When monotheists hurt God's credibility

[Linusthe2nd]

Because the problem of evil has been formally stated by Epicurus around 300 BC. It actually predates Christianity. Yet, Christianity, over 2000 years of existence, still fails to answer it.

The hidden assumption here is that Atheists have the answer. If it be granted, just for the sake of argument, that God does not exist, the same evils will still exists. So how would we be any better off under the Atheist alternative? If God didn’t exist, we wouldn’t even have anyone to " throw rocks at. "

 

[markeverett49]

The hidden assumption here is that Atheists have the answer.

Well, no. Atheists do not posit a good God, so the persistence of evil is not a problem for them. (They might have a problem explaining good deeds that bring no evolutionary advantage to the doer—such as sacrificing your life to save a stranger—but that’s another box of rocks.)

 

[Trurl]

meltzerboy:

If we behaved without free will to choose but according to deterministic needs, we would not learn the difference between right and wrong.

I could argue with this, but I will not. Please give me some answer to what I actually asked: “why is the freedom to torture someone necessary to learn the difference between right and wrong?”. We are unable (not “free”) to inflict pain on others by merely “wishing” it to happen. As such there are serious limitations to our “freedom”. Where should the line be where our freedom to do some evil simply disappears (remains a wishful thinking)? How much freedom to inflict pain on others is “ncessary” to learn the difference between right and wrong?

 

[Trurl]

markeverett49:

Your version is intellectually weaker but has more emotional resonance: “Boy, that God sounds like a real meanie! We’re voting him off the island!” But logically, there is no reason to accept your suppressed premise, “If God is good, he would never allow suffering or death.” That doesn’t follow.

You know what is so funny? I explicitly stated that only the UNNECESSARY and GRATUITOUS pain and sufferig are incompatible with a benevolent being, and in your reply you simply left out those all important qualifiers. If you wish to criticize what I said, at least do not change it to something else. There is absolutely no emotion involved, it is simple reason and logic. There are a few different approaches to explain (away) the POE.

One is the the “greater good” defense. It says that “pain and suffering” is allowed, if and only if that pain and suffering will bring forth some greater good, which cannot be achieved without that suffering, in other words the pain and suffering are a logical prerequisite to that greater good. This defense has two problems. One, the alleged grater good is just assumed, but never specified (what greater good came out of the Holocaust?). The second one is that it leaves God’s alleged omnipotence out of the picture. Most of the sufferings are due to our lack of technology, and as we develop, the sufferings slowly disappear. As such most (if ANY!) of the sufferings are not LOGICALLY necessary, and so the “greater good” defense is a “belly flop”.

Another attempt is the “free will” defense. This defense does not appeal to some nebulous greater good, which would be the logical corollary. It allows needless and gratuitous suffering, which is the result of our “free will”. It asserts that free will is so incredibly “valuable”, that the “minor sufferings” (like the Holocaust) must be overlooked. This defense also has at least three problems. One is that this “value” of free will is simply stated - as if it were some unquestionable axiomatic principle (which it is not - I argue that unlimited or barely limited freedom is a horrible idea from the standpoint of the constructor or creator). Another one is that it cannot explain the non-morally inflicted pain and suffering (incorrectly called “natural evil”). The next one is even more serious: from the existence of “free will” the existence of “moral evil” does not follow in a logical manner, ONLY the possibility of moral evil follows. Plantinga advocates this “defense”, and he asserts that there are logically possible worlds, which God cannot instantiate (the one with free agents, who nevertheless will never commit evil acts). Of course, this is sheer baloney. If God is unable to instantiate logically possible states of affairs, then God’s “omnipotence” becomes nonsense.

There are other methods. For example the flat-out denial the existence of “pain and suffering”. Or asserting that “quod licet Iovi non licet bovi”. Or saying that the pain and suffering simply does not “count” in comparision withe the “eternal” stuff comimg afterwards. Or simply shouting down the bearer of the bad news, like: “who are you, you despicable piece of dirt to criticize God?!!”. Of course the atheists do not criticize God, they criticize the apologists, who do an abysmal job of defending their God-concept. If you are interested in the different (and equally impotent answers to the POE), please look up the “Take of the Twelve Officers” here… All the “defenses” are contained in that little (and somewhat sarcastic) writeup.

