A Return to the Argument from Evil (by Epicurus)

[epronovost]

Not at all, I think there may) actually be objective truth in the universe, I just don't think we subjective beings have any way to recognize it or grasp it.

I think the problem is that you seem to have this idea that if you can't see it it must not exist, or might as well not, and you're assuming everyone else thinks the same way.


See what I mean? Everything isn't "limited to the framework of human understanding". There are plenty of things that exist outside of our ability to perceive or understand them.

Saying that everything is "limited to the framework of human understanding" is the same as saying that nothing exists outside of our ability to understand it, or "if I can't see it it must not exist".

Anything that exist you must perceive through the framework of human understanding. You can't think or perceive outside of your head nor can you solve the problem of hard solipsism. If it exists, its inside your head and if it's not inside your head, you can't even imagine it exists since imagining stuff is still through the framework of human understanding. You are a human.

It's not nonsense, the point just went over your head. Of course you can't fulfill the request, that's exactly what I was trying to show you.

You can't produce an example of objective evil, only subjective preferences and opinions, and it's ridiculous to try and use those to make claims about a being that by it's very nature isnt subject do anything.

Two things, first thing is if its impossible to produce an example of objective evil could it be because just like a square circle it's non sense? You affirm there is objective evil and objective good despite the impossibility to present an example of it or a cogent definition of it. That's a bit of definitional fallacy. You have designed an impossible task to define an impossible concept that you nonetheless affirm must exist.

Also an omnipotent being could be the subject to all sorts of things like subjective judgement for example. Plus, once again. If your omnipotent being isn't subject to anything than he can't be good since good is a judgement, a quality.

No, that's not necessary at all.

All that's necessary is the possibility that there may be a plan, and therefore justification and a purpose to suffering.

Whether or not there's any reason to assume that there is one is beside the point.

The point is that the PoE assumes that there isn't one, ie., that there's no purpose to "evil", otherwise the objection fails.

The whole objection is predicated on the idea that evil shouldn't exist.

In order to make that claim legitimately we would have to know for a fact that evil serves no necessary purpose.

If you predicate that there is a purpose, a necessary unavoidable purpose to suffering, that without suffering the flourishment, happiness and thriving of humanity would be impossible, that the world couldn't be better, then you have answered the problem of evil. Of course you would have a burden of proof to demonstrate this to be true.

The problem of evil doesn't state that there is no purpose to evil. It simply states that the world has evils and could be a smudge bit better, fairer, gentler, etc. so why isn't it a smudge (or a whole lot) better. If you say that there could be a grand plan that makes our current world perfectly good, then great, but you must prove it and demonstrate it. You can't just "suppose it" and say you have answered the problem. You haven't done that at all. You, at best, formulated a hypothesis that could answer the problem if you can demonstrate it's correct. For that you would to demonstrate that good is absolutely contingent on evil on at least one point.

In fact, your sole argument against the problem of evil so far is that you consider people who say "the world could be better; there could be more good and less evil" as whining. That's not an argument that's you not liking people saying the world could be better. It's as fallacious as it gets. Am improvement, no matter how small trivial to your personnal taste, is still an improvement.

 

[1213]

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

I believe the reason why He allowed it is that God wanted people to have freedom.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe the reason why He allowed it is that God wanted people to have freedom.

What are you calling "freedom"?

Whatever it is, you think that God is incapable of providing "freedom" without also causing evil?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I believe the reason why He allowed it is that God wanted people to have freedom.

What does freedom have to do with getting hit on the noggin with a falling rock?

 

[Koldo]

All that's necessary is the possibility that there may be a plan, and therefore justification and a purpose to suffering.

Whether or not there's any reason to assume that there is one is beside the point.

The point is that the PoE assumes that there isn't one, ie., that there's no purpose to "evil", otherwise the objection fails.

The whole objection is predicated on the idea that evil shouldn't exist.

In order to make that claim legitimately we would have to know for a fact that evil serves no necessary purpose.

Since no one pointed it out...

