Logical deduction (religion, the PoE)

[PureX]

So, supposedly there is an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God. (Not according to me, I'm thinking more Abrahamics)

Well, this God supposedly does not want man to suffer. Yet there is suffering. So is He not omnipotent? Or is He not omnibenevolent? It appears to me this God needs some help in ending suffering for man!

Perhaps this God does not really care if we suffer. Perhaps He cannot completely intervene on His own. Perhaps this type of omnimax God is not really there. For how can He, given the state of the world?

I believe in an omnipotent force. I think it is not a God with a personality. It is not benevolent. So my idea of the most powerful force, "God", stands up to the problem of evil; it has no personality, so how can it claim benevolence? It is power itself.

Isn't the Problem of Evil great? It's been a while since I've seen it explored here and it's on my mind, so here is this thread.

What are logical deductions of the Problem of Evil?

One is that an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God cannot exist, due to the current state of the world.

Isn't the problem of evil sufficient by itself to disprove the existence of an omnimax God? I think so. And, if that isn't enough, just read the Old Testament and ask yourself if a Omnibenevolent god can do all the things Yahweh does.

Why are you wasting time debating an idea that you've already rejected?

 

[Koldo]

The relative suffering is less.

Are you diluting the suffering through eternity?
That's not how we experience it though. If you live 20 years, the pain was from touching a hot stove once was the same as if you had lived 100 years.

Do you have kids? You can absolutely hold their hands and help them walk the entire time. You can put them in little walkers...

View attachment 76712

Check this: Baby walker - Wikipedia

Coming out of the coccoon does not look pleasant. I said, if one helps them come out, then they do not survive.

Pooing also doesn't look pleasant. It doesn't have to involve suffering though.

If you take a look at what I have said, all I said was that there is a reason. Each event, episode, period of suffering might have its own reason. In general, they make an impression, not only on the individual but on all who know them and care for them.

But beating a child to teach them something always has a reason too. Does that suddenly make it ok to beat them?

 

[Koldo]

Nope, informed consent agrees to a potential for harm. It doesn't mean that the individual caused it to themself.

But if you are saying they could have chosen not to be harmed, ever, then choosing to be potentially harmed entails that they ended up being a major contributor to the suffering they experience, even if they are not solely responsible.

If you consent to spend all of your money in a poker table, then you are responsible for losing all of it if that comes happen. The sole responsible? Nope, there are other still factors in play.

And this is where the crux of it. I agree. And it might be where the conversation ends. This becomes very complicated. And even if I explained it, I doubt you would beleive me. It's so complicated that I would probably make a few mistakes along the way, and then when i correct myself, naturally, you would think I was just making things up on the fly to cover up for my own ignorance. And, sadly, if I don't proceed very carefully, what I am explaining can be misunderstood to justify all manner of heinous acts even though the person committing them would be unaware of the harm they are doing to themself. And that would be on me. And all of this ignores the numerous cascading IFs which will, no doubt, make the entire concept sound contrived.

Maybe, I could be convinced to try to explain. But, honestly, it's probably better for me to just concede God is not omnipotent. Not the way people imagine it.

And that's ok. We can still discuss whether the limitation in power you are imagining is sufficient to justify the evil if you want.

Understood. But if the claim is, God can't be ... then all that's needed is imagination to defeat that argument. if the claim shifts to Why should I believe that God isn't ... That's a totally different conversation.

It is two different conversations indeed.

 

[sayak83]

Evil is like darkness or emptiness, it is really nothing. And therefore, evil is formed only by removing good, or keeping good away, similarly as darkness is formed by removing light. And this is why evil is not created. But, God has allowed us to be in darkness. I believe it is because people wanted to know what evil means. That is why I believe people were expelled to this first death. Here we can see what it is to be without good.

Pain is not the absence of joy.
Cruel action is not merely absence of kind action.
In general since an evil act is not merely the absence of a good act, evil cannot simply be the absence of good.

 

[Koldo]

No, that is not my contention, because if God prevented all the suffering He possibly could, God would prevent all suffering.

That is why I asked:
Can you explain why omnibenevolence would mean having the intent to bring an immediate end to all of suffering?

So can you explain why you think that omnibenevolence would bring an immediate end to all of suffering?

