A New Argument from Evil

[George-ananda]

Life is eternal but 'Problem of Evil' believers view things from the limited perspective that life begins at birth and ends at death.The natural illusion.

I try to look at life from the perspective that life is eternal and we are in the process of learning that. We live as individuals for eons and not one life. We all return to godhead in the end. If one could see one's life from separation from godhead through the eons to return to godhead then things make more sense. What we see as evil are very short temporary events in the grand scheme of things where each individual story ends in success; return to peace/bliss/awareness of godhead.

There wouldn't even be such a thing as happiness if there wasn't such a thing as unhappiness; if all the dramas were removed, it would just be a static-state sameness. Nothing would propel us to question, advance and grow.

 

[Sir Doom]

I think this is an important point. How is it that God owes anything to what is created? Every injustice that has happened in human history can easily be the reason many of us are here. To ask the creator to do it differently would be like telling the creator you'd rather not exist. Such a being may be able to intervene but to whose demise?

I was speaking more of the utter lack of perspective we have. That's why I compared it to a character in a story. The author of a novel does not necessarily consider the feelings of the characters in their novels. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. And its up to them. Arbitrary. Its their creation, why should they not be allowed to murder the entire lot of them? And sometimes authors do exactly that. Is this unjust? From the character's standpoint, maybe. But they aren't privy to the reason behind it. If they were, they might agree with the author that it was just to slaughter them wholesale. Until we know why the omnipotent being does anything (obviously impossible) then we can never distinguish between what is truly just and unjust among those things. AND if we are assuming that god is universally just in all of its actions, then even if we did attain omniscient knowledge of God's intentions we would see that every single bit of horror visited upon this universe is absolutely justified. It couldn't logically be any other way.

 

[Willamena]

Yes, I have heard the "utility" argument before. Pain, suffering, evil, and injustice can be permitted if it brings about a greater good. You think I have never heard of this before? You may be surprised to know this but I have read the attempts of theists, like William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, and Peter Kreeft to argue for the utility theodicy.

My argument, in response, is that a divine being with the attributes listed in the OP can choose means that avoid negligence. In fact, 9-10ths Penguin made precisely this point by arguing that if a doctor is capable of providing a vaccine without inflicting pain that results from a needle but doesn't, then that doctor is acting injustly. In fact, a divine being who is all-powerful and all-knowing can cure a child without the need for a vaccine altogether.

Matthew

If you can explain logically why deity is "necessarily just," I think it's sound logic (just as the Argument from Evil is sound).

 

[Willamena]

Justice is ensuring that people receive what they deserve. If a child is inflicted with pain that they don't deserve, then all else being equal, that is an unjust outcome.

And all things are equal with an omnipotent god, since a being that can do anything can inoculate you without hurting you.

And who's to say what they deserve?

 

[Willamena]

(Puts on her RHP hat to demonstrate an RHP image.)

Pain, fear, boredom, grief and injustice, are as much a part of the world we live in as pleasure, joy, interest, attachment and justice. For an Omnipotent-Omniscient-Omnipresent deity to deny any part of the world is for him to deny deity. To suggest that he should is to suggest he not be deity.

For us to deny those things is also for us to deny any part of the world is deity. Especially us. (We're "special.")

 

[Super Universe]

Well, aren't we both selfish then?



You make it sound like I never took a course in logic. I have. Two of them, in fact. I took a course in "Introduction to Logic" and "Formal logic". You're not telling me anything that I didn't learn. Although the textbook for my "Formal logic" class did say that the point of constructing an argument was truth-perservation, especially with regards to constructing deductive arguments. In a logically valid argument, the conclusion must necessarily follow from the premises.

A valid argument can be wrong; this is the difference between a sound argument and a unsound argument. Consider the following:

1.) All glass skyscrapers are in New York City.
2.) The Empire State Building is a glass skyscraper
3,) The Empire Stae Building is in New York City.

This is a logically valid argument. However, it's not sound. However:

1.) All men are mortal
2.) Socrates was a man
3.) Therefore, Socrates was mortal

This is both logically valid and logically sound. In my OP, I presented my argument as one that is logically valid but the soundness is open to debate. That is why people, including me and you, are discussing it.



Look, I don't need a tutorial in formal logic. I appreciate your attempts to educate me but I have taken logic courses.



My argument attempts to show that the conjunction of attributes given to any divine being would result in a contradiction between a divine being with these attributes and the occurrence of injustice. I don't "expect" responsibility, I attempted to argue that this derives from the attribute of being necessarily just.



Yes, I have heard the "utility" argument before. Pain, suffering, evil, and injustice can be permitted if it brings about a greater good. You think I have never heard of this before? You may be surprised to know this but I have read the attempts of theists, like William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, and Peter Kreeft to argue for the utility theodicy.