If evil exists, there can be no plan, no greater good, that justifies it. The reason for this is simple:

1) Omnipotence is unlimited power.
2) Unlimited power allows one to achieve any objective straight away, without the need to go through steps. For if it didn't, a higher power would be imaginable and there can be no higher power than unlimited power.
3) If an omnipotent being has a plan, every step of the plan must be an end in itself (because no steps are necessary to achieve the goal).
4) An omnipotent being has a plan.
4) Evil is a step of the plan.
5) Therefore, evil must be an end in itself.

 

[Quagmire]

Anything that exist you must perceive through the framework of human understanding.

That's not what you were saying. You were suggesting that if you couldn't perceive something it didn't exist, or might as well not (whether you meant to or not).

You can't think or perceive outside of your head nor can you solve the problem of hard solipsism. If it exists, its inside your head and if it's not inside your head, you can't even imagine it exists since imagining stuff is still through the framework of human understanding. You are a human.

See my last answer.

Two things, first thing is if its impossible to produce an example of objective evil could it be because just like a square circle it's non sense?

Why you can't produce an example of objective evil is beside the point, the relevant fact is that you can't.

That's the whole point. If you don't understand that then you don't even understand what you've been arguing against all this time.

You affirm there is objective evil and objective good

Never said that. In fact, my position has been pretty close to the exact opposite, hence my, "on a cosmic scale there may be no such thing as good or evil, or those terms may not even mean anything".

If anything you're the one acting as a proponent for the idea that there's some sort of objective, absolute evil, since that's basically the topic of the PoE: Epicurus never explains what he means by "evil", he just presents it as an objectively negative concept

despite the impossibility to present an example of it or a cogent definition of it. That's a bit of definitional fallacy. You have designed an impossible task to define an impossible concept that you nonetheless affirm must exist.

Only in your own mind (which, apparently, is the only place where anything exists).

Also an omnipotent being could be the subject to all sorts of things like subjective judgement for example. Plus, once again. If your omnipotent being isn't subject to anything than he can't be good since good is a judgement, a quality.

Uh huh . . .

If you predicate that there is a purpose, a necessary unavoidable purpose to suffering, that without suffering the flourishment, happiness and thriving of humanity would be impossible, that the world couldn't be better, then you have answered the problem of evil. Of course you would have a burden of proof to demonstrate this to be true.

Nope. All that's necessary in order to negate the PoE is to introduce the possibility.

The problem of evil doesn't state that there is no purpose to evil.

It doesn't have to. It implies that by presenting it as an absolute.

It simply states that the world has evils and could be a smudge bit better, fairer, gentler, etc. so why isn't it a smudge (or a whole lot) better.

Then you don't understand what you're arguing for either.

If you say that there could be a grand plan that makes our current world perfectly good, then great, but you must prove it and demonstrate it.

Not necessary at all. All that's necessary is to introduce the possibility.

You can't just "suppose it" and say you have answered the problem. You haven't done that at all. You, at best, formulated a hypothesis that could answer the problem if you can demonstrate it's correct. For that you would to demonstrate that good is absolutely contingent on evil on at least one point.

In fact, your sole argument against the problem of evil so far is that you consider people who say "the world could be better; there could be more good and less evil" as whining.

That isn't my argument at all, just one conclusion based on my argument, as well as observations I've made about the kinds of people I usually get into these discussions with.

That's not an argument that's you not liking people saying the world could be better.

No, it's me not liking whining.

It's as fallacious as it gets. Am improvement, no matter how small trivial to your personnal taste, is still an improvement.

And there would still be whining.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Just a few observations about the Problem of Evil -- without pretending that it exists or doesn't:

If there is no God of any sort -- no controlling entity -- then there is no PoE. There is merely the happenstance of an unordered but natural universe, and we must take it as it comes -- or possibly try to ameliorate such suffering as much and for as many as we are able.

If there is a God and it is evil, then again, there is no PoE -- but neither is there anything that we mere humans can do about it. We must simply brace ourselves to suffer what ever is thrown at us.