 

[Tenofovir]

Because the problem of evil has been formally stated by Epicurus around 300 BC. It actually predates Christianity. Yet, Christianity, over 2000 years of existence, still fails to answer it.

Christian God is not a moral agent. Christian God is Being Itself, or Existence Itself. God is not good, but God is Goodness. One has to grasp this and then the problem of evil goes away.

Things we don’t like happen in the world. Often enough we find that we’re at fault too. For we don’t help enough once these things happen or we let them have greater consequences than otherwise.

And if we diverted more effort into preventing disasters or predicting them and mitigating them, we’d no doubt be significantly better off. Instead we’re happy to start wars, engage in crime and unproductive behaviours for profit and engage in pursuit of own pleasure or satisfaction of pride, jealousy, etc.

And to also say, God does not send anyone to hell. The people who died and who through no fault of their own did not know Him, or did know Him, will end up in a better place, until the Resurrection of the dead and eternal life on Earth follows.

 

[markeverett49]

You know what is so funny? I explicitly stated that only the UNNECESSARY and GRATUITOUS pain and suffering are incompatible with a benevolent being, and in your reply you simply left out those all important qualifiers. /QUOTE]

Okay, so I’ve marked you down as opposed to UNNECESSARY and GRATUITOUS pain and suffering but NOT the necessary and non-gratuitous kind.

 

[ReapReason]

Trurl;9849972:

You know what is so funny? I explicitly stated that only the UNNECESSARY

and GRATUITOUS pain and suffering are incompatible with a benevolent being, and in your reply you simply left out those all important qualifiers. /QUOTE]

Okay, so I’ve marked you down as opposed to UNNECESSARY and GRATUITOUS pain and suffering but NOT the necessary and non-gratuitous kind.

Well done.

Unless they can prove that pain and suffering is not necessary, they cannot claim that the existence of both good and evil is impossible; regardless of the degree of suffering.

 

[Trurl]

Okay, so I’ve marked you down as opposed to UNNECESSARY and GRATUITOUS pain and suffering but NOT the necessary and non-gratuitous kind.

Thank you.

Now the task is to show that ALL the seemingly unnecessary and gratuitous sufferings are just a “measurement error”, and when you do that, you established that God is indeed “good an benevolent”. Sounds like a tough problem, but hey! if it was easy, everyone could do it As I said before, you can start with the Holocaust. It is as good a starting point as any.

 

[Tenofovir]

You know what is so funny? I explicitly stated that only the UNNECESSARY and GRATUITOUS pain and sufferig are incompatible with a benevolent being, and in your reply you simply left out those all important qualifiers. If you wish to criticize what I said, at least do not change it to something else. There is absolutely no emotion involved, it is simple reason and logic. There are a few different approaches to explain (away) the POE.

You know what? You make UNNECESSARY and GRATUITOUS sound like they have objective, axiomatic meaning. They don’t have. They’re subjective. This is not arithmetic we’re talking about. What you may find UNNECESSARY, may in fact be NECESSARY. Your own incredulity is not a valid reason to reject something. Especially as you reject free will as being of value, and you reject eternal life in the Beatific Vision as not worthy of consideration, knowing ahead of time how you’d feel in such a situation, having suffered unspeakable cruelty on earth. Always putting an egocentric and emotive response and listing that as something of primacy.

One is the the “greater good” defense. It says that “pain and suffering” is allowed, if and only if that pain and suffering will bring forth some greater good, which cannot be achieved without that suffering, in other words the pain and suffering are a logical prerequisite to that greater good. This defense has two problems. One, the alleged grater good is just assumed, but never specified (what greater good came out of the Holocaust?).

This assumes you must be able to tell the good.
This assumes if that’s correct, it has already happened or already failed to happen.

The second one is that it leaves God’s alleged omnipotence out of the picture. Most of the sufferings are due to our lack of technology, and as we develop, the sufferings slowly disappear. As such most (if ANY!) of the sufferings are not LOGICALLY necessary, and so the “greater good” defense is a “belly flop”.

This assumes some sort of idea that technology can really cure evils. That’s not necessarily the case. Technology can be used to create and wreak more havoc. Without ZyclonB and modern tech the Nazis would not have been able to run a Holocaust, for example. Technology can be used for good and for evil purposes.

As we develop new types of sufferings emerge.

You’re also assuming the good has to be here and now, again.

