The "Problem Of Evil" does not exist

[Shike]

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.

Ah, so the true laws of nature are being displayed when someone walks on water, when bread and wine turn into the body and blood of Jesus, and with regards to the Virgin Birth?

Why can’t the laws of nature, for instance gravity, be suspended by God? What law of logic says that it’s impossible?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Ah, so the true laws of nature are being displayed when someone walks on water, when bread and wine turn into the body and blood of Jesus, and with regards to the Virgin Birth?

Yes.

Why can’t the laws of nature, for instance gravity, be suspended by God? What law of logic says that it’s impossible?

This begs the question. You’re assuming that gravity is a law of nature. But its being a law of nature requires that there not be any exceptions. If gravity were “suspended”, then it would not be a law of nature, in the technical sense of the term, nor would it ever have been a law of nature.

Law of nature: Exceptionless regularity throughout all time (at least in our universe).

Breaking a law of nature is a contradiction in terms. If that’s not clear enough, I can go into more detail. It is a matter of how we define things, so if you choose another definition of “law of nature”, then we’re back to the drawing board.

 

[Shike]

This begs the question. You’re assuming that gravity is a law of nature.

Are you serious? I am more than assuming. That is why it is called the law of gravity, because it is a law of nature. Can you point to an experience of yours where the law of gravity was not the case? No. And even if you could, that would show an exception, a miraculous exception at that.

But its being a law of nature requires that there not be any exceptions. If gravity were “suspended”, then it would not be a law of nature, in the technical sense of the term, nor would it ever have been a law of nature.

Law of nature: Exceptionless regularity throughout all time (at least in our universe).

Breaking a law of nature is a contradiction in terms. If that’s not clear enough, I can go into more detail. It is a matter of how we define things, so if you choose another definition of “law of nature”, then we’re back to the drawing board.

Well if it’s only a matter how we define things, then perhaps you should listen to scientists when they call gravity a law. You can’t have it both ways, ignore scientists when they call gravity a law and then accept their definition of what a law of nature is.

Are you willing to say that God couldn’t suspend a law of nature even if he wanted to (and note when I say law of nature, I mean something like gravity, the way it is normally understood)? If God created the universe, then all He would have to do is destroy it to bring up a ton of exceptions to the laws of nature. Are you saying that God couldn’t destroy the universe that He made?

And how could it possibly be that the Virgin Birth, walking on water, and bread and wine turning into the body and blood of Jesus… how could it possibly be that those events are laws of nature? They seem to be pretty obviously the exception to the general case. Unless, that is, you experience walking on water as an every day occurrence.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but I am using it to illustrate the backwardness of your claim. I wonder what spurred you to try to do mental gymnastics with regards to what a law of nature really is. Was it because you heard that faith and science are compatible and you wanted to make room for the possibility of miracles? If so, then you heard right… but you did wrong. There is no contradiction in maintaining the definition of a law of nature and God’s providence provided that you realize the scope in which science operates. Science is concerned about nature. Realize that for the most part God is outside of nature and the realm of science. If He created it, He can pretty much do what He wants with it.

And I hope my attitude doesn’t get in the way of reevaluating your stance.

peace,
Michael

 

[Sair]

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.

That seems fair to me. Of course I tend towards the miracles-compatible-with-natural-laws idea, because, well, not believing there is a divine being who intervenes in the world does rather necessitate that view. The word ‘miracle’ is used so loosely, however, that it’s not always obvious what someone means by it - everything from the ‘miracle’ of birth (which happens naturally all the time), to the miracle of transubstantiation (which to me seems inherently contradictory anyway) to the miracle of raising someone from the dead (which, when it happens, generally serves to further medical understanding of what death actually is, and how to determine it - much like the case of the Belgian man who recently awoke from what was assumed to be a persistent vegetative state; miracle? or fortuitous occurrence? Depends on one’s preferred terminology and belief.)

The trouble with ‘god did it’ as a scientific explanation is that it raises more questions than it answers. In order for it to be a truly scientific explanation, science would have to explain how god exists and intervenes in the world. Arriving at an ‘unknown cause’ for something means exactly that - the cause is unknown. For scientists, that generally means more research and perhaps improved technology is required to determine the cause.

