The "Problem Of Evil" does not exist

[Sair]

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.

I don’t think there can be a simple solution to the problem of evil. I also think there is a very real difference between suffering that serves a purpose and suffering that seems completely random to us - for example, the suffering involved in giving birth, or the suffering involved in undergoing chemotherapy to fight cancer, versus suffering that just happens - such as the smallholder who has her property despoiled by fire (which has just happened, not far north of where I live, in Western Australia). However, I also feel that there is personal empowerment to be gained in working through and overcoming suffering - though whether that is god’s intention or not seems to me to make little if any difference to the benefits that can result.

 

[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.

Or perhaps it would be more instructive - if that is your intention - to explain what you mean by an omnipotence that is necessarily limited.

There is a logical contradiction here, if you can admit it…
[/quote]

 

[sidbrown]

there is no such thing as the Problem of Evil. allow me to demonstrate.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Info-ga…ng_assumptions

as illustrated by this critique of info-gap decision theory, while one may have an estimate of the most moral possible way to govern the universe, you are operating from only the information you know, the possible ranges of information relevant to any particular event can be nearly infinite, therefore your estimate, based on only the information one has, is insufficient to draw valid conclusions about the morality of G-d, who by His omniscient nature has access to all pertinent information and is then able to make decisions based on information you do not know.

therefore there is no Problem of Evil.

Children are suffereing and have suffered horrifically. So there is evil and it is a problem to explain its existence in light of the fact taht we know that God is all loving. and all merciful.

 

[sidbrown]

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.

Would a perfectly good Being want to prevent horrible evil, harm and injury to an innocent child?

 

[James_S_Saint]

Would a perfectly good Being want to prevent horrible evil, harm and injury to an innocent child?

A “perfectly good Being” would “want” to always be perfectly consistent, else nothing could exist at all, certainly no “good”.

If children cannot be harmed at all, then the universe would be nothing but children. That means no atoms, no molecules, no Sun, no Earth, …nothing.

 

[sidbrown]

A “perfectly good Being” would “want” to always be perfectly consistent, else nothing could exist at all, certainly no “good”.

If children cannot be harmed at all, then the universe would be nothing but children. That means no atoms, no molecules, no Sun, no Earth, …nothing.

I don’t see it. Children grow up and become adults.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Or perhaps it would be more instructive - if that is your intention - to explain what you mean by an omnipotence that is necessarily limited.

There is a logical contradiction here, if you can admit it…

To speak of a limitation, is to speak of a value judgment. Firstly, you do not believe that values represent objective reality, and so i don’t know what you mean by limitation, since it is a subjective expression according to naturalism; not an objective truth. According to strict philosophical naturalism, there are just things. Secondly, limitation in respect of objective truth either means that you are limited when you ought not to be, or you are limited according to your nature in light of that which is “ultimate”. Not all limitations are limitations, but rather they are impossibilities, and thus they are meaningless because they are not real and they are not logically true of any possible reality.They cannot be applied to reality as being a limitation upon it. For instance, if God cannot cease to exist, this is not a limitation on his will, because it is not true of his omnipotence that God can cease to exist. The limitation is not real. Its just imagined by you. There are things God cannot do, but logically would not do because his “omnipotent nature” does not logically allow it; it is not true of his omnipotence and all of Gods attributes to be able to do it. This is not a limitation. However if God could logically do something, but was caused not to by something lesser or more then its omnipotence, then that would be a limitation and a contradiction to his omnipotence. But you have to show this to be the case, and you have not.

 

[sidbrown]

To speak of a limitation, is to speak of a value judgment. Firstly, you do not believe that values represent objective reality, and so i don’t know what you mean by limitation, since it is a subjective expression according to naturalism; not an objective truth. According to strict philosophical naturalism, there are just things. Secondly, limitation in respect of objective truth either means that you are limited when you ought not to be, or you are limited according to your nature in light of that which is “ultimate”. Not all limitations are limitations, but rather they are impossibilities, and thus they are meaningless because they are not real and they are not logically true of any possible reality.They cannot be applied to reality as being a limitation upon it. For instance, if God cannot cease to exist, this is not a limitation on his will, because it is not true of his omnipotence that God can cease to exist. The limitation is not real. Its just imagined by you. There are things God cannot do, but logically would not do because his “omnipotent nature” does not logically allow it; it is not true of his omnipotence and all of Gods attributes to be able to do it. This is not a limitation. However if God could logically do something, but was caused not to by something lesser or more then its omnipotence, then that would be a limitation and a contradiction to his omnipotence. But you have to show this to be the case, and you have not.