I believe that omnibenevolence might prevent some suffering if we pray to God to alleviate our suffering, and there are even Baha'i prayers for that purpose. For example, here is an excerpt from a longer prayer:

"Thou hast shown me the right way and caused me to enter the ark of deliverance. O God! Keep me steadfast and make me firm and staunch. Protect me from violent tests and preserve and shelter me in the strongly fortified fortress of Thy Covenant and Testament."​

O compassionate God!

Baha'i Prayers (English): O compassionate God! Thanks be to Thee for Thou hast awakened and made me conscious.

www.bahaiprayers.org

But notice it asks God to protect us from violent tests, not from all tests.

Yes.

I do not believe it is benevolent to prevent all suffering since some suffering is beneficial for humans to learn and grow spiritually and build their character.

Here is why some suffering is beneficial. There are two reasons:

“While a man is happy he may forget his God; but when grief comes and sorrows overwhelm him, then will he remember his Father who is in Heaven, and who is able to deliver him from his humiliations.​

​

Men who suffer not, attain no perfection. The plant most pruned by the gardeners is that one which, when the summer comes, will have the most beautiful blossoms and the most abundant fruit. “​

Paris Talks, pp. 50-51​

Let's think of an omnibenevolent person that is not omnipotent nor omniscient. Do I agree this person wouldn't in practice prevent all suffering? Yes, because he is unable to prevent all suffering. This person would still admnister vaccines, for example, even though they cause a bit of suffering, but will overall reduce suffering.

But God doesn't need to administer vaccines if he is omnipotent. He can just will a state of affairs where no one gets sick, ever, and that's it.

You have brought up two cases where God won't prevent suffering:

1) Because without suffering, humans may/will forget God.

2) Because without suffering it is impossible to attain perfection.

Let me now evaluate them.

1) Would a benevolent person cause suffering upon someone else because he was/may be forgotten? No. Then causing suffering is not an act of benevolence on this case. And therefore God is not omnibenevolent.

2) Is God unable to create beings that attain perfection without suffering? Then God is not omnipotent.

 

[Koldo]

Genesis 3.

Thanks for the source. Evidence now, please?

Wouldn't benevolent God not allow people to have freedom to learn to know evil? I think God is great, because he is not like petty earthly tyrant who doesn't want people to be free.

1) Knowing evil is not the same as experiencing evil.

2) If your kids wanted to touch a hot stove, would you let them do it?

 

[dybmh]

I feel that traditional theists fail to appreciate the extent of freedom a hypothetical God can have in creating a suffering free world with ample space for learning and growth.

How does an immaterial only God reality become a reality which includes material multiplicity?

The point in asking this question is: at the very beginning, there is a binary choice to either create or not create something other than itself. There is no flexibility here, there is no specturm or array of options. There is only yes/no. Once the decision to create OTHER has been made, suffering comes along with it.

 

[dybmh]

Apparently the one's who are "saved" get transported (or reembodied..whatever) to a perfect heaven (or new world..whatever) where
a) We STILL have free will and have learned enough through our suffering here in our brief lifetime to NEVER again "sin" (whatever that means) for the remaining eternity. So apparently it IS POSSIBLE to have eternal non-sinning and free will at the same time...only that the omniscient omnipotent God could not think of way to create beings with that "perfected" state from the very beginning...He could think of no other way than subjecting us to this life with all its suffering! This is logical nonsense. I can show it in three-four lines:-
i) It is Possible for a being to exist in a state A where state A is such that it has both free will and it can stay sin-free for eternity.
ii) If it were not Possible for state A to exist, then there could be no permanent heaven or perfected new world as noted in theistic eschatology.
iii) If state A is possible then, by omniscience, God knows how to create a being in state A (otherwise omniscience is falsified)
iv) If God knows how to create beings in state A, then He can create such beings directly in state A (since otherwise He could not and another being who could do such a thing will have more power than Him. So He would not be omnipotent).
v) If God could and He did not, then God is not omnibenevolent as doing that would have decreased the suffering of beings that He did create.

That is an immaterial reality. And whether or not freewill exists there is debatable.

 

[sayak83]

That is an immaterial reality. And whether or not freewill exists there is debatable.

I am not sure how it is an answer to the point I made.

 

[sayak83]

How does an immaterial only God reality become a reality which includes material multiplicity?