Another attempt is the “free will” defense. This defense does not appeal to some nebulous greater good, which would be the logical corollary. It allows needless and gratuitous suffering, which is the result of our “free will”. It asserts that free will is so incredibly “valuable”, that the “minor sufferings” (like the Holocaust) must be overlooked. This defense also has at least three problems. One is that this “value” of free will is simply stated - as if it were some unquestionable axiomatic principle (which it is not - I argue that unlimited or barely limited freedom is a horrible idea from the standpoint of the constructor or creator).

Obviously free will is valuable. Without free will we would not be human. Are you saying you’d rather be an non-human animal - not a moral agent? I don’t see how you can put yourself in the shoes of Being Itself and argue that freedom is a bad idea.

Another one is that it cannot explain the non-morally inflicted pain and suffering (incorrectly called “natural evil”). The next one is even more serious: from the existence of “free will” the existence of “moral evil” does not follow in a logical manner, ONLY the possibility of moral evil follows. Plantinga advocates this “defense”, and he asserts that there are logically possible worlds, which God cannot instantiate (the one with free agents, who nevertheless will never commit evil acts). Of course, this is sheer baloney. If God is unable to instantiate logically possible states of affairs, then God’s “omnipotence” becomes nonsense.

To have free will also means the possibility to reject goodness, for that’s what evil is, a privation of goodness. God makes man but He makes him so free, man is able to reject God and goodness. This is not hard.

 

[Trurl]

Well done.

Unless they can prove that pain and suffering is not necessary, they cannot claim that the existence of both good and evil is impossible; regardless of the degree of suffering.

As usual, a negative cannot be “proven”. But we can appeal to logic and reason. We never really have FULL information (not being omniscient) so we MUST go by the available evidence, and apply the duck principle (if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and tasted like a duck, it is very probably a duck, and not an elephant). So according to the available evidence God is uncaring (or downright evil).

Of course all we have to “prove” that at least ONE instance of pain and suffering is not necessary. And that is easy as a breeze. The pain and suffering of the animals in a wildfire, or the agony of child due to some incurable disease have absolutely no positive outcome, and as such it is unnecessary. Case closed.

 

[ReapReason]

To have free will also means the possibility to reject goodness, for that’s what evil is, a privation of goodness. God makes man but He makes him so free, man is able to reject God and goodness. This is not hard.

 

[Trurl]

What you may find UNNECESSARY, may in fact be NECESSARY.

“May” is not an argument. SHOW me what was the objective, positive outcome of the Holocaust.

Especially as you reject free will as being of value, and you reject eternal life in the Beatific Vision as not worthy of consideration, knowing ahead of time how you’d feel in such a situation, having suffered unspeakable cruelty on earth.

Evidence for that beatific vision?

You’re also assuming the good has to be here and now, again.

Since there is no evidence for the “hereafter”, this is a valid view.

Are you saying you’d rather be an non-human animal - not a moral agent?

No. I am saying that the freedom of the rapists, tortureres and murderers IS a BAD IDEA. Those who would not commit acts like this can safely be given the freedom to perfrom such acts.

I don’t see how you can put yourself in the shoes of Being Itself and argue that freedom is a bad idea.

Sound like your own personal problem.

To have free will also means the possibility to reject goodness, for that’s what evil is, a privation of goodness.

Nonsense. Evil is an act of volitionally perform something to the detriment of someone else with a nervous system.

God makes man but He makes him so free, man is able to reject God and goodness. This is not hard.

I see no reason to accept the IDEA that God exists, yet I do not see any reason to kidnap, rape and torture people. Do I reject God? Actually, I reject the CONCEPT of God.

 

[ReapReason]

Since there is no evidence for the “hereafter”, this is a valid view.

If you choose to judge the Christian God, you must judge according to the whole Christian theology.

 

[LilyM]

As usual, a negative cannot be “proven”. But we can appeal to logic and reason. We never really have FULL information (not being omniscient) so we MUST go by the available evidence, and apply the duck principle (if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and tasted like a duck, it is very probably a duck, and not an elephant). So according to the available evidence God is uncaring (or downright evil).

Of course all we have to “prove” that at least ONE instance of pain and suffering is not necessary. And that is easy as a breeze. The pain and suffering of the animals in a wildfire, or the agony of child due to some incurable disease have absolutely no positive outcome, and as such it is unnecessary. Case closed.

