The "Problem Of Evil" does not exist

[Sair]

It seems to be true that many Christians believe in a God that can do literally anything, logical or not.

Is not this the very definition of omnipotence?

I have always (and I might add that I was brought up Catholic) understood that an all-powerful god meant an all-powerful god - not one that was constrained by our human understanding of what is logically or physically possible.

If you wish to define omnipotence as limited by logic and consistency, then say so - don’t define it as omnipotence in an absolute sense, and then invoke logic and necessity as absolutes - they are only so in the context of the universe as we know it. Either your god’s power is omnipotence - ie: power subject to no constraints - or it isn’t.

 

[Sair]

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.

Then why does an omnibenevolent god choose to accomplish a universe in which evil is a logical necessity?

Is there no other option? Even for an omnipotent god?

 

[sidbrown]

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.

I think you need more than that one principle. For example, how would you prove the Poincare conjecture from that one principle alone?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

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?

quite right, many people do conflate suffering and evil. if the burn is random, it is simply a meaningless accident. if the burn was intentional, the act was evil. in either case though the suffering itself is not “evil”. it just generates a strong emotional reaction when we are exposed to the idea

more importantly, G-d does not want a child, or anyone to suffer. we were created in a paradise. it is the human free will that causes evil. yet if G-d took away that free will, we may as well be robots, something like stepford wives. unable to say or do anything that may be displeasing in any way.

 

[James_S_Saint]

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

Miracles are occurrences that people thought to be impossible but awesomely surprised to find they were wrong.

Whence the conclusion that your god invented logic?

By definition, who/whatever caused the situation of reality, IS God.

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…

That is only because you are trying to disprove a definition.

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.

That was covered. You’re welcome to reread it.

Is not this the very definition of omnipotence?

As explained many times now by various people, no it isn’t.

I have always (and I might add that I was brought up Catholic) understood that an all-powerful god meant an all-powerful god - not one that was constrained by our human understanding of what is logically or physically possible.

That is probably because your understanding of logical is not truly logical so God could certainly do what you thought to be illogical.

If you wish to define omnipotence as limited by logic and consistency, then say so - don’t define it as omnipotence in an absolute sense, and then invoke logic and necessity as absolutes - they are only so in the context of the universe as we know it.

It has been “said so” many times. It is you that have fallen in love with your strawman.

Either your god’s power is omnipotence - ie: power subject to no constraints - or it isn’t.

Only to your “logic”, but as stated, what is truly logical and what you wish to believe to be truly logical are different things.

Then why does an omnibenevolent god choose to accomplish a universe in which evil is a logical necessity?

Is there no other option? Even for an omnipotent god?

Covered that. You’re welcome to reread it.

The proposed illogical universe is one of which nothing can be said or even thought, not even whether it could exist. The very statement “It could be…” presumes logic.

 

[sidbrown]

G-d does not want a child, or anyone to suffer. .

But then why would an omnipotent Being allow it , that is then the problem of evil that people are speaking of.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I think you need more than that one principle. For example, how would you prove the Poincare conjecture from that one principle alone?

All proofs and all mathematics are ultimately reduced to;

If A = B, and B = C, then A = C.

No matter what you are trying to prove, you cannot get around that one concern. Your mind normally just assumes it without you thinking about it. Everything else in a proof is merely filling in the variables with the state of concern.

This defines the Label - “It is what it is”, A = A

This defines the Law - “What it is cannot be what it isn’t”, A != !A

This defines the Limit - “It either is what it is or isn’t”, A >< A

This defines the Logic - “If it is the same, then it is the same”, If A = B, and B = C, then A = C."

 

[James_S_Saint]

But then why would an omnipotent Being allow it , that is then the problem of evil that people are speaking of.

Because if it wasn’t allowed, life itself could not exist.

 

[sidbrown]

All proofs and all mathematics are ultimately reduced to;

If A = B, and B = C, then A = C.

No matter what you are trying to prove, you cannot get around that one concern. Your mind normally just assumes it without you thinking about it. Everything else in a proof is merely filling in the variables with the state of concern.