 

[James_S_Saint]

The concern of Science is not whether God did it, but HOW God did it.

For Science to say anything about God, Science must first clearly define exactly what “God” means. Science avoids doing that (publicly anyway).

Science FULLY believes (inherently) that the universe obeys laws. Science would be totally useless without that assertion. The issue of God’s existence is merely one of whether there is a single principle that rules over all other principles or not. The logician can answer that question. The scientist often has trouble with logic so he seeks something without realizing what it is that he is seeking or even what it would look like if he found it.

 

[Sair]

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.

OK. I need to get a few things straight here.

Firstly, I don’t think the objections have been answered in any way that does not entail special pleading for the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and benevolent god, despite all appearances to the contrary.

Yes, of course this is the Judeo-Christian concept of god, the god who is the object of belief for Christians globally. These are not objections to any possible concept of god, but this specific one.

The claim has been repeatedly made that this god can do anything logically possible; furthermore, that it would be logically impossible for this god to prevent evil, without also destroying life.

If this god is only able to act logically and consistently, how does one explain the following:

• Burning a bush without consuming it;
• Raising a man from the dead;
• Existing simultaneously as three persons and one;
• Transubstantiation - changing the substance without altering in any way the physical properties of bread and wine;
• feeding 5,000 people with five loaves and two fish (essentially requiring the creation or spontaneous alteration of matter - which, while not logically impossible, is physically very difficult);
• parting the waters of the Red Sea

Now, I could go on a quote-mining expedition and find more examples in the Bible, but these will suffice for the purposes of the present discussion. Now, these things may or may not be logical contradictions (no doubt someone with a better knowledge of logic can tell me); they are, however, highly improbable and certainly physically impossible for us humans to accomplish unaided. The question I have is, are these things more or less improbable or contradictory than the idea of a god intervening to prevent or at least lessen the impact of evil?

If the Judeo-Christan God could harden hearts in the Old Testament, why does he not soften them as well? Could not he have softened the hearts of the terrorists who flew hijacked planes into the World Trade Centre? Could he not have softened the hearts of the Nazis who persecuted and murdered the Jewish people during WWII? I, and I presume the majority of people who post to CAF, are decent, law-abiding folks who generally neither wish nor enact harm upon others. Could not this god have seen to it that everyone in the world was like that? Or is that somehow more of a violation of free will than the aforementioned hardening of hearts?

A couple of days before the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami, most of the animals in the affected areas knew instinctively that trouble was coming, and moved inland to higher ground. Could not this god have granted such awareness to the humans as well, and thus greatly lessened the death and suffering that occurred from this disaster? This doesn’t strike me as a logically contradictory action for a benevolent god who is supposedly accustomed to intervening in the lives of people.

So what’s going on here, exactly?

 

[James_S_Saint]

If this god is only able to act logically and consistently, how does one explain the following:

• Burning a bush without consuming it;
• Raising a man from the dead;
• Existing simultaneously as three persons and one;
• Transubstantiation - changing the substance without altering in any way the physical properties of bread and wine;
• feeding 5,000 people with five loaves and two fish (essentially requiring the creation or spontaneous alteration of matter - which, while not logically impossible, is physically very difficult);
• parting the waters of the Red Sea

I know the logical how to ALL of those (and I’m not alone in that), but you do not qualify to be told. It requires humility.

Everyone of those conform perfectly with what Science understands of logic.

 

[Shike]

OK. I need to get a few things straight here.

Firstly, I don’t think the objections have been answered in any way that does not entail special pleading for the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and benevolent god, despite all appearances to the contrary.

Please show me an example so I can see what you see.

If this god is only able to act logically and consistently, how does one explain the following:

• Burning a bush without consuming it;
• Raising a man from the dead;
• Existing simultaneously as three persons and one;
• Transubstantiation - changing the substance without altering in any way the physical properties of bread and wine;
• feeding 5,000 people with five loaves and two fish (essentially requiring the creation or spontaneous alteration of matter - which, while not logically impossible, is physically very difficult);
• parting the waters of the Red Sea

Now, I could go on a quote-mining expedition and find more examples in the Bible, but these will suffice for the purposes of the present discussion. Now, these things may or may not be logical contradictions

They are not logical contradictions. A logical contradiction would be something like “All dogs are brown, and all dogs are black.” If you still want to use the word contradiction, you could posit it as a contradiction against the laws of nature. However, as you probably know, such suspensions of the laws of nature would not be a problem for the christian God.

