My Abrahamic Theodicy

[BucephalusBB]

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

Why? the only ones I heard complaining about it are humans..

 

[Kilgore Trout]

An all-powerful and all-loving being would not have created evil in the first place. Based on those two attributes, there can be no logical reason why creating any kind of evil would be preferable to not doing so. Any desired 'result' achieved through the creation of this evil could simply be accomplished by the all-powerful being in a benevolent fashion.

Any arguments which attempt to rationalize the existence of evil necessarily nullify god's omnipotence and/or omnibenevolence.

 

[Storm]

While your argument is logically correct, I disagree with your premise.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

While your argument is logically correct, I disagree with your premise.

The first sentence of my post isn't actually my premise, but my conclusion resulting from the argument. What do you disagree with exactly, and why?

 

[Storm]

The first sentence of my post isn't actually my premise, but my conclusion resulting from the argument.

To clarify, then, would you lay your argument out in order?

What do you disagree with exactly, and why?

I refer you to the OP. I think that, given the premise of an omnimax God, that is the logical conclusion. Also, from another thread:

I wanted to share this, from Jacob's brilliant recap of Serenity on Television without Pity:

The Operative pulls his huge sword, and Mal pulls...a tiny screwdriver. It's a tiny visual joke on the way to a vicious fight, this way and that on the broadcast platform, before the Operative stabs him (outside the frame, because if we saw him get stabbed as bad as he just did, we'd assume he was dead). "Do you know what your sin is, Mal?" Mal smiles. "Aw hell. I'm a fan of all seven." And Joss makes an interesting point here, which is that this is a literal response, and not a quip: "sin" as a concept is meaningless when the defining authority is as crazy -- and as demonstrably evil by the categorical imperative -- as the Operative and his bosses.

But even then, there's a higher point, which is that "sin," in the sense that the Operative means, and means to enforce here as he did in the beginning, is in itself the most sinful concept imaginable. Imposing their lack, through Pax, through legislation, through signing subjective moral concepts into law, circumvents God's plan entirely, and means taking on God's role and making of oneself an idol. It perverts religion and politics, and all of us love one more than the other. Without pride and the choices it presents, there can be no faith: no assertion that one's relationship with God, against all reason, is imperative and real. Without envy, there is no hope, no comparison, no competition, no dissatisfaction, no reason to try, to succeed. Without gluttony, in a world where greed is eliminated, there is no way to choose charity. Without lust, we all die, and without acknowledgement of lust's universality, there is no fortitude. Without anger, without the holy anger of the proletariat, of the people against the unlawful, there can be no justice. Without greed or sloth, there is no moderation, no temperance or prudence -- we are unable to look at ourselves critically and see long-term v. short-term effects. We stop growing them when the state mandates these lacks, takes away these choices: we all go to sleep. And we don't wake up. And Oceania keeps fighting, and the signal is silenced.

I think I just became a ******* Libertarian. And possibly a Christian.
​

It's pretty much my original point, just expressed far more beautifully.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Based on a god having the two attributes of being all-powerful and all-loving, there can be no logical reason why creating any kind of evil would be preferable to not doing so. Any desired 'result' achieved through the creation of this evil could simply be accomplished by the all-powerful being in a benevolent fashion.

Any arguments which attempt to rationalize the existence of evil necessarily nullify god's omnipotence and/or omnibenevolence.

Additionally, I understand the viewpoint of 'good has no meaning without evil'. However, we have a tendency to project our human perspective onto this hypothetical god by rationalizing evil in this way.

If you start with nothing existing outside this all-powerful, all-benevolent god, it would have no initial reason for implementing things in this way. His creations could have all the same 'good' values and appreciation of those values without having to have experienced the opposite.

God's all-powerfullness allows him to create whatever reality he wants, along with any reality for his creatures. This being the case, if he starts out all-loving, then there would be no compelling reason for him to implement a system which required any evil/suffering, unless god is subject to some type of outside rules, which would negate his omnipotence.

 

[Falvlun]

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

Well, you could enlighten me. Or do you just specialize in cutting people down?

ACs remove heat energy.

Ok. I understand that thermodynamics dictates that heat flows from a hot object to a cold object. I even understand that it makes more sense that coldness would better be described as the absense of heat, than heat would be described as the absense of cold (since heat is basically the result of an exicted energy state, and cold results from a more stable, baseline energy state).

My response had more to do with the actual statement "you can't introduce cold into a hot room". Regardless of whether AC works by sucking out hot air, and then cooling it, and then blowing it back in, the result remains that you are blowing cold air into a hot room. That's all I meant. Is this factually wrong?

My gosh. Are we really arguing about AC? Things must be getting desperate...

 

[Falvlun]

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.

Which may well be true. But to follow the spirit of the OP, we are talking about a benevolent, omnimax deity. As most posters in this thread, I assumed it was specifically the Christian God (though it doesn't necessarily need to be). Thus, I was talking about God as if he existed, and he created us, and not vice versa.

Why? the only ones I heard complaining about it are humans..

Remind me not to make a cliche statement next time...

That said, I don't know what you are getting at. It seems that those who defend God's creation of evil explain it by the idea that we are defective somehow... either we caused evil to enter the world, or we need evil in order to grow. I am simply saying that it makes more sense that it is God that is defective, and not us, since he requires evil, or chooses evil, to carry out his plans.

