How do you reconcile the problem of evil?

[Willamena]

And what does this have to do with the point Idav was making?

He said pain and pleasure are tied to the extent that we need to be able to experience pain to experience pleasure. It was not about whether we can recognize pleasure in the abscense of pain.

Neither is what I said about "whether we can recognize pain in the absence of pleasure"--we can! That's what's important.

I wasn't making Idav's point for him. I was just attempting to make one.

But nevermind.

 

[Koldo]

Sure but God would have to "will" a universe into existence that can actually sustain itself. If it were a random universe popping into existence we have the same issue, it has to be stable enough to get passed the first few second, few years, few thousand years etc.

Or God could sustain it himself....

 

[idav]

Or God could sustain it himself....

Like a pantheistic god...no doubt...

 

[idav]

Or God could sustain it himself....

God having to sustain reality means it can't be any different than it was since the beginning. There are more room for possible universe scenarios with a deist type deity, a god that sets it in motion and no longer has to be involved.

 

[Koldo]

Like a pantheistic god...no doubt...

God having to sustain reality means it can't be any different than it was since the beginning. There are more room for possible universe scenarios with a deist type deity, a god that sets it in motion and no longer has to be involved.

Why?
You seem to limit omnipotence to some odd degrees.

 

[idav]

Why?
You seem to limit omnipotence to some odd degrees.

I just don't take omnipotence to ridiculous degrees. There are limitations especially when a being is supposed to be able to do things within our physical reality. When you add omnipresence you end up with a god that is evil to itself.

 

[fallingblood]

You didn't actually answer my question.

First of all, there is suffering that goes beyond the actions of other humans. Natural evil, for example, does not depend on being caused by other humans.

Second, and now getting back to the point of my question, it is completely possible ( logically speaking ) to allow humans have an evil tendency and, at the same time, make it so they can't experience suffering ( with a few exceptions ).

True, there are natural events that cause suffering. However, those natural events also often have creating impacts as well.

If we look at Genesis, the first creation story, what is portrayed is that God created out of chaos. When God began creating the earth, there was chaos. In order for creation to be possible, God took chaos, and organized it. After each separation that God did (light from dark, water from ground, etc.), it is stated that it was good. Thus, the idea that is being portrayed is that chaos is also good. While the story may be mythical, it does present a "truth," that chaos does not have to be negative. It allows for the creative process.

When natural "evils" occur, often they build up. The beautiful geography we have in parts of the United States comes directly from these natural "evils." Not to mention the land that is formed from that natural evil that is volcanoes. Even something such as a forest fire, which can cause much suffering, has a positive effect in that it ends up allowing that forest to become healthier.

As for the possibility that one can be unable to suffer, yet humans still have a tendency to do evil, that really isn't logical. If humans were unable to suffer, and I happened to kill a person's entire family, is that actually evil? It did them no actual harm. There obviously wasn't any love there, or any real caring, as the family didn't suffer from the loss. An event like the Holocaust then wouldn't be a major problem, as no one suffered, no one really loss anything, and the logic behind it would have been for the betterment of all people. Evil really wouldn't be there.

Suffering does not have to be a bad thing. Victor Frankl, in his classic work, Man's Search for Meaning, details how suffering can be a positive act (not that we should search for it, but that it doesn't have to be all negative). Suffering can greatly help shape who a person is. It can cause them to become that much stronger. Frankl was no stranger to suffering either, as he had experienced life in a concentration camp.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

True, there are natural events that cause suffering. However, those natural events also often have creating impacts as well.

If we look at Genesis, the first creation story, what is portrayed is that God created out of chaos. When God began creating the earth, there was chaos. In order for creation to be possible, God took chaos, and organized it. After each separation that God did (light from dark, water from ground, etc.), it is stated that it was good. Thus, the idea that is being portrayed is that chaos is also good. While the story may be mythical, it does present a "truth," that chaos does not have to be negative. It allows for the creative process.

When natural "evils" occur, often they build up. The beautiful geography we have in parts of the United States comes directly from these natural "evils." Not to mention the land that is formed from that natural evil that is volcanoes. Even something such as a forest fire, which can cause much suffering, has a positive effect in that it ends up allowing that forest to become healthier.