The question I have is, are these things more or less improbable or contradictory than the idea of a god intervening to prevent or at least lessen the impact of evil?

The problem with your question is the assumption that God hasn’t or isn’t doing something to lessen the impact of evil. Now, I believe that the original conjecture was that human free will requires the possibility of evil. The conjecture doesn’t say anything about anything being lessened or reduced in degree.

I, and I presume the majority of people who post to CAF, are decent, law-abiding folks who generally neither wish nor enact harm upon others. Could not this god have seen to it that everyone in the world was like that? Or is that somehow more of a violation of free will than the aforementioned hardening of hearts?

Maybe the problem is too many decent law-abiding folks. Could you not say that people who complied with the Nazi regime were following the law? What I’m getting at is there are higher order laws that should be followed.

So what’s going on here, exactly?

Yes, you are correct that bad things happen to seemingly good people (and heck, for all I know they are good people). How does one get from that statement (evil and suffering) to the conclusion that the Judeo/Christian God doesn’t exist? Let me tell you, it doesn’t follow.

A more fruitful endeavor might be to look at Christianity’s explanation for the “elephant in the room” (namely evil, sin, and suffering).

peace,
Michael

 

[warpspeedpetey]

OK. I need to get a few things straight here.

Firstly, I don’t think the objections have been answered in any way that does not entail special pleading for the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and benevolent god, despite all appearances to the contrary.

Yes, of course this is the Judeo-Christian concept of god, the god who is the object of belief for Christians globally. These are not objections to any possible concept of god, but this specific one.

The claim has been repeatedly made that this god can do anything logically possible; furthermore, that it would be logically impossible for this god to prevent evil, without also destroying life.

If this god is only able to act logically and consistently, how does one explain the following:

• Burning a bush without consuming it;
• Raising a man from the dead;
• Existing simultaneously as three persons and one;
• Transubstantiation - changing the substance without altering in any way the physical properties of bread and wine;
• feeding 5,000 people with five loaves and two fish (essentially requiring the creation or spontaneous alteration of matter - which, while not logically impossible, is physically very difficult);
• parting the waters of the Red Sea

Now, I could go on a quote-mining expedition and find more examples in the Bible, but these will suffice for the purposes of the present discussion. Now, these things may or may not be logical contradictions (no doubt someone with a better knowledge of logic can tell me); they are, however, highly improbable and certainly physically impossible for us humans to accomplish unaided. The question I have is, are these things more or less improbable or contradictory than the idea of a god intervening to prevent or at least lessen the impact of evil?

If the Judeo-Christan God could harden hearts in the Old Testament, why does he not soften them as well? Could not he have softened the hearts of the terrorists who flew hijacked planes into the World Trade Centre? Could he not have softened the hearts of the Nazis who persecuted and murdered the Jewish people during WWII? I, and I presume the majority of people who post to CAF, are decent, law-abiding folks who generally neither wish nor enact harm upon others. Could not this god have seen to it that everyone in the world was like that? Or is that somehow more of a violation of free will than the aforementioned hardening of hearts?

A couple of days before the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami, most of the animals in the affected areas knew instinctively that trouble was coming, and moved inland to higher ground. Could not this god have granted such awareness to the humans as well, and thus greatly lessened the death and suffering that occurred from this disaster? This doesn’t strike me as a logically contradictory action for a benevolent god who is supposedly accustomed to intervening in the lives of people.

So what’s going on here, exactly?

the evil that people do is a matter of free will, if people dont have free will, then they are simply biomechanical robots. so if G-d wanted to make “people” then free will and its results would seem to be a requirement.

as to “natural evil” there is no such thing. natural disasters are random, unless one believes in some sort of tribal shamanism, random events have no meaning. no intent, they are not evil, they are horrible accidents.

why doesnt G-d stop natural disasters, stubbed toes and hurt feelings? He used to. then came the fall. He will again. thats the reason for our . to personally accept G-d, freely choose to love Him, to be with Him. to live with Him just as we did once in the Garden of Eden.