My argument, in response, is that a divine being with the attributes listed in the OP can choose means that avoid negligence. In fact, 9-10ths Penguin made precisely this point by arguing that if a doctor is capable of providing a vaccine without inflicting pain that results from a needle but doesn't, then that doctor is acting injustly. In fact, a divine being who is all-powerful and all-knowing can cure a child without the need for a vaccine altogether.

Matthew

Aren't we both selfish? Yes. Don't take it as an insult, take it as a sign that humans have to adjust our scale. We think that some humans are selfish and others are not when we are pretty much all selfish. The only unselfish humans are those who never have any power over others and only get their basic needs met or less, essentially, children who starve to death.

The earth is not heaven nor is it meant to be. Primitive sentient beings serve a valuable purpose in the universe. Personality is an experiment. God, in an effort to have a balanced personality with positive and negative aspects, shuns the negative aspects from His central focus (heaven, or the brain of God).

The negative personality aspects thus can only be expressed outside of heaven in sentient but primitive beings like humans. As we evolve we gain more and more positive personality aspects and the negative aspects flow into and are expressed by other more primitive but still sentient beings.

 

[idav]

I was speaking more of the utter lack of perspective we have. That's why I compared it to a character in a story. The author of a novel does not necessarily consider the feelings of the characters in their novels. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. And its up to them. Arbitrary. Its their creation, why should they not be allowed to murder the entire lot of them? And sometimes authors do exactly that. Is this unjust? From the character's standpoint, maybe. But they aren't privy to the reason behind it. If they were, they might agree with the author that it was just to slaughter them wholesale. Until we know why the omnipotent being does anything (obviously impossible) then we can never distinguish between what is truly just and unjust among those things. AND if we are assuming that god is universally just in all of its actions, then even if we did attain omniscient knowledge of God's intentions we would see that every single bit of horror visited upon this universe is absolutely justified. It couldn't logically be any other way.

Yes, thus god would and should remain unaccountable. To god, human suffering would be akin to having a bad dream. Dad would just tell you it is a silly dream so go back to sleep. Thats what most holy texts seem to wanna tell us, that there is more than this.

 

[Koldo]

Life is eternal but 'Problem of Evil' believers view things from the limited perspective that life begins at birth and ends at death.The natural illusion.

I try to look at life from the perspective that life is eternal and we are in the process of learning that. We live as individuals for eons and not one life. We all return to godhead in the end. If one could see one's life from separation from godhead through the eons to return to godhead then things make more sense. What we see as evil are very short temporary events in the grand scheme of things where each individual story ends in success; return to peace/bliss/awareness of godhead.

There wouldn't even be such a thing as happiness if there wasn't such a thing as unhappiness; if all the dramas were removed, it would just be a static-state sameness. Nothing would propel us to question, advance and grow.

I must say that neither a temporary nor eternal existence refute the problem of evil ( nor the OP ).

 

[Sir Doom]

Yes, thus god would and should remain unaccountable. To god, human suffering would be akin to having a bad dream. Dad would just tell you it is a silly dream so go back to sleep. Thats what most holy texts seem to wanna tell us, that there is more than this.

I wouldn't say unaccountable. They are his direct actions regardless. There just isn't anyone to account to and even if there were there would be nothing out of order anyway. But responsibility is necessarily the omnipotent being's as sole creator/controller/watcher/snuggle-bunny.

The other part is a bit tricky. You have to remember which God we're talking about. This being is witnessing all of reality at once. A human having a nightmare from god's perspective may seem like a minute blip in a vast universe, but the universe isn't vast to god, and no blip is tiny to god either. Size is as irrelevant as time. God has no need to focus on any given part. It sees all of the universe in complete detail all of the time that any given piece existed all at once. So, every shred of horror ever visited upon any human being god experiences from his own perspective as well as your perspective and the perspective of anyone witnessing it, or being affected by it, or causing it, etc., etc., etc. All at once and from start to finish and in concert with everything else that ever happened to anything for any reason. So all of the human suffering that has happened, is happening and will happen is currently being experienced by God all at once. I think this goes a bit beyond a father's empathy (since that would be experienced first hand, second hand, third hand, etc., etc. as well).

 

[George-ananda]

I must say that neither a temporary nor eternal existence refute the problem of evil ( nor the OP ).

But you didn't mention WHY you think my eternal existence argument is not satisfactory.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But you didn't mention WHY you think my eternal existence argument is not satisfactory.

I think it's irrelevant. The Problem of Evil basically asks how it is that the imperfections of our world could have been the result of a perfect creator. Your argument effectively says "but if you take the afterlife into account too, imperfections that look major to us aren't really that big at all," but minor imperfections are still imperfections.