It may be that there is a God that is "good" but which is not omnipotent, or not omniscient, and which therefore is incapable of resolving all of the possible evils that may befall us. In this case, as in the case of no God, we must take what comes, and we may at least try to ameliorate suffering as we can. But I think in this case, we are right to ignore the potential existence of this God, since we would appear to be on our own anyway.

It may be that there is a God, as defined in the Abrahamic traditions, that is all-powerful, omniscient and all-knowing, and that any argument from human epistemological limitation (as made by @Quagmire) holds. In this case, it may well be that suffering has a place in such a deity's plan. But, as we can know nothing about that plan, then we are left where we were with the evil God -- we must just accept whatever evil befalls. It would seem to be wrong of us to try to ameliorate suffering, for then it would appear we could be willfully acting against God's plan, even if we don't know what it is.

 

[InChrist]

Righteous killing of a few months old kid in a car?

Any person that would leave that to happen, without intervening, would be considered a criminal monster.

As I said, His only excuse is that He does not exist.

Ciao

- viole

Exactly, as you say any “person” in this finite, physical world would be considered a criminal monster for not saving a child if they could. That’s why I think it’s brutally cruel to kill a baby through abortion or to think that’s okay.
But God is not a human person in this temporal finite world. God is an eternal Spirit & knows the future and sees each life from the perspective of eternity. I am in no way denying the very real pain of losing a child or any loved one in an accident or all the other suffering in this world. But I understand that God’s purpose and plan is about one’s life for eternity, not just a happy, perfect, short term life here and now. How do you know that God knowing the future, isn’t allowing and using a painful situation for someone which will bring a far greater and better outcome? What if the child of a few months old killed in a car wreck would have been molested at age two or taken by sex traffickers had God intervened to prevent death? What if God was sparing the child from a miserable future and instead bringing the baby directly into a glorious eternity? Or what if the grieving parents end up accomplishing something positive to help others going through loss? I know a family that lost their young son in an accident in a car being driven by a teenager. The parents worked hard and were successful in getting a law passed through the state legislature to regulate drivers under 18 years from having minor passengers in the vehicle without an adult. You don’t know, nor can you assume to know the big future picture or various outcomes, but an infinite Being who knows the future does. Can you acknowledge that it would be reasonable to think an eternal Being would know more than a finite human concerning the future? Don’t you think there is a possibility that a such a Being, one capable of creating all the beauty we see in the world, despite the suffering, may have a good plan in place?

According to the scriptures, this is a fallen world corrupted by sin, resulting in pain, suffering and death. God has intervened to deal with the problem through Jesus’ victory over sin & death and plans a new eternal heaven and earth where there will be no more pain.

 

[InChrist]

It may be that there is a God, as defined in the Abrahamic traditions, that is all-powerful, omniscient and all-knowing, and that any argument from human epistemological limitation (as made by @Quagmire) holds. In this case, it may well be that suffering has a place in such a deity's plan. But, as we can know nothing about that plan, then we are left where we were with the evil God -- we must just accept whatever evil befalls. It would seem to be wrong of us to try to ameliorate suffering, for then it would appear we could be willfully acting against God's plan, even if we don't know what it is.

I appreciate your summarizations.

Though, on your last one I don’t think we are necessarily left with...”the evil God”, at least from the biblical perspective which reveals that it is humans as free moral agents who are responsible for the evil and harmful situations in this world. Nor does the Bible indicate we are to passively sit by without trying to alleviate suffering. The story of the Good Samaritan clearly reveals otherwise and Jesus’ thoughts on the matter (Luke 10:30-37). As well, Jesus spent most of His ministry healing people. It seems too, that God has no problem with people inquiring about issues, difficulties, fears, heartaches, suffering and
more; asking why or for help, relief, direction or wisdom. Abraham, Moses, Jeremiah or David didn’t think it willfully against God’s plan to do so. Have you read the Psalms? I assume you have. It appears that the entirety of the Bible supports the idea that God desires interaction, inquiry and conversation about stuff going on in our lives.
Just my thoughts.

 

[viole]

Exactly, as you say any “person” in this finite, physical world would be considered a criminal monster for not saving a child if they could. That’s why I think it’s brutally cruel to kill a baby through abortion or to think that’s okay.
But God is not a human person in this temporal finite world.