This defines the Label - “It is what it is”, A = A

This defines the Law - “What it is cannot be what it isn’t”, A != !A

This defines the Limit - “It either is what it is or isn’t”, A >< A

This defines the Logic - “If it is the same, then it is the same”, If A = B, and B = C, then A = C."

Can you show how this alone would lead to a proof of the Poincare conjecture or the four color theorem? Either one would be OK.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Can you show how this alone would lead to a proof of the Poincare conjecture or the four color theorem? Either one would be OK.

Well, I didn’t say it was easy.

But i remember proving that four-color theorem years ago. I’ll see if I can reconstruct it in a form relating to your question. It might take a while though.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

But then why would an omnipotent Being allow it

human beings cannot exist without free will. an object without free will is only a thing. a human body without free will would simply be a biochemical robot.

it is free will that makes us, “us”. it is the characteristic that defines us. without it we are not rationally any different than any other collection of particles.

ergo, in order to have a “human being”, it must have free will.

 

[James_S_Saint]

human beings cannot exist without free will. an object without free will is only a thing. a human body without free will would simply be a biochemical robot.

it is free will that makes us, “us”. it is the characteristic that defines us. without it we are not rationally any different than any other collection of particles.

ergo, in order to have a “human being”, it must have free will.

Since the thing you are calling “free will” is actually “uncaused will” (will that has no cause for its direction), free will does not exist. Thus if to have humans is to have free will, humans cannot exist.

 

[Sair]

Miracles are occurrences that people thought to be impossible but awesomely surprised to find they were wrong.

Then they weren’t actually miracles…

By definition, who/whatever caused the situation of reality, IS God.

This reminds me of the concept of the ‘wastebasket genus’, as used in paleontology - a catch-all genus for newly discovered fossils that can’t be easily classified. “Can’t define it? Right, it’s a titanosaur.” This is too broad. And furthermore, if it is one day proven, you would have to concede that the Big Bang is god.

That is only because you are trying to disprove a definition.

A definition which is in itself a difficulty - it gives you a very easy out to say, “oh, but our god isn’t really omnipotent, only within the laws of logic as we know them.”

That is probably because your understanding of logical is not truly logical so God could certainly do what you thought to be illogical.

Then why didn’t he? Why didn’t he create a universe with different rules? If universal logic as we know it requires the existence of evil, why did an all-powerful and all-good god decide to create this universe?

The trouble with the arguments posed by you and a few others on this thread is that you’re changing the goalposts midgame - redefining the terms to suit your own conclusions. “Sure, unnecessary suffering isn’t evil - we just think it is! Sure, God’s omnipotent, but he can’t do anything illogical! See? We’ve been right all along!” - Yeah. For interesting values of ‘right’.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Then they weren’t actually miracles…

This is a verbal trick, whereby miracles become illogical. One conventional definition of miracle is the “violation of a natural law”. If we take “natural law” to mean an exceptionless regularity (its scientific meaning), then of course a miracle by the conventional definition would be absurd! But this is not the Christian definition of miracles.

Miracle: A intentionally willed event enacted through the will of a rational being that utterly confounds our expectations (and is not sleight of hand).

Miracles may break *apparent *laws of nature, but to say that a miracle violated an *actual *law of nature would be to violate non-contradiction.

C.S. Lewis said something interesting in this respect:

Now of course we must agree with Hume that, if there is absolutely “uniform experience” against miracles, if, in other words, they have never happened, why then they never have. Unfortunately, we know the experience against them to be uniform only if we know that all the reports of them are false. And we can know all the reports of them to be false only if we know already that miracles have never occurred. In fact, we are arguing in a circle.

 

[Sair]

Miracle: A intentionally willed event enacted through the will of a rational being that utterly confounds our expectations (and is not sleight of hand).

Miracles may break *apparent *laws of nature, but to say that a miracle violated an *actual *law of nature would be to violate non-contradiction.

Any verified examples that were not fortuitous coincidences? If miracles operate within the laws of nature, it is likely they have a scientific explanation.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Then they weren’t actually miracles…

Only IF you define a miracle as something that actually cannot happen yet did. But as with other words, you prefer a definition to support your complaint.