IOW, your argument only addressed the magnitude of imperfection. It didn't addressed the fact that it exists, and the fact it exists at all is the central problem of the Problem of Evil.

 

[George-ananda]

I think it's irrelevant. The Problem of Evil basically asks how it is that the imperfections of our world could have been the result of a perfect creator.

What would the world look like without what you call ‘imperfections’ ? …. people living forever in a ‘garden of eden’? No diseases? No deaths (then how can there be births)? No free will to do evil and good? And more importantly, no need for change, no need for improvement, etc..

Many great thinkers (and even lesser ones like George-Ananda) have said that they can conceive of no greater hell than a heaven that is eternal and unchanging. That would be earth without so-called ‘imperfections. That is why in more advanced religious thought (like Advaita Vedanta) change and progress are continuous until merger with the One absolute. Change and progress require challenge.

These ‘imperfections’ were perfectly created to ultimately produce growth and change. Our perspective is too narrow to see this.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What would the world look like without what you call ‘imperfections’ ? …. people living forever in a ‘garden of eden’? No diseases? No deaths (then how can there be births)? No free will to do evil and good? And more importantly, no need for change, no need for improvement, etc..

How about nobody dying in pain or fear? That would be a good first step.

Many great thinkers (and even lesser ones like George-Ananda) have said that they can conceive of no greater hell than a heaven that is eternal and unchanging. That would be earth without so-called ‘imperfections. That is why in more advanced religious thought (like Advaita Vedanta) change and progress are continuous until merger with the One absolute. Change and progress require challenge.

These ‘imperfections’ were perfectly created to ultimately produce growth and change. Our perspective is too narrow to see this.

I don't think I'd be able to ever widen my perspective so far that I would see the death of a child by starvation, for instance, as a good thing.

 

[George-ananda]

You didn't challenge the gist of my post which is good to see. But let me comment on what you did say.

How about nobody dying in pain or fear? That would be a good first step.

Evidence from Near Death Experiences tells me we don't die in fear or pain. It's actually a wonderful experience.

I don't think I'd be able to ever widen my perspective so far that I would see the death of a child by starvation, for instance, as a good thing.

We are not supposed to see that as a good thing. It's supposed to motivate us to grow society more spiritually.

 

[Matthew78]

Two ideas here have no business in the same conversation as omnipotence. First is 'impossible'. Second is 'necessary'. Omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence remove both of these concepts from the equation in every case.

How so?

There are no impossibilities for an omnipotent being.

Most theists would disagree with you. Many theists would argue that there are some things that an omnipotent being cannot do. An omnipotent god could not create a rock so heavy that s/he/it could not lift it. Nor could such a being create a square circle. God can be omnipotent, many theists say, but even omnipotence has logical boundaries. Ditto with omniscience. Consider a logically true statement such as "Today is either Wednesday or it is not Wednesday". A omniscient being can only know that this is true. It's impossible for a omniscient being to know that this is logically false. Again, omniscience has logical boundaries.

There is also nothing that this being could possibly need, least of all would be its need to act in a certain way. If we are taking the common position that god is loves us all very much, we can't imply that it is impossible for this being to stop loving us, or to do something that does not demonstrate love. The fact of its omnibenevolence is one of the myriad things God is in control of. I don't know that this is really a disagreement.

I think your statement here confuses "need" with "necessity" and "necessarily". I am using the words "necessity" and "necessarily" which, if I am correct, are modal terms. The word "need" as in the sentence, "All human beings have basic needs for survival" is not using any modal words that I know of; I could be wrong.

Can you demonstrate to me how these are acts of injustice from the omnipotent god's standpoint?

No, but I don't see this as being a problem. I don't see why I would need to demonstrate it. A omnipotent god can also be an cruel god.

This is a fine rule for humans, but we are talking about the architect of reality. There is no such thing as negligence from an omnipotent being's standpoint. All things that happen are by design. Negligence suggests that the being is apathetic to the event, which can't be true since this being designed the event. The event is an intentional act. If the being can be seen as a criminal it is in the first degree.

I think your reply is confusing omnipotence with sovereignty. An omnipotent being is not necessarily a being who exercizes sovereign control over the universe or has any kind of authoritative relationship or control over people or events. If all things that happen are by design, then a divine being who designs what happens is a divine being who is in sovereign control over the world. I don't see how it follows that sovereignty is a logical consequence of omnipotence if that is what you're saying.

Unfortunately, God is not a human. He has nothing to gain or lose by helping or harming humanity.

Why does being necessarily just or perfectly just entail that he has something to gain by helping humanity? What if helping humanity is just in his nature to do so because being necessarily or even perfectly just is in his nature and helping humanity is just a natural outcome of being just?

