My Abrahamic Theodicy

[Jayhawker Soule]

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
—Isaiah 45:7
​

This verse could easily be interpreted to support my assertion that evil is ultimately beneficial.

It could, but I believe that interpretation to be incorrect. The verse offers a parallelism:

light & darkness << >> peace and calamity (or, perhaps, harmony & disaster)​

Again, the moral categories of 'good' and 'bad' have been retrojected into the text.

 

[Quagmire]

It could, but I believe that interpretation to be incorrect. The verse offers a parallelism:

light & darkness << >> peace and calamity (or, perhaps, harmony & disaster)​

Again, the moral categories of 'good' and 'bad' have been retrojected into the text.

[/indent]That's the editors fault Storm. Actually, The original draft said, "That which you poor self-deluded little smucks have decided to classify as evil".

Wait a minute...so I was sort of right?

(does anyone still not believe in God?)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Wait a minute...so I was sort of right?

No, you were sort of silly ...

 

[TashaN]

Why would a benevolent God Create evil? This question has plagued theologians for centuries. Presumptuous as it may be, I set myself the task of answering this question, and I've struck upon an answer that satisfies me.


If an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent (omnimax) Creator exists, evil must be somehow beneficial to us. So how?


Without evil, “good” has no real meaning. To be truly good, we must be faced with a choice. It is only in the face of suffering that we become compassionate. Evil gives us something to overcome, and in doing so become wiser, stronger, and nobler than we would have been without challenge.


Now, it can be argued that an omnimax God could have simply Created us as wise and noble as He wished. However, in the words of Thomas Paine, “What we obtain too cheaply, we esteem too lightly.” If we needn't struggle to be virtuous, we would not understand the value of it.


What say you?

Well said. I love this post. :yes:

 

[kmkemp]

To answer the OP, you first have to ask yourself, what was God's purpose in creating humanity in the first place and how does the rules that are seemingly in place work to achieve that purpose?

 

[Nessa]

Why Create us at all?


Ah, yes, eternal damnation. You'll note I left it out of the OP, for two reasons:
1) It's not universal even to the Abrahamic faiths. The Jews don't believe in it, afaik. Even those who believe in it don't agree on what it means. For some it's simply separation from God.
2) The most popular (imx) version, that of fire and torment, is impossible to reconcile with the primise of God's benevolence, imo.

I've never heard of a parent wanting the worse and best for their child. Many parents devote a good part of their life trying to insure the best for their child. Why should I expect any less from an all-omni benevolent god?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent (omnimax) Creator exists, ...

This, of course, is a post-Biblical (post-Torah) God/Strawman, hence the problem.

 

[Storm]

This, of course, is a post-Biblical (post-Torah) God/Strawman, hence the problem.

No, it's the theistic God-concept that is most common imx. It may not be the Torah's concept, but I never claimed it was.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

this, of course, is a post-biblical (post-torah) god/strawman, hence the problem.

no, it's the theistic god-concept that is most common imx. It may not be the torah's concept, but i never claimed it was.

ok ...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Without evil, “good” has no real meaning. To be truly good, we must be faced with a choice. It is only in the face of suffering that we become compassionate. Evil gives us something to overcome, and in doing so become wiser, stronger, and nobler than we would have been without challenge.


Now, it can be argued that an omnimax God could have simply Created us as wise and noble as He wished. However, in the words of Thomas Paine, “What we obtain too cheaply, we esteem too lightly.” If we needn't struggle to be virtuous, we would not understand the value of it.


What say you?

It seems to me that this is the theological equivalent of that old joke:

- "Why are you banging your head against that brick wall?"
- "Because it feels so good when I stop."

 

[jakedavid91]

OP, that is a form of an argument Aquinas gave in the face of the problem of evil. In effect it sounds nice, and does solve the problem of moral evil. But it doesnt solve natural evil, and also i think this argument would ultimatly fail if you saw a dieing child in the gaza strip hit by an air strike or being burnt to death by white phosphurus.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

Evil is simply the relative absence of good, just as darkness isn't a real "thing" but simply the relative absence of light!
(The latter is proven, BTW, by the fact that you can take light into a dark room but not dark into a light room.)

