A Return to the Argument from Evil (by Epicurus)

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Actually, as I see it, the best "argument" is to bite the bullet and claim that omnipotence is not really unlimited power. That understanding it as unlimited power is an error.

IOW, to argue that God is not omnipotent. Yes, that's a way to resolve the dilemma.

This view is entirely compatible with every religion that involves God. If anything, it makes even more sense. Just to cite an example: For the bible literalist, it would entail that God had no other way to fix the world other than flooding it. It also explains why miracles only happen now and then and not 100% of the time. From this starting point, the theist can claim that this is the best possible world that God could pull off.

Bringing the Bible into the discussion probably doesn't help.

IMO, the character of God as described in the Bible is less moral than - and shows less foresight than - the average human.

Better to start out trying to resolve the core of the problem of evil: i.e. the discrepancy between the world around us and the world that we ought to see if some God really existed. No need to make that task even tougher by inventing divine genocides and erratic behaviour that you then need to explain.

In the end, God would still be an extremely powerful being. I have no idea why so many people refuse to accept this solution.

And then there's what I see as the most obvious way to resolve the problem of evil: to say that God just doesn't exist at all. I have no idea why so many people refuse to accept that solution.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

God loves you enough to create and indwell you, but you just ignore him out of ignorance.

Kindly don't even imagine that you can tell me about my thought processes. You can't. On that subject, you are 100% ignorant.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

And where, pray tell, might one get a peek at this standard.

Well, at least one contributor to this thread thinks it can be found in the Urantia Book. After all, it was authored by "celestial beings," it tells us.

 

[darkskies]

And yet, if a parent simply "allows" something horrible to happen to a child, while not actually causing the harm, would you let that parent off the hook?

Suppose not. Parents have obligations.
But with omnibenevolence of God I understand it like this: When he acts, Then he does good.
Ambiguity in the meaning of "benevolence" allows for it. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Koldo]

IOW, to argue that God is not omnipotent. Yes, that's a way to resolve the dilemma.

In a way, yes. Although I would phrase it as: To argue for a distinct definition of omnipotence.

We, humans, wouldn't be able to tell apart, in practice, whether an extremely powerful being is omnipotent. So, even if you weren't to accept another definition for omnipotence, how much of a difference would it make to the theist? He rejects omnipotence and comes out of the dilemma with almost the same God he had before.

Bringing the Bible into the discussion probably doesn't help.

IMO, the character of God as described in the Bible is less moral than - and shows less foresight than - the average human.

Better to start out trying to resolve the core of the problem of evil: i.e. the discrepancy between the world around us and the world that we ought to see if some God really existed. No need to make that task even tougher by inventing divine genocides and erratic behaviour that you then need to explain.

Honestly, it can be quite trivial to handle those behaviours depending where you are coming from. Think of Hobbe's Leviathan, for instance.

I was just pointing out that my proposed "solution" is compatible with religions. Unlimited power is unnecessary as far as religious claims go.

And then there's what I see as the most obvious way to resolve the problem of evil: to say that God just doesn't exist at all. I have no idea why so many people refuse to accept that solution.

That's also my solution, but I can understand that people might have reasons for believing in God that I do not.

 

[1213]

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

― Epicurus​

The most serious argument against this, generally speaking, is the "free will" excuse. ...

Sound very biased point to start. I think the correct explanation for evil to happen here is:

1. People wanted to know evil and rejected God.
2. Because of that, people were expelled to this first death, where we can learn what evil truly means (to be without God).
3. It is not a problem, because God has prepared a way back to life and nothing of this world can destroy soul, which is the important thing.
4. Death of a body is not the end and this “life” is not even meant to last forever. This is like Matrix, where soul can experience things, without anything destroying soul.

...fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. …
Matt. 10:28

 

[Colt]

Sound very biased point to start. I think the correct explanation for evil to happen here is:

1. People wanted to know evil and rejected God.
2. Because of that, people were expelled to this first death, where we can learn what evil truly means (to be without God).
3. It is not a problem, because God has prepared a way back to life and nothing of this world can destroy soul, which is the important thing.
4. Death of a body is not the end and this “life” is not even meant to last forever. This is like Matrix, where soul can experience things, without anything destroying soul.

...fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. …
Matt. 10:28

Atheist in general actually have a "concept" of what God and reality should be. They object to the way God and reality actually is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In a way, yes. Although I would phrase it as: To argue for a distinct definition of omnipotence.

We, humans, wouldn't be able to tell apart, in practice, whether an extremely powerful being is omnipotent. So, even if you weren't to accept another definition for omnipotence, how much of a difference would it make to the theist? He rejects omnipotence and comes out of the dilemma with almost the same God he had before.

Much of religion involves vigorous debate and devoutly-held beliefs over things that nobody has any real way of investigating. Why should the nature of omnipotence be any different?

Honestly, it can be quite trivial to handle those behaviours depending where you are coming from. Think of Hobbe's Leviathan, for instance.

I guess I'm not familiar enough with it to know what you're getting at.

I was just pointing out that my proposed "solution" is compatible with religions. Unlimited power is unnecessary as far as religious claims go.

I see a number of compatibility problems with what you're suggesting. Do you nean that these adherents ought not to care about the details of their religions that are incompatible with your suggestion?

That's also my solution, but I can understand that people might have reasons for believing in God that I do not.

Likewise, I can understand that people might have reasons for believing that what we see around us isn't the absolute best that God can manage.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sound very biased point to start. I think the correct explanation for evil to happen here is:

1. People wanted to know evil and rejected God.

Let's unpack this first premise.

Did God want this to happen?

- if yes, why?
- if no, why couldn't he stop it?

