalizations (oddly enough, rationalizations aren’t rational in their nature, by the way).

People presume that it would be nicer if God would go fix everything without them having to do it or suffer for not doing it. That alternative leaves people as nothing but robots not even capable of reproducing.

The negative connotations aside, what’s the problem with that? Happiness trumps freedom. After all, if the idea of being free didn’t make you happy, you wouldn’t care.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Why is omnipotence a straw man? Is not one of the defining characteristics of the Christian God supposed to be omnipotence? Or are we now quibbling over the meaning of ‘all-powerful’?

That isn’t just quibbling. It is the entire issue.

Again you assume features of a poster’s personality that you have no way of actually knowing.

You can know to a degree simply by understanding a little logic and knowing that God is logical in all things.

The bottom line is still that if people cannot feel pain or suffer, logically, they will surely die because they have no means to detect harm from good. If God is going to step in and fix things every time, then how would people ever learn how to take care of themselves?

 

[James_S_Saint]

There’s a reason why the tendency to nurture is considered feminine while the tendency to destroy is considered masculine.

Actually you have that wrong too. Destruction is attributed to the feminine and something they have recently boasted about, “Anything a man can build, we can destroy”.

The masculine is about construction, building the framework, after which the feminine decorates (and eventually corrupts due to not seeing the need for what the masculine put in place).

 

[Oreoracle]

If God is going to step in and fix things every time, then how would people ever learn how to take care of themselves?

That’s rather the point: People wouldn’t need to take care of themselves. You still haven’t told us why you feel that consequence is such a terrible one. Frankly, if I had children, I would prefer that they never have difficulties in life. If I could prevent them from having to struggle by force of will alone, I would do that. There’s no need for growing up if the parent never dies, as with an eternal god.

 

[Oreoracle]

Actually you have that wrong too. Destruction is attributed to the feminine and something they have recently boasted about, “Anything a man can build, we can destroy”.

I was speaking of older models such as the “yin and yang” framework. You’re talking about New Age feminism.

The masculine is about construction, building the framework, after which the feminine decorates (and eventually corrupts due to not seeing the need for what the masculine put in place).

And you’re sexist too. Big surprise.

 

[James_S_Saint]

That’s rather the point: People wouldn’t need to take care of themselves. You still haven’t told us why you feel that consequence is such a terrible one. Frankly, if I had children, I would prefer that they never have difficulties in life. If I could prevent them from having to struggle by force of will alone, I would do that. There’s no need for growing up if the parent never dies, as with an eternal god.

IF humans were all knowing, then your scenario could work. The problem is that they can’t be. They are limited and thus must go through a process of learning. But to learn, they must be able to see and understand consequences. If the human didn’t have to do that, you would never have children in the first place. What need would they serve?

 

[James_S_Saint]

And you’re sexist too. Big surprise.

Take care. I am talking about the attributes of masculine and feminine. Don’t get into your hate speech bit.

 

[Sair]

I think the real problem is people getting stuck on the idea that God, in order to be kind, should be illogical. That is a very liberal and feminine idea (and is largely why it was Eve who was tempted).

Ah, I get it - now it’s women who are responsible for the presence of evil in the world. Gotcha. How very archaic of you - to say nothing of the fact that it was supposedly Adam, then, who should have known better, and, well, we know what that means…

If an all powerful god creates an entire universe and within it there is life, that life must necessarily experience evil. This is true simply because by having anything trying in one direction, the opposite direction must exist and present some resistance. Such is not a matter of choice. It is a logical necessity. Logic is the realm of God’s rules.

Then your god is not, by nature, all-powerful, but limited by his (I presume ‘his’, in the context you’ve given) own nature. You can’t have it both ways. Either your god can do anything, or he can’t.

Eve chose to be irrational. God had created Ahdam, stark and rational, alone and no challenge, no spirit to live and accomplish. Eve was then created so as to give challenge and cause growth. But that meant that Eve had to be susceptible to being irrational, else Eve would have been the merely the same as Ahdam and would not be inspiring self-perpetuating life. God would have to go make each individual. Again, this is not a choice. It is a logical necessity. And to be expected.

So, um…why did your god choose to create self-perpetuating life, rather than just creating each individual? I can see how it would serve the purpose of economy, but if it also necessitated evil, then it was a bit of a mean trick. And it’s worth pointing out that you have clearly stated here that Eve was created more or less with the express purpose of introducing evil into the world. Are you this much of a misogynist at home, or only when you come to CAF?

Literally the RNA/DNA process within every living cell functions in exactly the same manner. That is what causes it to grow. The cells could complain, but why must we struggle?

What does cell reproduction have to do with the presence of evil?

People presume that it would be nicer if God would go fix everything without them having to do it or suffer for not doing it. That alternative leaves people as nothing but robots not even capable of reproducing.