Your idea of proof is weak. Your logic stands up but is not sufficient proof. Can we say that a hole in the ground is not a real thing because it's simply the absence of any dirt? How about that mental health problems are not real things because they are simply the absense of good mental health?

What i'm getting at, is that if you say darkness is not a real thing because it's just an absence of light, then surely light isn't a real thing because it's just an absence of darkness?

Anyway, this is not a debate about my beliefs in Aeya, this is a debate about theodicy:

The problem of evil has never been one which I have worried about too much. I don't believe in God and I don't believe in Evil, so it pretty much destroys any arguements I might make.

By the way, I have to be pedantic:

i think this argument would ultimatly fail if you saw a dieing child in the gaza strip hit by an air strike

If I saw a dieing child be hit by an airstrike, if I was a monotheist, i'd thank God for ending his/her suffering.

GhK.

 

[Caladan]

Why would a benevolent God Create evil? This question has plagued theologians for centuries. Presumptuous as it may be, I set myself the task of answering this question, and I've struck upon an answer that satisfies me.


If an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent (omnimax) Creator exists, evil must be somehow beneficial to us. So how?


Without evil, &#8220;good&#8221; has no real meaning. To be truly good, we must be faced with a choice. It is only in the face of suffering that we become compassionate. Evil gives us something to overcome, and in doing so become wiser, stronger, and nobler than we would have been without challenge.


Now, it can be argued that an omnimax God could have simply Created us as wise and noble as He wished. However, in the words of Thomas Paine, &#8220;What we obtain too cheaply, we esteem too lightly.&#8221; If we needn't struggle to be virtuous, we would not understand the value of it.


What say you?

Well I think at a certain level, it implies that humans are not mature enough to know whats good for them without beating them upside the head. cant human beings choose to follow logic and 'do good' because of a healthy vision of the outcome? should they be presented with a horrific alternative?
Now, let me make it clear, I think life is fine as it is, suffering or not, evil or not.
Also my personal belief is that there is no cosmic power that is the generator of evil incarnate, life is what it is.. there are circumstances, from our point of view anyway.
so 'evil' is our creation, its the acts of disturbed individuals and the short sighted masses.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Your idea of proof is weak. Your logic stands up but is not sufficient proof. Can we say that a hole in the ground is not a real thing because it's simply the absence of any dirt? How about that mental health problems are not real things because they are simply the absense of good mental health?

Actually, I'd say that good mental health could be defined as the absence of mental problems (taking as given a functioning mind, of course).

What i'm getting at, is that if you say darkness is not a real thing because it's just an absence of light, then surely light isn't a real thing because it's just an absence of darkness?

No, light consists of photons. Darkness is the relative absence of photons. I suppose if you wanted to stretch it, you could (rather awkwardly) describe light as the absence of lack of photons or something like that, but at the end of the day, it comes down to this: the distinction between light and dark is based on a quantifiable thing. The presence of that thing indicates light and the absence of it indicates dark.

The analogy works for many things. Cold is just the absence of heat, for example, which is why we have "absolute zero": you make something colder by taking away heat, not by adding coldness, so at some point there's no more heat to take away.

However, there are plenty of things where the analogy doesn't work, so I don't think that Bruce's use of the analogy implies that it's necessarily true, so much,... but it may be a handy way to get one's mind around a conclusion that he arrived at by some other basis. I agree it's not a proof, but I didn't get the impression that a proof was what Bruce was going for.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

No, light consists of photons. Darkness is the relative absence of photons. I suppose if you wanted to stretch it, you could (rather awkwardly) describe light as the absence of lack of photons or something like that, but at the end of the day, it comes down to this: the distinction between light and dark is based on a quantifiable thing. The presence of that thing indicates light and the absence of it indicates dark.

