The problem of Evil

[TheTrueCentrist]

Evil doesn’t exist it is simply the absence of good.

If evil doesn’t exist, then it can’t “be” anything. What you’ve said makes no sense, you started by saying that evil has no being, then followed by explaining the nature of its being.

 

[JDaniel]

If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.

True: along with infinite and maximally loving.

If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.

How? The only way He could eliminate all evil is to re-make angels and humans into less perfect beings (then we currently are). What is the only way He could do this? By removing all (or, at least, some) of our freedom (to choose). (Notice that I did not infer that we have an “absolute” freedom. Our freedom is a function of the graces that are bestowed on us. And, God withholds grace at His inscrutable desire.)

If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.

So?

If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.

So sayeth Charlotte! Unsound reasoning, philosophically. What God desires is infinitely above our puny abilities to discern. Otherwise, He would not be God - instead, we would.

Evil exists.

Only where God’s graces are absent, i.e., only at the actualization of a human, or angelic, action wherein God’s grace is (or, has been) refused. You see, God controls absolutely everything else. The only way that we can have “freedom” is by God’s gift of grace. He doesn’t directly control angels and humans, as though they were puppets. He gifts grace to us, and we either accept it, or refuse it.

Think it through. How else would an infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving, all-good entity permit the reciprocity of “love,” if He controlled our “freedom” directly? What He would have, from us, would be artificial, at best. Of course, one could say that He could control everything else except that part of our freedom. But, of course, that’s absurd. Do you see that?

If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.
Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

Cute! But, poor reasoning again.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

This is William Lane Craig’s feeble attempt to explain away the problem. Of course Craig is not Catholic, so for him the Catholic doctrine that “the end does not justify the means” may not even apply. He may very well think that the end - to enter freely with a “loving” relationship with God - does justify the means, the allowing the evil actions.

Borz:

First of all, Welcome to CAF. Second, no real problem with this paragraph. In fact, it makes sense. In other words, the above paragraph is not the ramblings of a complete idiot.

There are several problems with his approach. First: his assertion that “entering into a loving relationship with God” is some kind of a “greater good”, is simply a personal opinion, nothing more. The fact that many people share it, does not elevate this concept to become an objective principle, it remains a widespread opinion.

But, in the next paragraph, you let me down! It is the ramblings of someone who is, oh well, never mind! How is it even remotely possible that, ‘entering into a loving relationship with God" [as] some kind of a “greater good”, is simply a personal opinion, nothing more?’ You might just as well tell people suffering from an attack of appendicitis, that they are morons and there is no pain. The picture you draw is non-sense.

But, let’s take it seriously for the sake of the disussion (even though it does not merit such a treatment). Suppose that the ability to enter into a loving relationship with God is truly valuable. In that case one needs to have the volitional option to love God (in other words to worship God), or to “reject” God by not worshipping him. That is all the “freedom” the person needs. There is absolutely no need for further “freedoms”, like torturing or raping or slaughtering others.

Talk about not meriting treatment! Oh, well… So, God should tweak our minds, as a man might program a computer, to weed out undesirable consequents, but leave just one consequent in place? Your summation of what it takes to have a reciprocal “loving relationship” with another entity, is the verbalization of “non-think,” if you actually took the time and thought about it, besides being a fabrication.

God bless,
jd

 

[joshvanrad]

I don’t so much think of the intentions of people as evil, but I think of the existence of Satan as the existence of evil. Satan is evil and the prince of deception. If God is omnipotent then why doesn’t he just do away with Satan?

What is it that allows Satan to keep doing his evil deeds in God’s universe?

God’s blessings,
Joshua

 

[tonyrey]

The so-called “problem of evil” is the eternal “thorn” in the side of christianity. It simply cannot be explained - and the numerous attempts to “explain it away” are spectacular failures.

The problem of evil is the eternal thorn in the side of atheism. If the universe is purposeless and valueless then evil simply does not exist - and the numerous attempts to explain it how it exists are spectacular failures!

 

[rom422]

Actually it does. A morally perfect being cannot allow any evil - because evil cannot be justified - if it could be justified, it would not be evil.

No, it is not “right”. There is a catholic doctrine which says that no good can come of evil. One cannot commit or allow an “evil” act, just because some “greater good” will come out of it. It is very clearly stated that “the end does not justify the means” - and that doctrine is very well stated and established - it is a doctrine which is supported by both religious and secular people.

The so-called “problem of evil” is the eternal “thorn” in the side of christianity. It simply cannot be explained - and the numerous attempts to “explain it away” are spectacular failures.

I’m sorry to disagree with you, Borz. The statement “the end does not justify the means” actually means that “one may not will evil to attain a good end.” However, the permission of evil is not the same thing as the willing of evil. God allows or permits, but does not will evil, for the sake of a greater good.