Why? If Christianity were true, it would have been great to have been aborted. I would have gained a risk free ticket to eternal bliss instead of living a few decades in a fallen world full of risks and traps for your soul.

If I die today, I will go, as an atheist, in Hell. So, why did He take care to give a better future to that suffocating child in the car, and not to me? Why did that child get such a huge advantage to suffocate in that hot car for just a few hours, while I will have to do it for all eternity?

God is an eternal Spirit & knows the future and sees each life from the perspective of eternity. I am in no way denying the very real pain of losing a child or any loved one in an accident or all the other suffering in this world. But I understand that God’s purpose and plan is about one’s life for eternity, not just a happy, perfect, short term life here and now. How do you know that God knowing the future, isn’t allowing and using a painful situation for someone which will bring a far greater and better outcome? What if the child of a few months old killed in a car wreck would have been molested at age two or taken by sex traffickers had God intervened to prevent death? What if God was sparing the child from a miserable future and instead bringing the baby directly into a glorious eternity?

You mean like the mother who aborted? I think we can make a moral case that abortion, under the premises of Christianity being true, being de-facto the most loving and selfless act a mother can do.

Or what if the grieving parents end up accomplishing something positive to help others going through loss? I know a family that lost their young son in an accident in a car being driven by a teenager. The parents worked hard and were successful in getting a law passed through the state legislature to regulate drivers under 18 years from having minor passengers in the vehicle without an adult. You don’t know, nor can you assume to know the big future picture or various outcomes, but an infinite Being who knows the future does. Can you acknowledge that it would be reasonable to think an eternal Being would know more than a finite human concerning the future? Don’t you think there is a possibility that a such a Being, one capable of creating all the beauty we see in the world, despite the suffering, may have a good plan in place?

So, do you rejoice when such a child dies? If not, why not, considering that you must believe it was better that way?

Actually, if I buy a gun and shoot the first kid I see, and nobody stops me, supernatural or not, I must conclude I saved that kid from a life of suffering, abuse, and whatnot. Ergo, I did something morally compelling. I risked my eternal destiny for that child; an amazing selfless act. Right?

According to the scriptures, this is a fallen world corrupted by sin, resulting in pain, suffering and death. God has intervened to deal with the problem through Jesus’ victory over sin & death and plans a new eternal heaven and earth where there will be no more pain.

One compelling reason to abort as much as possible.

Ciao

- viole

 

[InChrist]

Why? If Christianity were true, it would have been great to have been aborted. I would have gained a risk free ticket to eternal bliss instead of living a few decades in a fallen world full of risks and traps for your soul.

If I die today, I will go, as an atheist, in Hell. So, why did He take care to give a better future to that suffocating child in the car, and not to me? Why did that child get such a huge advantage to suffocate in that hot car for just a few hours, while I will have to do it for all eternity?


You mean like the mother who aborted? I think we can make a moral case that abortion, under the premises of Christianity being true, being de-facto the most loving and selfless act a mother can do.


So, do you rejoice when such a child dies? If not, why not, considering that you must believe it was better that way?

Actually, if I buy a gun and shoot the first kid I see, and nobody stops me, supernatural or not, I must conclude I saved that kid from a life of suffering, abuse, and whatnot. Ergo, I did something morally compelling. I risked my eternal destiny for that child; an amazing selfless act. Right?


One compelling reason to abort as much as possible.

Ciao

- viole

No.
Your arguments fall flat and are morally wrong from a biblical perspective for obvious reasons. First, God has directly commanded humans not to murder, PERIOD. So there is no valid way to claim abortion or purposely murdering anyone is “showing mercy by sending them to heaven”, especially when that idea is expressed by those who deny the reality of heaven. Secondly, finite human beings do not see or know the future of any person or understand the intricacies of what their future may hold, as an infinite God does. So humans who are NOT God have no right to murder another or take away someone’s future.

 

[1213]

What does freedom have to do with getting hit on the noggin with a falling rock?