The point in asking this question is: at the very beginning, there is a binary choice to either create or not create something other than itself. There is no flexibility here, there is no specturm or array of options. There is only yes/no. Once the decision to create OTHER has been made, suffering comes along with it.

Immaterial reality is also a creation.

 

[dybmh]

So you don't believe in an omnipotent god?

I do. But not in the way most people imagine.

How does an immaterial only God reality become a reality which includes material multiplicity?

The point in asking this question is: at the very beginning, there is a binary choice to either create or not create something other than itself. There is no flexibility here, there is no specturm or array of options. There is only yes/no. Once the decision to create OTHER has been made, suffering comes along with it.

So yes, God is omnipotent, but that otherness will always be otherness. So, omnipotent with one exception.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I do. But not in the way most people imagine.

How does an immaterial only God reality become a reality which includes material multiplicity?

The point in asking this question is: at the very beginning, there is a binary choice to either create or not create something other than itself. There is no flexibility here, there is no specturm or array of options. There is only yes/no. Once the decision to create OTHER has been made, suffering comes along with it.

So yes, God is omnipotent, but that otherness will always be otherness. So, omnipotent with one exception.

Yeah, that is mind gymnastics. I do it differently.

 

[dybmh]

I am not sure how it is an answer to the point I made.

Weren't you saying that there IS a way to have both freewill and be without suffering? I'm saying that is debatable.

Immaterial reality is also a creation.

I think once we start to explore what this immaterial reality would be like, I'm not sure people would want that either. At least not in perpetuity. Maybe some people would, they want to give up their personality be oblivious. I can't speak for everyone. But most, I think most agree that oblivion would not be, well, them.

So the choice is: do I want to exist? or would I rather that I was never born? The later is considered a mental illness.

 

[dybmh]

Yeah, that is mind gymnastics. I do it differently.

what is "otherness"? You seem to know since you said "differently".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

what is "otherness"? You seem to know since you said "differently".

I don't know what "oneness" or "otherness" are. Remember I am a skeptic. I just have faith.

 

[dybmh]

Are you diluting the suffering through eternity?

Yes.

That's not how we experience it though. If you live 20 years, the pain was from touching a hot stove once was the same as if you had lived 100 years.

Only if you never experienced any other pain ever.

Check this: Baby walker - Wikipedia

Seems like it proves my point. Constant assitance is not always good but it IS possible to do it.

Pooing also doesn't look pleasant. It doesn't have to involve suffering though.

OK.

But beating a child to teach them something always has a reason too. Does that suddenly make it ok to beat them?

It's all negative reinforcement. The reason not to use violence is because it teaches violence.

 

[dybmh]

I don't know what "oneness" or "otherness" are. Remember I am a skeptic. I just have faith.

Do you know what "differentness" is? It seems like it. "Different" and "Other" are synonyms. Can you think of examples where they are ... ummm... different?

 

[ratiocinator]

Once the decision to create OTHER has been made, suffering comes along with it.

Why? What about angels and heaven?

 

[dybmh]

But if you are saying they could have chosen not to be harmed, ever, then choosing to be potentially harmed entails that they ended up being a major contributor to the suffering they experience, even if they are not solely responsible.

Nope. They did not contribute. Everything could turn out fine. Or even better than fine. Just because someone gives informed consent, you can still sue the Dr. for malpractice or negligence. At least that's what happens here in America. If there isn't informed consent, that is much higher crime.

If you consent to spend all of your money in a poker table, then you are responsible for losing all of it if that comes happen. The sole responsible? Nope, there are other still factors in play.

That's a special case because the individual is interacting in the game and they are part responsible for their success or failure.

And that's ok. We can still discuss whether the limitation in power you are imagining is sufficient to justify the evil if you want.

OK. Although, I don't want evil. And evil needs to be defined. But we can keep using that word. I accept evil. And so does God, in theory. Acceptance isn't bad. The world could use a lot more acceptance, do you disagree? Acceptance and containment what's wrong with that? Or maybe give evil a job to do? If evil did something good, that would be a miracle! Poof, a real miracle. I bet it happens everyday, right under our noses.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do you know what "differentness" is? It seems like it. "Different" and "Other" are synonyms. Can you think of examples where they are ... ummm... different?

Well, we are debating God, evil as in regards to that and all other words around that. I know nothing about that in regards to God. I know it as me, but I am not God as far as I can tell.