Perhaps I can better illustrate the difference between the permission of evil and the willing of evil by recalling the parable of the wheat and the cockle:

“The kingdom of heaven is likened to a man that sowed good seed in his field. But while men were asleep, his enemy came and oversowed cockle among the wheat, and went his way. And when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared also the cockle. Then the servants of the master of the house came and said to him: Master, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it cockle? And he said to them: An enemy hath done this. And the servants said to him: Wilt thou that we go and gather it up? And he said: No, lest perhaps while ye gather up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it. Let both grow until the harvest, and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers: Gather up first the cockle, and bind it into bundles to burn, but gather the wheat into my barn” (Matthew 13:25-30).

You see, the Master did NOT will that the cockle (the weed) grow with the wheat, because the wheat can actually grow better without them. But he permitted the cockle to grow with the wheat because he was looking after the life of his wheat. He did not want his wheat to be destroyed. So, when he told his servants not to gather up the cockle, he was willing the well-being of the wheat; he was not trying to save the cockle. For he did not want the cockle; he only tolerated it.

When God gave freedom of choice to man, by that same stroke he also permitted the possibility of evil, that is, that men might make the wrong choices. But He does NOT want people making evil choices. He only permits them because He wills our freedom, which is our good. He does not will man to make evil choices as a means to attain the good end of ensuring his freedom. Rather, He permits man to make evil choices to ensure his freedom. So this is not a case of God willing an evil means for the sake of a good end.

I think that the idea that a morally perfect being (God) cannot allow evil is false. The permission of evil is not incompatible with the existence of a good God. Indeed, this is the false premise in the OP. And because one premise is false, the whole argument is unsound.

God does not will moral evil or sin, but He permits it.

 

[tonyrey]

If evil doesn’t exist, then it can’t “be” anything. What you’ve said makes no sense, you started by saying that evil has no being, then followed by explaining the nature of its being.

On the contrary evil is not an entity but it is nevertheless a reality - as we soon discover when we are confronted with it! Both moral and natural evil have negative effects which cause suffering and death…

 

[tonyrey]

Even WLC says it’s the strongest argument for atheism (although he obviously thinks he has good reasons for rejecting it).

It is the weakest argument for atheism because it presupposes the existence of goodness!

 

[tonyrey]

What are your assumptions here? Are they true? Are you absolutely sure they are true? How would you see this if you didn’t think that way?

A) Why do you assume that God is personal, as implied by your statements?

Why do you assume God exists?

B) What constitutes evil? Is something evil from a particular perspective and relative to a desired outcome, or belief system, or is it evil by itself? Walt Disney films come to mind. Nature is Nature and does what it does. Disney made a mint personifying animals. Anthropomorphism, anyone?

Why do you assume evil exists?

 

[Borz]

God’s goodness doesn’t consist in his being a “moral exemplar.” This would be just to turn him into a really nice, big, sky-daddy.

If God’s “goodness” allows him to perform or allow genocides then your concept of “goodness” is so irrational that it would be futile to conduct a conversation with you.

During the years of my absence I was hoping that some miniscule amount of rationality has “infected” the posters on the board. My hope was not vindicated. The level of irrationality has stayed the same - too bad.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t so much think of the intentions of people as evil, but I think of the existence of Satan as the existence of evil.

If no one has evil intentions no one should be punished, hell doesn’t exist and everyone goes to heaven!
.

Satan is evil and the prince of deception. If God is omnipotent then why doesn’t he just do away with Satan?

God does not destroy what He has created because there would be no point in creating anything.

What is it that allows Satan to keep doing his evil deeds in God’s universe?

Satan! He is entirely responsible…

 

[tonyrey]

If God’s “goodness” allows him to perform or allow genocides then your concept of “goodness” is so irrational that it would be futile to conduct a conversation with you.

 

[tonyrey]

Evil is not the “absence” of something, it is the “presence” of a malevolent action, or the allowing of such malevolent actions, if those actions can be prevented.

It is absurd to describe evil as a metaphorical " presence". Can it be detected by the senses? Who detects it? How is it detected? Where is it located? What causes it?

 

[rom422]

If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
Evil exists.
If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.
Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

Charlotte408, this is the false premise in the argument that you quoted: “If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.”

Although God desires no evil, He permits evil for the sake of a greater good.

How does this add up?? None of the premises state that God is bound to, or obligated to eliminate evil, right? And we don’t claim so, it’s that He ‘allows’ evil for a greater good right?

You are absolutely right.

 

[tonyrey]

Even if you could show that every instance of “evil” is simply the optimal way of bringing forth some “greater good”…

The onus is on you to explain how **every **instance of evil could be prevented, i.e. by producing a feasible blueprint of a universe devoid of evil.

…try to show what “greater” good came out of the Holocaust)…

The onus is on you to explain how the Holocaust could have been prevented without creating zombies incapable of choosing for themselves what to believe and how to live.

…you would run afoul of the Catholic doctrine of “the end cannot justify the means”.