Is God limited by logic or is He above logic and not subject to its rules and limitations?

 

[Sair]

To speak of a limitation, is to speak of a value judgment. Firstly, you do not believe that values represent objective reality, and so i don’t know what you mean by limitation, since it is a subjective expression according to naturalism; not an objective truth. According to strict philosophical naturalism, there are just things. Secondly, limitation in respect of objective truth either means that you are limited when you ought not to be, or you are limited according to your nature in light of that which is “ultimate”. Not all limitations are limitations, but rather they are impossibilities, and thus they are meaningless because they are not real and they are not logically true of any possible reality.They cannot be applied to reality as being a limitation upon it. For instance, if God cannot cease to exist, this is not a limitation on his will, because it is not true of his omnipotence that God can cease to exist. The limitation is not real. Its just imagined by you. There are things God cannot do, but logically would not do because his “omnipotent nature” does not logically allow it; it is not true of his omnipotence and all of Gods attributes to be able to do it. This is not a limitation. However if God could logically do something, but was caused not to by something lesser or more then its omnipotence, then that would be a limitation and a contradiction to his omnipotence. But you have to show this to be the case, and you have not.

Limitation ain’t a value judgement - it’s a practical consideration, in this case. And the question was fairly simple - only here you’re tying yourself in knots trying to make it complicated, and explain why limitations on god aren’t really limitations…or something.

I think Sidbrown put it quite succinctly, actually. If god is constrained by logic and consistency, he’s not omnipotent. If he isn’t constrained by these rules, we’re back to the problem of evil.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Children are suffereing and have suffered horrifically. So there is evil and it is a problem to explain its existence in light of the fact taht we know that God is all loving. and all merciful.

1. suffering is not evil.
2. free will accounts for human acts of evil
3. there is no such thing as natural evil. (nothing can be evil without intent. without intent an event is random. one cannot construe any particular meaning to random events. (unless one believes in magic)

that said. as limited beings, we have no idea what a perfect world would actually look like. which makes the whole point moot all by itself.

 

[sidbrown]

1. suffering is not evil.
2. free will accounts for human acts of evil
3. there is no such thing as natural evil. (nothing can be evil without intent. without intent an event is random. one cannot construe any particular meaning to random events. (unless one believes in magic)

that said. as limited beings, we have no idea what a perfect world would actually look like. which makes the whole point moot all by itself.

Well you can define evil to be something which does not include suffering, but that is not the common definition of the term.
What would you call it when a child of two years old is hit by buring phosphorus powder and suffers horrible pain, wounds and suffering for months on end? Whatever you want to call it, the question is would an all loving Being want something horrible and painful like this to happen to an innocent child of two years old?

 

[James_S_Saint]

I think Sidbrown put it quite succinctly, actually. If god is constrained by logic and consistency, he’s not omnipotent. If he isn’t constrained by these rules, we’re back to the problem of evil.

If that is the definition of “omnipotence”, then God would certainly not be omnipotent because God is certainly , absolutely logical and consistent. God IS the consistency.

But that is not what omnipotent ever actually meant. Omnipotence means that God can accomplish anything that GOD chooses to accomplish. But God doesn’t choose to accomplish anything illogical, else He wouldn’t actually be God and nothing could exist at all.

 

[sidbrown]

If that is the definition of “omnipotence”, then God would certainly not be omnipotent because God is certainly , absolutely logical and consistent. God IS the consistency.

But that is not what omnipotent ever actually meant. Omnipotence means that God can accomplish anything that GOD chooses to accomplish. But God doesn’t choose to accomplish anything illogical, else He wouldn’t actually be God and nothing could exist at all.

Are the rules of logic something more than a human creation?

 

[James_S_Saint]

Are the rules of logic something more than a human creation?

Absolutely.

Man did not invent that something cannot be what it is and also what it isn’t at the same time. God did that. Man merely discovered it, but due to his limited mind, can’t hold to it very well and thus errs, sins.

 

[sidbrown]

Absolutely.

Man did not invent that something cannot be what it is and also what it isn’t at the same time. God did that. Man merely discovered it, but due to his limited mind, can’t hold to it very well and thus errs, sins.

There is more to logic than the principle of non-contradiction.
In fact, it has been attempted to derive all of mathematics from the principles of logic together with a few axioms.
Could there be a method of reasoning, still unknown to man, which is higher than logic?

 

[James_S_Saint]

There is more to logic than the principle of non-contradiction.
In fact, it has been attempted to derive all of mathematics from the principles of logic together with a few axioms.
Could there be a method of reasoning, still unknown to man, which is higher than logic?