This reminds me of the concept of the ‘wastebasket genus’, as used in paleontology - a catch-all genus for newly discovered fossils that can’t be easily classified. “Can’t define it? Right, it’s a titanosaur.” This is too broad. And furthermore, if it is one day proven, you would have to concede that the Big Bang is god.

If you can prove that the Big Bang itself caused the situation of the Big Bang happening, then I will concede that the Big Bang is the Deist’s God (a God that created then left the scene). But the Hebrew God is still active, thus the Big Bang doing anything would not make it the Hebrew God.

A definition which is in itself a difficulty - it gives you a very easy out to say, “oh, but our god isn’t really omnipotent, only within the laws of logic as we know them.”

I said nothing of “the laws of logic as we know them”. I am talking about the actual consistent laws of logic regardless of whether we know them.

Then why didn’t he? Why didn’t he create a universe with different rules? If universal logic as we know it requires the existence of evil, why did an all-powerful and all-good god decide to create this universe?

I explained that already. You are still welcome to reread the explanation.

The trouble with the arguments posed by you and a few others on this thread is that you’re changing the goalposts midgame - redefining the terms to suit your own conclusions. “Sure, unnecessary suffering isn’t evil - we just think it is! Sure, God’s omnipotent, but he can’t do anything illogical! See? We’ve been right all along!” - Yeah. For interesting values of ‘right’.

No. YOU are defining words to suit your own conclusions rather than taking them from those who know. Who is the source for your definitions, those who believe or those who do not? Why argue with the believers using definitions that they do not use? If I define Science as something that you disagree to as a definition, I can make all of the same claims that you make against your belief in Science and still claim that you are just defining Science so as to suit your conclusion and belief (much like AlbertBall).

And another strawman of yours is that anyone has claimed that evil does not exist. I stated just the opposite, that it absolutely must exist.

Obviously you have no intention of gaining any understanding, but rather just making political commentary with the intent of refuting regardless of truth. The logical answers have been given for which you have no refutation other than to claim your own definitions for the words to suit your fancy. Take them or leave them as you will.

 

[Sair]

Only IF you define a miracle as something that actually cannot happen yet did. But as with other words, you prefer a definition to support your complaint.

As, it seems, do you.

If you can prove that the Big Bang itself caused the situation of the Big Bang happening, then I will concede that the Big Bang is the Deist’s God (a God that created then left the scene). But the Hebrew God is still active, thus the Big Bang doing anything would not make it the Hebrew God.

It also remains to be proven that the Hebrew God is still active (if he exists at all).

I said nothing of “the laws of logic as we know them”. I am talking about the actual consistent laws of logic regardless of whether we know them.

Then what difference does it make? You talk of evil logically existing, but how do you know this is logically necessary? Just because evil does exist? Upon what do you base your logical deductions if not your own knowledge of logic? If you don’t know the laws of logic, you can’t claim that they exist regardless of your lack of knowledge. They aren’t objects that have an existence outside of sentient minds. You might want to assume that your god knows these laws, but you have no way of proving it.

No. YOU are defining words to suit your own conclusions rather than taking them from those who know. Who is the source for your definitions, those who believe or those who do not? Why argue with the believers using definitions that they do not use? If I define Science as something that you disagree to as a definition, I can make all of the same claims that you make against your belief in Science and still claim that you are just defining Science so as to suit your conclusion and belief (much like AlbertBall).

And another strawman of yours is that anyone has claimed that evil does not exist. I stated just the opposite, that it absolutely must exist.

Obviously you have no intention of gaining any understanding, but rather just making political commentary with the intent of refuting regardless of truth. The logical answers have been given for which you have no refutation other than to claim your own definitions for the words to suit your fancy. Take them or leave them as you will.

Firstly, I have never claimed that evil does not exist. As a concept, it exists subjectively, but we apply this concept to real events and actions.

The big problem with your definitions is that they invalidate the question - is there a problem of evil? Not if you assume evil is logically necessary, and that your god can only act within the constraints of universal logic. If, however, one supposes there is an all-powerful and benevolent god, who is active in the world, there might still be plenty of evil enacted by humans, but it still leaves a lot of other suffering explained. If intent is required for an act to be evil (rather than merely destructive/harmful), then are we to suppose that it’s god’s intent for millions of people to die in natural disasters? For that parasitic worm to burrow into a child’s eye because it can’t live anywhere else? For diseases to exist? All these things are anti-life, and therefore evil, by your definition. What does this say about the god who apparently permits them to exist? If he’s constrained by logical necessity, he isn’t omnipotent. If he can prevent these things from happening, he’s not benevolent. Why do you think this problem has bedevilled philosophers for centuries, if it can be simply waved away by redefining the terms?