This presumes that all evil in the world is caused by the irrational actions of humans, and that there is no suffering that just happens without anyone being able to do anything about it. The following well-known quote from David Attenborough is one I find particularly illuminating:

“I think of a little child in east Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs.”

And this, we are expected to think, is the province of an all-powerful and all-good god…

Of course humans inflict suffering upon themselves and each other (and many other creatures besides), and there’s no doubt about that. Personally I don’t expect that there ought to be a god out there who will save me from myself - indeed, if you’ve read my previous posts, you would notice that I don’t believe there is any such being as a personal god.

But back to your contention - you are supposing that the only way your god could have created life was by allowing evil (presumably through feminine agency). Do you know that to be the case, or are you assuming so just because the world is the way it is? Again, it doesn’t provide a very strong case for this god being all-powerful.

What you propose would be irrational of God to do. The problem is that you cannot discern rational from irrational without a great deal of education that you do not currently have. Once you acquire it, you won’t argue.

And this just makes you sound arrogant. Also, as far as substance goes, it amounts to nothing more than “I just know this and you couldn’t possibly understand”, which is a pathetic retreat from any argument.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Ah, I get it - now it’s women who are responsible for the presence of evil in the world. Gotcha. How very archaic of you - to say nothing of the fact that it was supposedly Adam, then, who should have known better, and, well, we know what that means…

That is all your effort to blame and somewhat of a strawman. Actually “Eve” had nothing to do with women, but it would take actual study for you to ever learn such things.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Why is omnipotence a straw man? Is not one of the defining characteristics of the Christian God supposed to be omnipotence? Or are we now quibbling over the meaning of ‘all-powerful’?

I never said that omnipotence was a straw-man. I am saying that your interpretation of it in regards to its relationship to metaphysical possibility is a straw-man. And almost everything you have said so far is either a fallacy or a failure on your part to understand.

And getting back to the OP, if I recall correctly, Warpspeedpetey’s contention was that there is no problem of evil because none of us have sufficient understanding of God to know his motives.

An attempt to avoid my argument.

 

[Sair]

That isn’t just quibbling. It is the entire issue.

Then how is it a straw man to ask that your god’s omnipotence be dealt with in the argument, rather than waved away either as a matter beyond our understanding or limited by our worldly logic?

You can know to a degree simply by understanding a little logic and knowing that God is logical in all things.

Except that the laws of logic, as humans understand them, operate within the framework of the universe as we know it. The point at which your argument falls down is when you suppose that your god is bound by these rules - and thus not omnipotent - and could not have acted to create the universe in any other way.

The bottom line is still that if people cannot feel pain or suffer, logically, they will surely die because they have no means to detect harm from good. If God is going to step in and fix things every time, then how would people ever learn how to take care of themselves?

Well, personally I like the fact that life is an adventure and a challenge. Happiness is a journey as well as a destination; if it were too easy to achieve, it wouldn’t seem such a reward.

However, this is just our experience of the world as we know it. The problem with your statement is that it presupposes that this is the best of all possible worlds, the best - and perhaps only - one god could have made. Yet it is possible to conceive of a world in which there would be no need for us to have the ability to detect harm because that harm would either not exist or be so trivial as to be of no real concern to us - like breaking a nail, for instance, or grazing a knee. If god could not have created such a world, whence omnipotence?

 

[Sair]

By having anything trying in one direction, the opposite direction must exist and present some resistance. Such is not a matter of choice. It is a logical necessity. Logic is the realm of God’s rules.

Then, theoretically, it must be possible for time to go backwards - if everything must have an opposite direction against which to strive. Yet time, as we experience it, is unidirectional. Sure it’s possible for us to imagine travelling back in time, but we cannot yet effect such a thing, if it is even possible. Why, then, could not an omnipotent god have created a world in which evil, too, only existed in theory?

 

[Sair]

I never said that omnipotence was a straw-man. I am saying that your interpretation of it in regards to its relationship to metaphysical possibility is a straw-man. And almost everything you have said so far is either a fallacy or a failure on your part to understand.

Or alternatively, it’s a failure to pander to the special pleading that insists that your all-powerful god is, in fact, limited in the scope of his possible actions and creations…but still all-powerful, honest! It’s just that we poor peasants just can’t grasp the fact that all-powerful doesn’t actually mean that your god is really and truly all-powerful, only all-powerful within defined parameters.

Can you spot the contradiction?

An attempt to avoid my argument.

Actually, it was an attempt to highlight the pointlessness of your claim to have more of an understanding of god than I have, when a key part of the OP’s contention was that nobody can ever hope to have a thorough understanding of god. If we can’t, of necessity, know the mind and capabilities of god, then your claim to understand him better than I do - implying that my contentions are therefore invalid - is not an argument - it’s just a dismissal.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

And getting back to the OP, if I recall correctly, Warpspeedpetey’s contention was that there is no problem of evil because none of us have sufficient understanding of God to know his motives.

not only that we dont understand G-ds motives, but we lack access to all the information that an omniscient being would have.