As for the possibility that one can be unable to suffer, yet humans still have a tendency to do evil, that really isn't logical. If humans were unable to suffer, and I happened to kill a person's entire family, is that actually evil? It did them no actual harm. There obviously wasn't any love there, or any real caring, as the family didn't suffer from the loss. An event like the Holocaust then wouldn't be a major problem, as no one suffered, no one really loss anything, and the logic behind it would have been for the betterment of all people. Evil really wouldn't be there.

Suffering does not have to be a bad thing. Victor Frankl, in his classic work, Man's Search for Meaning, details how suffering can be a positive act (not that we should search for it, but that it doesn't have to be all negative). Suffering can greatly help shape who a person is. It can cause them to become that much stronger. Frankl was no stranger to suffering either, as he had experienced life in a concentration camp.

But neither is suffering a necessity or inclusive to being able to experience pleasure.

 

[idav]

But neither is suffering a necessity or inclusive to being able to experience pleasure.

Its inclusive to being able to experience pleasure, or to be able to feel at all for that matter.

 

[Koldo]

True, there are natural events that cause suffering. However, those natural events also often have creating impacts as well.

If we look at Genesis, the first creation story, what is portrayed is that God created out of chaos. When God began creating the earth, there was chaos. In order for creation to be possible, God took chaos, and organized it. After each separation that God did (light from dark, water from ground, etc.), it is stated that it was good. Thus, the idea that is being portrayed is that chaos is also good. While the story may be mythical, it does present a "truth," that chaos does not have to be negative. It allows for the creative process.

When natural "evils" occur, often they build up. The beautiful geography we have in parts of the United States comes directly from these natural "evils." Not to mention the land that is formed from that natural evil that is volcanoes. Even something such as a forest fire, which can cause much suffering, has a positive effect in that it ends up allowing that forest to become healthier.

There is no denying that good things may be acquired through natural disasters. However, to say that God needs to go through some means to achieve any particular end is a contradiction to his omnipotence.

As for the possibility that one can be unable to suffer, yet humans still have a tendency to do evil, that really isn't logical. If humans were unable to suffer, and I happened to kill a person's entire family, is that actually evil? It did them no actual harm. There obviously wasn't any love there, or any real caring, as the family didn't suffer from the loss. An event like the Holocaust then wouldn't be a major problem, as no one suffered, no one really loss anything, and the logic behind it would have been for the betterment of all people. Evil really wouldn't be there.

Why is the lack of suffering relevant as to whether you loved someone?
Regardless, i didn't say humans would be able to perform evil. I said they could possibly remain with an evil tedency. Being able to act upon its tedency is another matter entirely.

Suffering does not have to be a bad thing. Victor Frankl, in his classic work, Man's Search for Meaning, details how suffering can be a positive act (not that we should search for it, but that it doesn't have to be all negative). Suffering can greatly help shape who a person is. It can cause them to become that much stronger. Frankl was no stranger to suffering either, as he had experienced life in a concentration camp.

That you can gain something important from suffering doesn it make it any less bad if you could have acquired it without suffering just as easily ( or even easier ).

 

[Koldo]

I just don't take omnipotence to ridiculous degrees. There are limitations especially when a being is supposed to be able to do things within our physical reality. When you add omnipresence you end up with a god that is evil to itself.

Ridiculous degrees?
Omnipotence is unlimited power.
There is no higher degree of power than omnipotence.

 

[idav]

Ridiculous degrees?
Omnipotence is unlimited power.
There is no higher degree of power than omnipotence.

Like a God so powerful that he can exist and not exist at the same time?

I like to distinguish being able to vs actually doing. So that God might be able to do everything in potential but I don't see such a being actually doing every single thing that's possible even if he can. Though if God does literally do everything possible then we are in just one of many perfect realities.

 

[Koldo]

Like a God so powerful that he can exist and not exist at the same time?

Are your excuses as to why God doesn't banish evil from this world comparable to logical contradictions?

I like to distinguish being able to vs actually doing. So that God might be able to do everything in potential but I don't see such a being actually doing every single thing that's possible even if he can. Though if God does literally do everything possible then we are in just one of many perfect realities.

No disagreement on drawing such a distinction.

 

[idav]

Are your excuses as to why God doesn't banish evil from this world comparable to logical contradictions?

That is a big part of it especially since omnipotence is hardly a possibility without contradictions. Another part of it is my belief in omnipresence in which case god banishing evil would be banishing himself. God is all and in all which means that anything we do to ourselves or others we do to God, or you could say God does to itself.