 

[Shike]

If he’s constrained by logical necessity, he isn’t omnipotent. If he can prevent these things from happening, he’s not benevolent. Why do you think this problem has bedevilled philosophers for centuries, if it can be simply waved away by redefining the terms?

Have these objections not been answered by now?

First of all these types of arguments are arguments against the Judeo/Christian conception of God specifically. These are summaries of the omni dilemmas, or perceived dilemmas. Scope is important (remind yourself of what they would prove if they worked). Now:

• I never understood how God not preventing certain cases of suffering (or suffering in general) logically entails a contradiction. I don’t think someone can say for sure that God is not benevolent unless he has a bird’s eye view of all reality (or at least the reality that deals with human suffering and affairs). The fact is that we don’t know how everything will play out in the end (an atheist would surely concede such a point). But yes, evil is still real and suffering is not an easy thing to deal with.
• I cannot understand how defying logic could be an attribute of omnipotence. Isn’t omnipotence the ability to do anything? If one can’t state what a thing is, then one can’t say that God cannot do such a thing.

The omni dilemmas have not bedeviled philosophers for centuries, they have only bedeviled some. For instance, some philosophers (of the Bertrand Russel Camp) could still be held up on the whole Euthyphro dilemma and Divine Command Theory. A possible solution was given long ago. People just need to read up on their history of philosophy. I might reccomend an excellent history of philosophy, it’s by Frederick Copleston. I have just reached the beginning of the Medieval Ages and it is a joy to read, really enlightening. For example, many people might not know that St. Augustine of the 5th century A.D. mentions the Cogito of Descartes. Now Augustine doesn’t mean it in the same way as Descartes, but it is mentioned nontheless.

peace,
Michael

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Have these objections not been answered by now?

First of all these types of arguments are arguments against the Judeo/Christian conception of God specifically. These are summaries of the omni dilemmas, or perceived dilemmas. Scope is important (remind yourself of what they would prove if they worked). Now:

• I never understood how God not preventing certain cases of suffering (or suffering in general) logically entails a contradiction. I don’t think someone can say for sure that God is not benevolent unless he has a bird’s eye view of all reality (or at least the reality that deals with human suffering and affairs). The fact is that we don’t know how everything will play out in the end (an atheist would surely concede such a point). But yes, evil is still real and suffering is not an easy thing to deal with.
• I cannot understand how defying logic could be an attribute of omnipotence. Isn’t omnipotence the ability to do anything? If one can’t state what a thing is, then one can’t say that God cannot do such a thing.

The omni dilemmas have not bedeviled philosophers for centuries, they have only bedeviled some. For instance, some philosophers (of the Bertrand Russel Camp) could still be held up on the whole Euthyphro dilemma and Divine Command Theory. A possible solution was given long ago. People just need to read up on their history of philosophy. I might reccomend an excellent history of philosophy, it’s by Frederick Copleston. I have just reached the beginning of the Medieval Ages and it is a joy to read, really enlightening. For example, many people might not know that St. Augustine of the 5th century A.D. mentions the Cogito of Descartes. Now Augustine doesn’t mean it in the same way as Descartes, but it is mentioned nontheless.

peace,
Michael

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Any verified examples that were not fortuitous coincidences? If miracles operate within the laws of nature, it is likely they have a scientific explanation.

How is “God made them happen” not a scientific explanation? Certainly, no scientist would ever be justified in drawing such a conclusion empirically, but he could empirically point to an unknown cause. There is a difference, however, between ontology and epistemology. The fact that we can never refute the God hypothesis does not entail that it is untrue.

To be clear, I am quite convinced that all miracles demonstrate the (scientific) nature of the universe. No miracle violates any true law of nature. The power of miracles is in their violating customary behaviors that people have come to expect.