 

[Sair]

That is all your effort to blame and somewhat of a strawman. Actually “Eve” had nothing to do with women, but it would take actual study for you to ever learn such things.

Ooh, the gloves are off…

“Eve had nothing to do with women”? So she was not, according to the traditions of all three monotheistic religions, the first woman? And she was not, throughout much of recorded Western history, used as a justification for keeping women in a position of social inferiority? Sure, she’s had no relationship to women whatsoever. You yourself associated Eve with ‘feminine’ characteristics, which, while they may be defined as nebulous concepts existing apart from actual women, have historically been inevitably associated with real, flesh-and-blood women, and presumed to be inferior to masculine characteristics. If you’ve ever read any of the writings of the early church fathers, even the epistles of St Paul himself, you would see clearly that such feminine characteristics as women are presumed to possess provide them with plenty of supposed justification for keeping women ‘in their place’ - in other words, subject to the command of men.

Perhaps it’s you who needs to undertake some actual study before levelling your attempts at dismissive insults. (Oh, and here’s a tip - saying that I need to undertake study without referencing any of the sources of your own information just makes you look a bit foolish…)

 

[Sair]

Wouldn’t a complete reimagining of the nature of goodness also do the trick?

That does seem to be, at least in part, what the OP was doing - inferring that there are aspects of god’s goodness that we can’t grasp, or know of, or perhaps don’t seem ‘good’ from our point of view, but are still ‘good’ in the grand scheme of things, which god presumably knows, but we can’t.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Or alternatively, it’s a failure to pander to the special pleading that insists that your all-powerful god is, in fact, limited in the scope of his possible actions and creations…but still all-powerful, honest! It’s just that we poor peasants just can’t grasp the fact that all-powerful doesn’t actually mean that your god is really and truly all-powerful, only all-powerful within defined parameters.

Can you spot the contradiction?

Or perhaps you don’t know what you are talking about; but of course you are the all-knowing God called sair. How could you possibly be mistaken; since in your perfect knowledge you suppose that you can teach us what we mean by omnipotence, so much so you feel sarcastic about it.

Since you already think you know better; i am not going to correct you. Good luck.

Actually, it was an attempt to highlight the pointlessness of your claim to have more of an understanding of god than I have, when a key part of the OP’s contention was that nobody can ever hope to have a thorough understanding of god. If we can’t, of necessity, know the mind and capabilities of god, then your claim to understand him better than I do - implying that my contentions are therefore invalid - is not an argument - it’s just a dismissal.

Another fallacious attempt to dismiss my argument rather than face it.

Nobody said that we cannot understand Gods actions. They said we cannot expect to understand everything about God; which merely means that we cannot dismiss Gods existence merely on the basis that we cannot comprehend a good reason to permit evil. To do so would be to commit an epistemological fallacy, because you assume that you can know what an infinitely wise God would do given the fact of evil; when in fact we are not in any position to expect positive knowledge about everything God would do, since we are not infinitely wise creators. We are just finite beings who don’t like to suffer and thus we ask why.

This however does not mean that there is a “logical” impossibility of us gaining positive knowledge about why God permits evil; since while God has knowledge that we don’t, the reasons for permitting evil might still be in the realm of our understanding. What you are failing to understand is that Warps argument is not claiming the impossibility of our understanding God reasons for permitting evil, but rather that it is logically impossible to positively deny Gods existence without infinite knowledge. The same principle applies concerning the general possibility of an intelligent designer. You cannot disprove the existence of an immaterial intelligent being. Its impossible. But you can possibly give a logical argument for why such a being ought to exist if you can show that such a being follows necessarily from the existence of some effect.

That is not to say that the problem of evil is not valid, but rather we cannot confirm its validity because the argument assumes knowledge that we don’t have. We do not have the knowledge of an infinitely wise creator, which means that in the absence of positive knowledge we cannot totally dismiss Gods existence on the basis of their being evil in the world, since for all we know, God might very well have a good reason for allowing evil, and it might be a reason that we may never fully understand. You your self have claimed to the effect that we can experience pain and think its a bad thing and yet in reality it is good; it is there to help us achieve a greater good in terms of our health. I can imagine many situations where that is true. We have good reason to expect that we cannot fully understand or know everything that God knows since we are in fact finite beings; limited knowledge. Thus, in so far as epistemology is concerned, we do not know that it is necessarily true that if God existed there would be no evil in the world.

While the argument does not prove that God can co exist with evil, the argument certainly undermines the argument from evil in so far as it purports to give the epistemological certainty of a necessary proof, insofar as it argues for the impossibility of a good God existing in the midst of evil.