There is no court to take him to. There is no authority it must bend to. It is the all powerful master of reality. Everything exists by its whim and its whim alone. This would be like you writing a story about a guy getting murdered and then the police in the book attempt to locate you the writer for questioning.

I think this is a bad analogy. It's comparing apples and oranges. A story can be factual or fictional but we are not fictional characters following a storyline.

Did you just assign a duty to an omnipotent God? I think you may misunderstand the relationship the omnipotent God and you must have. Or are you suggesting this is some intrinsic quality of reality that God must obey despite the fact that even if that were the case this attribute of reality would have been designed and put in place by himself.

I haven't assigned a duty to an omnipotent God. I think your reply misunderstands my argument. In fact, it isolates just one attribute as though my argument hinges on that attribute alone. My argument hinges on more than one and it can only be valid if all the pertinent attributes are taken in conjunction. I can't assign a duty to an omnipotent God if that omnipotent God is cruel or apathetic.

Justice is equally as subjective as good and evil.

If so, then having a justice system is rather pointless IMO. If justice is subjective then there really is no point in giving people fair trials if they are arrested and charged with breaking a law.

I would like to point out that 'subjective' and 'irrelevant' are not synonyms as they are often treated. Its only that subjective terms do not fit all that well into our little game of logic that we like to play and therefore make for poor arguments.

Not necessarily. Many theists believe that morality is objective and so is justice. In fact, they will argue that God is the cause of objective moral values and that God, being all-good, all-merciful, and all-just requires that justice be objective. My argument can then be used as part of a strategy to argue that justice and morality can only be subjective and invented by humans because if they are objective and exist independently of human thought then God cannot exist or, in all probability, doesn't exist.

Good post, btw.

Thank you. Even if you disagree with me, I am pleased that it might have given you some food for thought. I am always happy to accomplish that.

Matthew

 

[Matthew78]

If you can explain logically why deity is "necessarily just," I think it's sound logic (just as the Argument from Evil is sound).

That's just it. I don't think I can explain why any deity is necessarily just. In fact, I am just going with the premises argued by many theists. Many of them will say that God is "perfectly just" but I often don't see the qualifying adjective "perfectly" either defined or explained. What does perfectly mean? Does it mean that a divine being could act unjustly but never chooses to or that a divine being cannot act unjustly?

Matthew

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You didn't challenge the gist of my post which is good to see.

That doesn't mean I accept it; it just means I choose my battles.

But let me comment on what you did say.

Evidence from Near Death Experiences tells me we don't die in fear or pain. It's actually a wonderful experience.

I think you're reaching.

We are not supposed to see that as a good thing. It's supposed to motivate us to grow society more spiritually.

We have plenty of fodder to make us grow without any children dying horribly.

Are you familiar with Maslow's heirarchy of needs? Basically, it says that physical needs for basic survival get the highest priority at the expense of higher-order needs like intellectual fulfillment or spiritual growth (though I hesitate to use the word "spritual", since it tends to allow a very wide range of interpretations).

At a societal level, this means that when we're spending our time worrying about the basic survival of vulnerable people, this hinders - not helps - our "spiritual" growth.

 

[Willamena]

That's just it. I don't think I can explain why any deity is necessarily just. In fact, I am just going with the premises argued by many theists. Many of them will say that God is "perfectly just" but I often don't see the qualifying adjective "perfectly" either defined or explained. What does perfectly mean? Does it mean that a divine being could act unjustly but never chooses to or that a divine being cannot act unjustly?

Matthew

What does "just" mean to you?

And if you possessed a concept of deity that informs every aspect of possible and potential existence, including so-called injustices, what would it mean?

 

[Matthew78]

What does "just" mean to you?

I take it to mean any behavior that respects people and treats them as they deserve to be treated in accordance with how they behave. People who are kind and treat others with respect deserve to be rewarded with kindness and respect and people who are cruel and hateful deserve to be punished for their behavior. How exactly, I am not sure. This is what "just" means.

And if you possessed a concept of deity that informs every aspect of possible and potential existence, including so-called injustices, what would it mean?

I'm not sure what you mean.

Matthew

 

[Willamena]

I take it to mean any behavior that respects people and treats them as they deserve to be treated in accordance with how they behave. People who are kind and treat others with respect deserve to be rewarded with kindness and respect and people who are cruel and hateful deserve to be punished for their behavior. How exactly, I am not sure. This is what "just" means.



I'm not sure what you mean.

Matthew

"Just" is in no small way an absolute value, though--if we are to take those we know as example, people treat other people differently and everyone has their own opinion. Where "just" is observed, it is in a person noting the similar characteristics that you mention in a relatively universal fashion.

Deity allegedly knows all; so is it so hard to explain how something with an allegedly truly universal knowledge of everyone's behavior can point at how a person deserves to be treated in accordance with how everyone, generally, behaves?