 

[sidbrown]

the evil that people do is a matter of free will, if people dont have free will, then they are simply biomechanical robots. so if G-d wanted to make “people” then free will and its results would seem to be a requirement.

as to “natural evil” there is no such thing. natural disasters are random, unless one believes in some sort of tribal shamanism, random events have no meaning. no intent, they are not evil, they are horrible accidents.

why doesnt G-d stop natural disasters, stubbed toes and hurt feelings? He used to. then came the fall. He will again. thats the reason for our . to personally accept G-d, freely choose to love Him, to be with Him. to live with Him just as we did once in the Garden of Eden.

OK, but it doesn’t answer the question about children of two years old having to endure horrible suffering and pain.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

OK, but it doesn’t answer the question about children of two years old having to endure horrible suffering and pain.

then i guess i dont understand the question. what am i not covering?

 

[sidbrown]

then i guess i dont understand the question. what am i not covering?

Why should children be made to suffer for other people’s wrong doing?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Why should children be made to suffer for other people’s wrong doing?

what are you talking about? where does that happen? i think im missing something here. i explained why suffering exists. does that not cover all people who suffer?

 

[tonyrey]

A couple of days before the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami, most of the animals in the affected areas knew instinctively that trouble was coming, and moved inland to higher ground. Could not this god have granted such awareness to the humans as well, and thus greatly lessened the death and suffering that occurred from this disaster? This doesn’t strike me as a logically contradictory action for a benevolent god who is supposedly accustomed to intervening in the lives of people.

Since we live in a manmade environment and are no longer so close to nature as animals it is to be expected that we have less awareness of impending disasters. We are in fact less vulnerable than animals because we have been given the power of reason which enables us to predict many such events and to know where catastrophes are likely to occur. It would defeat the purpose of giving us free will and a physical nature if there were constant intervention to protect us from “the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to”…

 

[Sair]

I know the logical how to ALL of those (and I’m not alone in that), but you do not qualify to be told. It requires humility.

Everyone of those conform perfectly with what Science understands of logic.

Cool. That tells me everything I need to know. If you’re too arrogant to answer honest questions, then you don’t know the answers, or know them to be inadequate.

 

[Sair]

Since we live in a manmade environment and are no longer so close to nature as animals it is to be expected that we have less awareness of impending disasters. We are in fact less vulnerable than animals because we have been given the power of reason which enables us to predict many such events and to know where catastrophes are likely to occur. It would defeat the purpose of giving us free will and a physical nature if there were constant intervention to protect us from “the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to”…

That’s kind of like saying that your god set humans up to fail.

It’s like me letting my cats out at night and hoping they won’t kill native wildlife…

 

[tonyrey]

That’s kind of like saying that your god set humans up to fail.

It’s like me letting my cats out at night and hoping they won’t kill native wildlife…

Your cats don’t share your power…

 

[James_S_Saint]

Cool. That tells me everything I need to know. If you’re too arrogant to answer honest questions, then you don’t know the answers, or know them to be inadequate.

And if you are so arrogant as to think that if you aren’t given an answer, there isn’t one, then clearly you don’t deserve one.

 

[Sair]

And if you are so arrogant as to think that if you aren’t given an answer, there isn’t one, then clearly you don’t deserve one.

I’m quite capable of looking for my own answers. Just thought that if you had them, you’d offer them, rather than assuming that I was unworthy of them. Quite unchristian of you, if I recall the concept of christian charity correctly…

 

[Sair]

Your cats don’t share your power…

But that’s your god’s responsibility, ultimately, if you believe in a creator god.

And my cats are, to all appearances, quite content with their night-time confinement - if the contentedly sleeping cat beside me on the couch is any indication.

Why does a benevolent god create animals capable of evil, if not for egotistical reasons? It seems to me that free will serves no purpose other than to validate reverence for a creator god - if a person freely chooses to worship, that’s far more valuable to the object of said worship than enforced or necessary reverence.

Really, the value of free will (even the existence of free will) is vastly open to debate - you can believe in a god who created beings with free will, or you can suppose that what we think of as free will is a conglomerate of physical processes happening in our brains. Either way, the results are the same. The problem of evil only exists if one believes in a god who intervenes in human lives and decisions - otherwise, what we think of as evil just happens as a result of the complexity of human cognitive processes.