You still have the problem of evil to deal with. All you did is introduce a bit of hand-waving before having to deal with the tough questions again.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Let's unpack this first premise.

Did God want this to happen?

- if yes, why?
- if no, why couldn't he stop it?

You still have the problem of evil to deal with. All you did is introduce a bit of hand-waving before having to deal with the tough questions again.

Let's further unwrap.

To want is a human trait. Why do you assume God has these human characteristics?

Yes, there is still the problem of evil to deal with. Is this a problem one can resolve without God's help?

 

[Koldo]

Much of religion involves vigorous debate and devoutly-held beliefs over things that nobody has any real way of investigating. Why should the nature of omnipotence be any different?

I didn't mean otherwise...
Actually, it is exactly because of vigorous debate that adopting a distinct perspective about omnipotence, for instance, becomes relevant.

I guess I'm not familiar enough with it to know what you're getting at.

The monarch is above the law.

I see a number of compatibility problems with what you're suggesting. Do you nean that these adherents ought not to care about the details of their religions that are incompatible with your suggestion?

No. I mean I see no compatibility issues. Can you point some of them?

 

[Koldo]

Let's further unwrap.

To want is a human trait. Why do you assume God has these human characteristics?

Yes, there is still the problem of evil to deal with. Is this a problem one can resolve without God's help?

The issue here is thus: Every voluntary action involves a 'want' of some kind. Is God capable of voluntary actions?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Let's further unwrap.

To want is a human trait. Why do you assume God has these human characteristics?

What a weird question.

Gods are anthromorphisms; that's the whole point of them. They're a relatable face put on the otherwise-unrelatable.

But if it works better for you, feel free to use "aligns with God's will" instead of "wants."

Yes, there is still the problem of evil to deal with. Is this a problem one can resolve without God's help?

Yes. The problem of evil isn't a problem unless we assume the existence of a god with certain characteristics. Get rid of God and the problem goes away.

 

[RestlessSoul]

The issue here is thus: Every voluntary action involves a 'want' of some kind. Is God capable of voluntary actions?

What you are describing is the human condition. Humans are tormented by wants, many if not most of which are never satisfied.

As for what God is capable of, or what the nature of God is, my own feeling is that these things are largely unknowable. God, however, is not unknowable. Not completely unknowable anyway.

We are capable of things with God's help, that we are not capable of without, that I do believe.

 

[RestlessSoul]

What a weird question.

Gods are anthromorphisms; that's the whole point of them. They're a relatable face put on the otherwise-unrelatable.

But if it works better for you, feel free to use "aligns with God's will" instead of "wants."


Yes. The problem of evil isn't a problem unless we assume the existence of a god with certain characteristics. Get rid of God and the problem goes away.

Your conception of God may be an anthropomorphism. Don't assume that's the case for everyone.

Evil wouldn't be a problem without God? Not sure I understand. Are you saying people would stop killing each other if we 'got rid of God'? Or are you saying that war and murder are not evil?

 

[blü 2]

The only way the PoE works is if we can come up with an example of objective evil.

So far I've never seen anyone be able to do that. No matter how drastic or extreme, any example of evil that you can provide would be subjective.

But so is good, so is all morality.

And since God is regarded as a source or influence on morality, on moral decisions, and since morality is very usually stated as an attribute of God, it seems to me proper that God be answerable for [his] behavior in moral situations.

Such as the situation in the OP, where God does nothing.

 

[Koldo]

What you are describing is the human condition. Humans are tormented by wants, many if not most of which are never satisfied.

As for what God is capable of, or what the nature of God is, my own feeling is that these things are largely unknowable. God, however, is not unknowable. Not completely unknowable anyway.

We are capable of things with God's help, that we are not capable of without, that I do believe.

You are mixing up two different things:

1) If an action is to be called voluntary there must be some sort of will for it to be done, otherwise it is involuntary. This is irrespective of whether we are talking about gods or humans.

2) Being tormented by wants is indeed an human condition, but having 'wants' doesn't entail that one is tormented by them. If God has 'wants', I would expect him not to be tormented by them since they would be fulfilled instantly.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Your conception of God may be an anthropomorphism. Don't assume that's the case for everyone.

Evil wouldn't be a problem without God? Not sure I understand. Are you saying people would stop killing each other if we 'got rid of God'? Or are you saying that war and murder are not evil?

Maybe take some time to understand what the rest of us are referring to by "the problem of evil." The OP gives a good summary.

It's not just "evil exists and this is a problem."

 

[Koldo]

Your conception of God may be an anthropomorphism. Don't assume that's the case for everyone.

Evil wouldn't be a problem without God? Not sure I understand. Are you saying people would stop killing each other if we 'got rid of God'? Or are you saying that war and murder are not evil?

There is a misunderstanding here. The problem of evil is a philosophical one: There is a logical contradicton between an omnimax God and the existence of evil.

By problem of evil, we don't mean that evil existing is a problem (even though it is), that is another subject.

 

[RestlessSoul]

You are mixing up two different things:

1) If an action is to be called voluntary there must be some sort of will for it to be done, otherwise it is involuntary. This is irrespective of whether we are talking about gods or humans.

2) Being tormented by wants is indeed an human condition, but having 'wants' doesn't entail that one is tormented by them. If God has 'wants', I would expect him not to be tormented by them since they would be fulfilled instantly.

So when you say want, you mean will? They don't have quite the same meaning.

Problems of perception always arise when we ascribe human characteristics like desire (want) to God. To talk of God's will is to talk, perhaps, of a higher purpose. Do you think Jesus of Nazareth wanted to be tortured and killed? Probably not. In accepting his fate, did he aim to 'align his will to God's'? Possibly.