By definition, logic is what is absolutely true. The word “log” means “the firm”. To log something means to record it so that is is firmly remembered.

Any method of reasoning that is always true, simple or not, is logic. So the answer to your question is “no”, because whatever you come up with, if it is accurate, IS logic by definition.

And in fact, ALL logic really does come from that one and only principle of non-contradiction of identity. The other proposed rules were from Aristotle’s teaching on dialectic, an effort to communicate reason or logic. The only actual law is that one of non-contradiction. The others relate to what is to be accepted as true in speech concerning logic.

 

[Sair]

By definition, logic is what is absolutely true. The word “log” means “the firm”. To log something means to record it so that is is firmly remembered.

Any method of reasoning that is always true, simple or not, is logic. So the answer to your question is “no”, because whatever you come up with, if it is accurate, IS logic by definition.

And in fact, ALL logic really does come from that one and only principle of non-contradiction of identity. The other proposed rules were from Aristotle’s teaching on dialectic, an effort to communicate reason or logic. The only actual law is that one of non-contradiction. The others relate to what is to be accepted as true in speech concerning logic.

But surely logic, as humans understand it, is related directly to the universe as we know it. The problem is that an omnipotent god (and do not Christians believe in the existence of a god who can do anything, not a god who can do anything within logical limits?) could supposedly have created a universe with different laws, and therefore dispense with evil and unnecessary suffering. Yet this god didn’t. Therefore we have the problem of evil.

 

[James_S_Saint]

But surely logic, as humans understand it, is related directly to the universe as we know it. The problem is that an omnipotent god (and do not Christians believe in the existence of a god who can do anything, not a god who can do anything within logical limits?) could supposedly have created a universe with different laws, and therefore dispense with evil and unnecessary suffering. Yet this god didn’t. Therefore we have the problem of evil.

It seems to be true that many Christians believe in a God that can do literally anything, logical or not. Those Christians are in error. But most misunderstand logic, so in a sense, they are not entirely wrong. But within any and every large organization, the greatest number of members misunderstand the organization. Science is no different. The truth of the foundation of the organization cannot be tested by relying on what the greatest number of members believe about it. Although the worth of the organization can be partly assessed by examining what resulted by the organization holding to tenets that inherently caused such misunderstanding. Again, Science can be accused of causing great misunderstanding within members of its adherence. Sciencism very directly causes misunderstandings that are not of real Science and are false models of reality.

But logic is not derived from physical existence. Logic is derived by the need to think and draw conclusion. The fact that the physical universe obeys logic is another matter. No mind can function without logic regardless of whether the universe does or not. Can you conceive of a round square even if it doesn’t exist?

The proposition that God could have created a universe where something is both what it is and also what it isn’t is a little hard to even imagine and totally impossible to evaluate. The universe is the way it is only because of that concern of something not being able to be what it isn’t. From that one law, all else must be how it is. All laws of physics (assuming them to be accurate) come to be only because of something not being able to be what it isn’t. Physicists do not know that because they are not metaphysicists and probably wouldn’t be good at such if they tried. Applied mathematicians aren’t typically good at logical adherence. Engineers are better.

In considering whether God could have done otherwise, one must drop all logical thought. But if that is the case, then how can one assess blame for anything on anyone? No logic or reasoning has value. Would a round square be a good thing or bad?

But that issue is actually beyond the scope of rationality in that we can already see that we ARE in a universe where logic holds, therefore whether God could have done otherwise is a bit irrelevant.

In this universe, within which someone had to exist, a living being absolutely must have an adversary that poses a consequence. Life cannot be life without it. Due to that situation, which cannot be avoided in a logical universe, evil absolutely must exist and God could not do otherwise without totally removing all life.

So the issue ends up being one of either life exists with evil at its heels, or that no life exists at all. Which would you consider more moral?

 

[Sair]

Man did not invent that something cannot be what it is and also what it isn’t at the same time. God did that. Man merely discovered it, but due to his limited mind, can’t hold to it very well and thus errs, sins.

And yet we humans can conceive of illogical occurrences - is not that what miracles are, for example?

Whence the conclusion that your god invented logic? To me, it seems a circular argument to claim that god can only act according to logical consistency, but the fact that we perceive logical consistency is because of god…

And you’re still assuming that your god could not have created a universe with different rules - and therefore different laws of logic. So we come back to the idea of a non-omnipotent god, which you have yet to absolutely refute.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

And yet we humans can conceive of illogical occurrences - is not that what miracles are, for example?

How is a miracle illogical? Not even Hume said that!