Freedom is the reason why we are in this place where “bad” things can happen. And freedom is also the reason why it is possible for people to make decisions that can lead to unpleasant results.

 

[1213]

What are you calling "freedom"?

Whatever it is, you think that God is incapable of providing "freedom" without also causing evil?

If people have freedom, it means they also can choose evil. If they could not, then they would not have freedom.

And with freedom I mean the ability to make own choices.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Freedom is the reason why we are in this place where “bad” things can happen. And freedom is also the reason why it is possible for people to make decisions that can lead to unpleasant results.

That's utter nonsense. Accidents are accidents and have squat to do with "freedom."

 

[Koldo]

If people have freedom, it means they also can choose evil. If they could not, then they would not have freedom.

And with freedom I mean the ability to make own choices.

Choose what evil?
What's the bare minimum evil that is necessary to claim we have freedom? Clearly it must not be all sorts of evil, since that's impossible to us.

 

[Koldo]

Exactly, as you say any “person” in this finite, physical world would be considered a criminal monster for not saving a child if they could. That’s why I think it’s brutally cruel to kill a baby through abortion or to think that’s okay.
But God is not a human person in this temporal finite world. God is an eternal Spirit & knows the future and sees each life from the perspective of eternity. I am in no way denying the very real pain of losing a child or any loved one in an accident or all the other suffering in this world. But I understand that God’s purpose and plan is about one’s life for eternity, not just a happy, perfect, short term life here and now. How do you know that God knowing the future, isn’t allowing and using a painful situation for someone which will bring a far greater and better outcome? What if the child of a few months old killed in a car wreck would have been molested at age two or taken by sex traffickers had God intervened to prevent death? What if God was sparing the child from a miserable future and instead bringing the baby directly into a glorious eternity? Or what if the grieving parents end up accomplishing something positive to help others going through loss? I know a family that lost their young son in an accident in a car being driven by a teenager. The parents worked hard and were successful in getting a law passed through the state legislature to regulate drivers under 18 years from having minor passengers in the vehicle without an adult. You don’t know, nor can you assume to know the big future picture or various outcomes, but an infinite Being who knows the future does. Can you acknowledge that it would be reasonable to think an eternal Being would know more than a finite human concerning the future? Don’t you think there is a possibility that a such a Being, one capable of creating all the beauty we see in the world, despite the suffering, may have a good plan in place?

According to the scriptures, this is a fallen world corrupted by sin, resulting in pain, suffering and death. God has intervened to deal with the problem through Jesus’ victory over sin & death and plans a new eternal heaven and earth where there will be no more pain.

1) Omnipotence is unlimited power.
2) Unlimited power allows one to achieve any objective straight away, without the need to go through steps. For if it didn't, a higher power would be imaginable and there can be no higher power than unlimited power.
3) If an omnipotent being has a plan, every step of the plan must be an end in itself (because no steps are necessary to achieve the goal).
4) An omnipotent being has a plan.
4) Evil is a step of the plan.
5) Therefore, evil must be an end in itself.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If people have freedom, it means they also can choose evil. If they could not, then they would not have freedom.

Freedom is just lack of constraint. Freedom would only lead to choosing evil if the person had an inherent tendency toward evil.

It's like that quote from Penn Jillette, speaking about freedom in a different context:

The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what’s to stop me from raping all I want? And my answer is: I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero. The fact that these people think that if they didn’t have this person watching over them that they would go on killing, raping ram[pages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine. I don’t want to do that. Right now, without any god, I don’t want to jump across this table and strangle you. I have no desire to strangle you. I have no desire to flip you over and rape you. You know what I mean?

https://theinterrobang.com/penn-jillette-morality-without-religion/

Letting a dog off its leash won't cause anyone to get bitten unless the dog is one that wants to bite people. Giving "freedom" to someone won't result in evil unless the person is predisposed to evil.

And with freedom I mean the ability to make own choices.

And the ability to cause those choices to actually happen?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Just a few observations about the Problem of Evil -- without pretending that it exists or doesn't:

If there is no God of any sort -- no controlling entity -- then there is no PoE. There is merely the happenstance of an unordered but natural universe, and we must take it as it comes -- or possibly try to ameliorate such suffering as much and for as many as we are able.