We MUST act on incomplete sets of data and reach probably very faulty conclusions thereon? Nothing wrong with simply admitting that you have insufficient info and not reaching any conclusion at all.

Your analogy is wrong. We know that elephants will never look, walk or quack exactly like ducks, so will never mistake a duck for an elephant. Many ducks, however, mistake hunters with duck whistles for fellow ducks, to their detriment. You mistake God for a human being subject to the same considerations as humans. Eg the idea that there is some moral authority or standard over and above God, by which we are able to judge Him and by which He can be found wanting - as if He is not instead the embodiment and source and standard of all morality and we merely pale and often faulty images.

As for your laughable assertion that particular sufferings are unnecessary - I assert that they are entirely necessary. Your assertion has no greater or less validity than mine - ie zero. You have no kind of basis upon which to judge that those sufferings are unnecessary any more than I have to judge their necessity.

 

[ReapReason]

Nonsense. Evil is an act of volitionally perform something to the detriment of someone else with a nervous system.

Again, if you reject Christian definitions, then you are not judging the Christian God; but rather a straw-man.

 

[Tenofovir]

“May” is not an argument. SHOW me what was the objective, positive outcome of the Holocaust.

You have to answer my point first. We can’t get off from there before you can answer that.

Evidence for that beatific vision?

Teachings of Christ.
Catholic philosophy.

Since there is no evidence for the “hereafter”, this is a valid view.

In Catholic philosophy, the soul survives the end of the mortal body. There are logical arguments for that, based on the work of St Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle. Of course we also have Revelation in the form of Holy Scripture. Those are valid examples of evidence.

No. I am saying that the freedom of the rapists, tortureres and murderers IS a BAD IDEA. Those who would not commit acts like this can safely be given the freedom to perfrom such acts.

But then there is no freedom. If it’s selective, it’s not freedom. Besides a rapist can still change his ways later on. He can then FREELY realise his wrongdoings and turn toward the Truth. He can ask Christ for help. BTW you mention extreme examples, but evil also comes as pride, adultery etc. anything which strays us away from our natural ends. Therefore something like masturbation of or lying to someone who won’t be hurt by it are also evil.

And God forgives our sins. We must only be humble and sincere, and even if we fail, we should never give up. It’s pretty simple.

Sound like your own personal problem.

It’s your problem. You assume omniscience and propose to “design” a better human being / creation. You need to answer this.

Nonsense. Evil is an act of volitionally perform something to the detriment of someone else with a nervous system.

That’s not evil in classical theistic sense. It’s also not evil in atheistic nominalist sense either. In fact evil does not exist in the atheistic worldview.

I see no reason to accept the IDEA that God exists, yet I do not see any reason to kidnap, rape and torture people. Do I reject God? Actually, I reject the CONCEPT of God.

That’s pride in your own ability to be able to answer such important question, for one.

 

[Trurl]

If you choose to judge the Christian God, you must judge according to the whole Christian theology.

I repeat, I do not reject God, I reject the whole christian theology!

 

[Tenofovir]

I should also say that there are agnostics and atheists who also believe in survival of the soul after death - I think Sir Roger Penrose is one of them.

 

[Trurl]

Teachings of Christ.
Catholic philosophy.

In Catholic philosophy, the soul survives the end of the mortal body. There are logical arguments for that, based on the work of St Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle. Of course we also have Revelation in the form of Holy Scripture. Those are valid examples of evidence.

Only in your eyes.

But then there is no freedom. If it’s selective, it’s not freedom.

It is LIMITED freedom. Can you help or hurt someone by thinking about it? You cannot, you must ACT. As such your freedom is ALWAYS limited. What is the problem of having different limits for different people? Criminals are incarcareted to LIMIT their freedom. Do you have problem with that?

Besides a rapist can still change his ways later on.

Who cares? The deed is done, and even God has no “UNDO” command.

That’s not evil in classical theistic sense. It’s also not evil in atheistic nominalist sense either. In fact evil does not exist in the atheistic worldview.

Nonsense. Where do you get these ideas?

 

[Tenofovir]

I should also say that all humans are fallen creatures. Therefore none of us, even with free will intact, is perfectly good. We are all unfit for eternity with God. However, God extends His hand to us in the figure of Christ on the Cross.

We don’t deserve Heaven but God still offers it to us. God still offers Himself to us.