Not to say that suffering and evil doesn't exist but that if suffering happens then god is suffering as well. This goes along the lines of god not having the full omnipotence to even stop his own suffering since the power was put in our own hands. When humans have the ability to sin then they are going against the will of god which means humans doing things that god doesn't want them doing.

 

[Penumbra]

If "natural evil" results in a semantics debate, just use "natural suffering" instead.

For a monotheist omnipotent or nearly omnipotent god, then there are certainly valid questions like, "why do tornadoes happen?" or "does flesh eating bacteria really have to exist for this universe to be the best possible universe?" or "do we really need incapacitating birth defects to exist for any good reason?" or "does a billion years of an evolved predator/prey system say anything about the character of the being that governs this?" I rarely see convincing answers for such questions.

If we're talking about a pantheist god, the problem of evil (or the problem of suffering, as I prefer to call it) is less applicable, because the problem is about the apparent contradiction between an omnipotent and benevolent god, and horrendous natural causes of suffering. Still, the problem is valid in some ways. What are the attributes of this god, and how do those attributes relate to this suffering? Is the god unaware, like an unconscious universe, and if so, why use the word god? Or is god aware of what's happening in some way or another, but not the type of god that has a personality or will and can do anything about it? What is the ultimate end of the universe- any particular purpose as far as the god is concerned? Is this not the best possible universe for well-being? Questions like that.

 

[Koldo]

That is a big part of it especially since omnipotence is hardly a possibility without contradictions. Another part of it is my belief in omnipresence in which case god banishing evil would be banishing himself. God is all and in all which means that anything we do to ourselves or others we do to God, or you could say God does to itself.

Even considering this point of view, why doesn't God banish a part of himself?

Not to say that suffering and evil doesn't exist but that if suffering happens then god is suffering as well. This goes along the lines of god not having the full omnipotence to even stop his own suffering since the power was put in our own hands. When humans have the ability to sin then they are going against the will of god which means humans doing things that god doesn't want them doing.

'Full omnipotence' is an oxymoron.
He is either omnipotent or not.

 

[idav]

Still, the problem is valid in some ways. What are the attributes of this god, and how do those attributes relate to this suffering? Is the god unaware, like an unconscious universe, and if so, why use the word god?

Aware but unconscious.

Or is god aware of what's happening in some way or another, but not the type of god that has a personality or will and can do anything about it?

God can, in potential, not that he would know anything "needs" to be done.

What is the ultimate end of the universe- any particular purpose as far as the god is concerned? Is this not the best possible universe for well-being? Questions like that.

Good question, the universe goal is likely to avoid heat death.

Even considering this point of view, why doesn't God banish a part of himself?

When God is all and within all then the tornado is god, nature is god and humans are gods. If God is suffering then he may likely want to get rid of said suffering. Nature doesn't necessarily feel all that suffering though, we feel it because of being consciously aware, so it is up to us to get rid of our own suffering, especially if we are supposed to be the image god.

'Full omnipotence' is an oxymoron.
He is either omnipotent or not.

Omnipotence is self-contradictory so probably not.

 

[Koldo]

When God is all and within all then the tornado is god, nature is god and humans are gods. If God is suffering then he may likely want to get rid of said suffering. Nature doesn't necessarily feel all that suffering though, we feel it because of being consciously aware, so it is up to us to get rid of our own suffering, especially if we are supposed to be the image god.

Are you talking a about pantheist God or a panentheist God?

Omnipotence is self-contradictory so probably not.

What is self-contradictory about omnipotence?

 

[idav]

Are you talking a about pantheist God or a panentheist God?

I'm talking more pantheistic because the pan(en)theism has it that God is separate from it's creation so that god has more control like the deist type god while maintaining presence as in the pantheist concept.

What is self-contradictory about omnipotence?

When someone states that anything is possible, some of those anything's are bound to contradict. I look at omnipotence as what is logically possible.

 

[Penumbra]

Aware but unconscious.

In what way are you defining those terms?

God can, in potential, not that he would know anything "needs" to be done.

It's a "he"?

Good question, the universe goal is likely to avoid heat death.

Do you believe it'll succeed?

When God is all and within all then the tornado is god, nature is god and humans are gods. If God is suffering then he may likely want to get rid of said suffering. Nature doesn't necessarily feel all that suffering though, we feel it because of being consciously aware, so it is up to us to get rid of our own suffering, especially if we are supposed to be the image god.

How can god want anything if it is unconscious?