You are running afoul of your own doctrine that the universe is amoral, exists for no reason or purpose and has produced sparks in the dark whose lives are meaningless and valueless…

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

How? The only way He could eliminate all evil is to re-make angels and humans into less perfect beings (then we currently are). What is the only way He could do this? By removing all (or, at least, some) of our freedom (to choose). (Notice that I did not infer that we have an “absolute” freedom. Our freedom is a function of the graces that are bestowed on us. And, God withholds grace at His inscrutable desire.)

So what you are saying is that free will inevitably leads to evil. Any free will which does not lead to evil is not really free will.

So sayeth Charlotte! Unsound reasoning, philosophically. What God desires is infinitely above our puny abilities to discern. Otherwise, He would not be God - instead, we would.

However we believe that we have a grasp on what it means to be good. We say that God is infinitely good. Allowing evil to occur when one has the power to stop it is incompatible with out understanding of what good is. There are therefore two possibilities, we don’t actually understand what good is, or God is not infinitely good.

Only where God’s graces are absent, i.e., only at the actualization of a human, or angelic, action wherein God’s grace is (or, has been) refused. You see, God controls absolutely everything else. The only way that we can have “freedom” is by God’s gift of grace. He doesn’t directly control angels and humans, as though they were puppets. He gifts grace to us, and we either accept it, or refuse it.

That’s like saying its ok to give a gun to someone you know is going to go on a shooting rampage. Sure, it is their decision to kill people, but you’re giving them the tools to do it. God is all-knowing, he knows what we will do with what he gives us.

Think it through. How else would an infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving, all-good entity permit the reciprocity of “love,” if He controlled our “freedom” directly? What He would have, from us, would be artificial, at best. Of course, one could say that He could control everything else except that part of our freedom. But, of course, that’s absurd. Do you see that?

If free will is compatible with omniscience in this world, then it would be compatible if God selected a world where he knew everyone would be good.

Cute! But, poor reasoning again.

It was the logical conclusion from the premises.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

The onus is on you to explain how **every **instance of evil could be prevented, i.e. by producing a feasible blueprint of a universe devoid of evil.

Adam and Eve never eat the apple.

 

[JDaniel]

So what you are saying is that free will inevitably leads to evil.

TTC:

No, what I am saying is that free will potentially leads to evil. It doesn’t have to - if we simply accept God’s gift - but, if we don’t it could. Much, I’m sure, to God’s chagrin, it turns out that there are lots of people who refuse His graces. Look at what’s going on in India: a million young girls sentenced to death and killed, each year, in order that the girl’s family can avoid paying an (illegal) dowry!

Any free will which does not lead to evil is not really free will.

I know you’d like to sneak that one in, wouldn’t you?

However we believe that we have a grasp on what it means to be good. We say that God is infinitely good. Allowing evil to occur when one has the power to stop it is incompatible with out understanding of what good is. There are therefore two possibilities, we don’t actually understand what good is, or God is not infinitely good.

Your analysis makes no sense at all. Perhaps you should think about it a little, this time, and try to re-create something that uses logic to attempt to define a logic.

That’s like saying its ok to give a gun to someone you know is going to go on a shooting rampage. Sure, it is their decision to kill people, but you’re giving them the tools to do it. God is all-knowing, he knows what we will do with what he gives us.

Well, it’s either that, or . . . we become robots. From the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia (on-line):

"In order to emphasize how mysterious and unapproachable is Divine election, the Council of Trent calls predestination “hidden mystery”. That predestination is indeed a sublime mystery appears not only from the fact that the depths of the eternal counsel cannot be fathomed, it is even externally visible in the inequality of the Divine choice. The unequal standard by which baptismal grace is distributed among infants and efficacious graces among adults is hidden from our view by an impenetrable veil. Could we gain a glimpse at the reasons of this inequality, we should at once hold the key to the solution of the mystery itself. Why is it that this child is baptized, but not the child of the neighbor? Why is it that Peter the Apostle rose again after his fall and persevered till his death, while Judas Iscariot, his fellow-Apostle, hanged himself and thus frustrated his salvation? Though correct, the answer that Judas went to perdition of his own free will, while Peter faithfully co-operated with the grace of conversion offer him, does not clear up the enigma. For the question recurs: Why did not God give to Judas the same efficacious, infallibly successful grace of conversion as to St. Peter, whose blasphemous denial of the Lord was a sin no less grievous than that of the traitor Judas? To all these and similar questions the only reply is the word of St. Augustine: “Inscrutabilia sunt judicia Dei” (the judgments of God are inscrutable).

If free will is compatible with omniscience in this world, then it would be compatible if God selected a world where he knew everyone would be good.

Why?

God bless,
jd

 

[Charlotte408]

So sayeth Charlotte!

No no nooo Charlotte sayeth not! That arguement is all Plato

 

[JDaniel]

No no nooo Charlotte sayeth not! That arguement is all Plato

Charlotte:

I know, but I thought you were ascribing to it. Sorry.

What other questions have you? Are your earlier ones being answered?

God bless,
jd