The analogy works for many things. Cold is just the absence of heat, for example, which is why we have "absolute zero": you make something colder by taking away heat, not by adding coldness, so at some point there's no more heat to take away.

Yes you are absolutely right and I agree. The idea that darkness is the absence of light is true, but for me it depends what you describe light to be. I get confused between the terms 'Blackness' and 'Darkness'. The concepts are different to me. Good and Evil, however, are not instances where I feel this analogy fits.

However, there are plenty of things where the analogy doesn't work, so I don't think that Bruce's use of the analogy implies that it's necessarily true, so much,... but it may be a handy way to get one's mind around a conclusion that he arrived at by some other basis. I agree it's not a proof, but I didn't get the impression that a proof was what Bruce was going for.

The words 'The latter can be proven by the fact...' generally indicate a proof.
I agree in what Bruce is saying here, just that his proof was weak. I'm very picky. I'm what is colloquially known as an arse.

GhK.

 

[Storm]

OP, that is a form of an argument Aquinas gave in the face of the problem of evil.

Yeah, I've realized that I've reinvented the wheel in several instances.

In effect it sounds nice, and does solve the problem of moral evil. But it doesnt solve natural evil,

Why not?

and also i think this argument would ultimatly fail if you saw a dieing child in the gaza strip hit by an air strike or being burnt to death by white phosphurus.

Appeal to emotion. Also, please do not make assumptions about my background, I've seen more than my fair share of horror.

 

[Falvlun]

(The latter is proven, BTW, by the fact that you can take heat into a cold room but not cold into a hot room.)

Wait! So I have just been imagining this invention called the Air Conditioner? :sarcastic

And virtue is prized precisely because its difficult to obtain. if it was easy, ha! then it be no big deal.

Funny. I thought virtue was prized because it tended to be attached to benevolence, healthy living, and social harmony.

The rules, the dichotomy of good and evil already existed, they just didn't know about them

How is that possible if God already declared everything to be good?

Was Lucifer then considered to be "good" too? The very existence of the rebellion of the angels created a dichotomy of good and evil, if one didn't exist before then.

Furthermore, God would not have been able to say it was "good" if there were no pre-existing definition of what was good and what was bad. God saying that it was "good" would have been meaningless, if you are correct. You defeat your own argument.

To answer the OP, you first have to ask yourself, what was God's purpose in creating humanity in the first place and how does the rules that are seemingly in place work to achieve that purpose?

I've never understood the "Well, why did God create us?" response to the Existence of Evil Argument.

Did he create us to have someone to torture, through natural disasters? Did he create us because he was bored? Did he create us because he wanted to be worshipped?

The pat answer is that he created humans because he wanted something that could freely worship him. Yet, how can we freely decide when we are shackled with Adam's guilt?

For a truly free choice, we should all start out in the Garden, and be given the choice to obey a God that walked and talked with us, or to disobey him by eating the forbidden fruit.

When it comes down to it, an omnimax God did not have to do anything. He could have created us in any manner he chose; he could have made any rules he wanted.

And this is what he chose?

I think that the presence of evil speaks more poorly of God than of humans.

 

[BucephalusBB]

Now, it can be argued that an omnimax God could have simply Created us as wise and noble as He wished. However, in the words of Thomas Paine, “What we obtain too cheaply, we esteem too lightly.” If we needn't struggle to be virtuous, we would not understand the value of it.


What say you?

If we needn't struggle to be virtuous, we also wouldn't need the value of it.. and would be happy with that.

not a counter, just a start..

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Wait! So I have just been imagining this invention called the Air Conditioner? :sarcastic

No, you just don't know how an air conditioner works, apparently.

I think that the presence of evil speaks more poorly of God than of humans.

But our gods are a reflection of ourselves. If we made God in our own image (which I think we did), then the bad traits of God are our own bad traits.

 

[Wandered Off]

Wait! So I have just been imagining this invention called the Air Conditioner? :sarcastic

ACs remove heat energy.