In regards to what we can know about God; even if there was a logical impossibility of our knowing all the reasons for why God permitted evil, this does not mean that we cannot at least understand some of the reasons why God would allow or permit evil. Understanding that there are in fact some conditions where some evils can be permitted or must necessarily exist given a better understanding of Gods attributes, gives credence to the argument that God does in fact have a good reason for permitting all evils whether we understand it or not.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

That does seem to be, at least in part, what the OP was doing - inferring that there are aspects of god’s goodness that we can’t grasp, or know of, or perhaps don’t seem ‘good’ from our point of view, but are still ‘good’ in the grand scheme of things, which god presumably knows, but we can’t.

Well, I am on both sides of this battle. I think there is a problem of evil, and I think the solution isn’t as easy as saying “God knows things we don’t.” Intellectually, perhaps, this answer should be adequate, but it is utterly inadequate when one realizes that the problem of evil is a lived experience, not an abstract phenomenon. This is why some religious answers to the problem of evil (the Buddhist answer, for example) are inadequate; they don’t deal with the practical issue of human beings living through suffering in search of meaning.

My own conviction is well expressed by the poet Rainer Maria Rilke, in the words, “Live the questions.” I have found tremendous meaning in reflecting on the role of pain in my life, and struggling through the role of pain in the lives around me. A world without pain and suffering seems saccharine and artificial to me, and yet I don’t wish pain on anyone. Trusting in God is, in my mind, both sensible and necessary, and yet trust does not require a person to be satisfied with elusive answers.

God does know things we don’t. But that does not mean that we should be satisfied with ignorance.

 

[Sair]

Or perhaps you don’t know what you are talking about; but of course you are the all-knowing God called sair. How could you possibly be mistaken; since in your perfect knowledge you suppose that you can teach us what we mean by omnipotence, so much so you feel sarcastic about it.

Since you already think you know better; i am not going to correct you. Good luck.

Another fallacious attempt to dismiss my argument rather than face it.

Nobody said that we cannot understand Gods actions. They said we cannot expect to understand everything about God; which merely means that we cannot dismiss Gods existence merely on the basis that we cannot comprehend a good reason to permit evil. To do so would be to commit an epistemological fallacy, because you assume that you can know what an infinitely wise God would do given the fact of evil; when in fact we are not in any position to expect positive knowledge about everything God would do, since we are not infinitely wise creators. We are just finite beings who don’t like to suffer and thus we ask why.

This however does not mean that there is a “logical” impossibility of us gaining positive knowledge about why God permits evil; since while God has knowledge that we don’t, the reasons for permitting evil might still be in the realm of our understanding. What you are failing to understand is that Warps argument is not claiming the impossibility of our understanding God reasons for permitting evil, but rather that it is logically impossible to positively deny Gods existence without infinite knowledge. The same principle applies concerning the general possibility of an intelligent designer. You cannot disprove the existence of an immaterial intelligent being. Its impossible. But you can possibly give a logical argument for why such a being ought to exist if you can show that such a being follows necessarily from the existence of some effect.

That is not to say that the problem of evil is not valid, but rather we cannot confirm its validity because the argument assumes knowledge that we don’t have. We do not have the knowledge of an infinitely wise creator, which means that in the absence of positive knowledge we cannot totally dismiss Gods existence on the basis of their being evil in the world, since for all we know, God might very well have a good reason for allowing evil, and it might be a reason that we may never fully understand. You your self have claimed to the effect that we can experience pain and think its a bad thing and yet in reality it is good; it is there to help us achieve a greater good in terms of our health. I can imagine many situations where that is true. We have good reason to expect that we cannot fully understand or know everything that God knows since we are in fact finite beings; limited knowledge. Thus, in so far as epistemology is concerned, we do not know that it is necessarily true that if God existed there would be no evil in the world.

While the argument does not prove that God can co exist with evil, the argument certainly undermines the argument from evil in so far as it purports to give the epistemological certainty of a necessary proof, insofar as it argues for the impossibility of a good God existing in the midst of evil.

In regards to what we can know about God; even if there was a logical impossibility of our knowing all the reasons for why God permitted evil, this does not mean that we cannot at least understand some of the reasons why God would allow or permit evil. Understanding that there are in fact some conditions where some evils can be permitted or must necessarily exist given a better understanding of Gods attributes, gives credence to the argument that God does in fact have a good reason for permitting all evils whether we understand it or not.

So we come back to my original contention, in response to the OP’s contention, that it actually makes no difference to the nature of the world as we know it, whether a personal, omnipotent, omnibenevolent god exists or not - we are still limited in our understanding, and the supposition of a god who matches the Christian conception thereof is absolutely irrelevant to how we live our lives. The problem of evil only exists if one assumes the existence of a benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent god.