If there is a God and it is evil, then again, there is no PoE -- but neither is there anything that we mere humans can do about it. We must simply brace ourselves to suffer what ever is thrown at us.

It may be that there is a God that is "good" but which is not omnipotent, or not omniscient, and which therefore is incapable of resolving all of the possible evils that may befall us. In this case, as in the case of no God, we must take what comes, and we may at least try to ameliorate suffering as we can. But I think in this case, we are right to ignore the potential existence of this God, since we would appear to be on our own anyway.

It may be that there is a God, as defined in the Abrahamic traditions, that is all-powerful, omniscient and all-knowing, and that any argument from human epistemological limitation (as made by @Quagmire) holds. In this case, it may well be that suffering has a place in such a deity's plan. But, as we can know nothing about that plan, then we are left where we were with the evil God -- we must just accept whatever evil befalls. It would seem to be wrong of us to try to ameliorate suffering, for then it would appear we could be willfully acting against God's plan, even if we don't know what it is.

Whether we think God exists or we don’t, whether or not we can agree about the real or hypothetical nature of that God, our responsibility as people is clear, and you’ve stated it; “to ameliorate such suffering as much and for as many as we are able”.

In which case the pressing question, for believers and non-believers alike, is not “why does God allow suffering?”, but “what can I do to relieve the suffering of others?”

 

[viole]

No.
Your arguments fall flat and are morally wrong from a biblical perspective for obvious reasons. First, God has directly commanded humans not to murder, PERIOD. So there is no valid way to claim abortion or purposely murdering anyone is “showing mercy by sending them to heaven”, especially when that idea is expressed by those who deny the reality of heaven. Secondly, finite human beings do not see or know the future of any person or understand the intricacies of what their future may hold, as an infinite God does. So humans who are NOT God have no right to murder another or take away someone’s future.

Who cares what He commanded? What can He do, apart from sending me to Hell? As a loving Christian mother I can think like this: I will abort as many children as possible, because I want all of them to spend eternity with Jesus. I don't want to send them to a war on this fallen world in which they can only lose. I know it is wrong, but I just love my kids too much, and I offer my soul to pay for that.

That would be a sacrifice comparable to what your Jesus did, with the bonus of being a real sacrifice. And not just a mockery of the word "sacrifice", in which victims come back alive and kicking after three days.

And why do you care what I believe? What is relevant is what you believe. You must believe that all those souls go to Heaven, risk free; so what is all this abortion fuss about? You should rejoice at every abortion. You should rejoice that a soul will live forever with Jesus vs. risking that destiny if it lives long enough on this broken world.

Now, back to my metaphysical position, once we have addressed the contradictions in yours. What do I have to lose? Nothing. I will go to Hell, anyway, if Christianity is true. And if it is not, then what you say is irrelevant. That reminds me of that condemned blasphemer in "the life of Brian", who sinfully mentioned the name of Jehovah, who can now freely scream "Jehovah! Jehovah!", lol.

On the other hand, the foetus inside of me can only win, if I destroy it, and Christianity is true.

At the end of the day, the average return is positive. That foetus, if it gets the chance to be born, and it gets old enough to die after 100 years, cannot possibly go to a better place than it will go to with certainty if I terminate it immediately. It will just be required, additionally, to go through a 100 years long minefield of temptations, sins, possible influences from false prophets, and all the risks involved in living in this fallen world. Is it worthy? Why?

A sort of abortion promoting Pascal wager, don't you think?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Koldo]

Whether we think God exists or we don’t, whether or not we can agree about the real or hypothetical nature of that God, our responsibility as people is clear, and you’ve stated it; “to ameliorate such suffering as much and for as many as we are able”.

In which case the pressing question, for believers and non-believers alike, is not “why does God allow suffering?”, but “what can I do to relieve the suffering of others?”

Actually, if I were a theist and religious person I would ask myself before: "If God didn't get rid of suffering, why should I do anything about it? If God doesn't bother, I definitely won't."