 

[Storm]

Just to clarify, I'm not talking about the Christian God specifically. Just a generic omnimax God.

The reason for this is that I want to keep the discussion on the question of theodicy without getting sidetracked my doctrinal mintuiae.

 

[Falvlun]

Just to clarify, I'm not talking about the Christian God specifically. Just a generic omnimax God.

The reason for this is that I want to keep the discussion on the question of theodicy without getting sidetracked my doctrinal mintuiae.

::thumbs up::

Anyway, I would assume it would be difficult to be omnimax if you were just a thought-creation of a decidedly non-omnimax human....

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, you could enlighten me. Or do you just specialize in cutting people down?

Enh. I felt I responded in a similar tone to the one you used.

Ok. I understand that thermodynamics dictates that heat flows from a hot object to a cold object. I even understand that it makes more sense that coldness would better be described as the absense of heat, than heat would be described as the absense of cold (since heat is basically the result of an exicted energy state, and cold results from a more stable, baseline energy state).

My response had more to do with the actual statement "you can't introduce cold into a hot room". Regardless of whether AC works by sucking out hot air, and then cooling it, and then blowing it back in, the result remains that you are blowing cold air into a hot room. That's all I meant. Is this factually wrong?

It's an artifact of a particular point of view, I think.

Heat can be defined in terms of an objective measure: energy. In contrast, "coldness" can only be defined in relative terms: "hot" implies higher temperature than some reference, "cold" implies a temperature less than some reference.

You say that an air conditioner blows cold air into a hot room; what's "cold"? What's "hot"? These relativistic terms really only have meaning when you quantify things in terms of the actual measure: heat or temperature. The air coming in has more specific heat than the air going out. In this process, "joules of coldness" aren't added; joules of heat are removed.

And as I pointed out before, the sure sign that this is the correct way of looking at things is at absolute zero: if it were valid to think of temperature in terms of "adding coldness" to something, then there would be no absolute zero - you could cram more and more "coldness" into an object without limit. However, this doesn't happen - in reality, you cool something by removing heat, and once all the heat is gone, it's impossible to make the thing any colder.

 

[Hospitaller]

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?

God didnt create evil. but he allows it to happen, and what you have said is one of the reasons it is allowed. aside from the creating evil part, i agree. well done.

:clap:clap:clap:clap

 

[cottage]

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?

With respect, Storm, that is question begging. You are assuming that evil must be beneficial while ignoring the contradiction you've just proved.

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.

It is certainly true in one sense to say without evil 'good' has no meaning. But what an appallingly immoral argument it is to say that someone must suffer in order to make others feel good about themselves! We can't make a moral case for becoming wiser and stronger, if it is at somebody else's expense. There is surely nothing noble about that. It is also illogical to make the case for using evil to overcome evil. And nor does it make sense to say 'choice' has a higher moral worth than the alleviation of suffering.

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.

God could have made the world neutral or indifferent. And then there would still have been the opportunity for individuals to rise above themselves, to exceed mediocrity and seek greater moral heights. Self-respect could still be attained without the existence pain and suffering. Can it really be virtuous to depend upon of evil and sing its praises as the wonderful God-given means to better ourselves? It poses an almost sacrificial concept, where some must suffer on the alter of evil in order for others to show how good they are. But more to the point, none of it is logically necessary. Self-evidently God isn't constrained in any way, or obliged to cause suffering, and therefore it is unnecessary, unwarranted and evil.

 

[imaginaryme]

Then how have people argued it, Patty?

I don't know.

Cracked's History of Religion... :biglaugh:

 

[imaginaryme]

The problem with being a mathematician - certain words other people seem to have no problem processing scramble my eggs. These "omni" terms, they are simply nonsense to me. Here's a factoid I picked up recently - one octillionth of the electromagnetic spectrum is visible light. Does anyone know what an octillion is? I don't, and I'm the math guy; I'd have to go look it up. Here's another - the human mind can absorb a billion volumes in a lifetime; the computational capacity of the human mind. What's a billion to an octillion? What the heck are we talking about? Oh, evil...

I can do evil. It's magic. Take, for instance, the backward flow of time. Say you see a spot on the horizon, and walk towards it. All the while, your mind processes the differing aspects of changing scale as the spot grows into a boulder. Your memory will hold conjecture of the developing shape, patterns noticed, colors, light and shadow... there will be a substantial collection of information - collected, of course, at a cost of increasing entropy. This is good. This is a step-by-step process, which is the natural order of things.

But, let's say; you don't walk towards it. Let's say, you see the spot, then you see into the future, and know what that spot is. Suddenly, a boulder is visible, with a much lower cost of information storage and entropy. This is evil. It is "taking a shortcut;" it is both contrary and integral to the natural order of things. Occurrences in the world, through causality, minimize the increase of entropy; thus it can be seen that "future information" automatically takes precedent over "present information" when the scope of that information is concurrent. This is why all seers are insane; the mind knows something is missing, and this is why deja-vu instances are so disturbing. It is out of alignment with the natural order of things, but it is also all natural

It's the same kind of thing with what is typically seen as evil (although often it is a misnomer). It is out of alignment, unnatural, disturbing. I find people do "evilness" more from a corruption of love. (Love of self, or money, or power...)

And I don't do "creator god," I do "god is;" but the above scenario would work with "creation" as well.

 

[Mr Cheese]

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?

good and evil are dualities.....

both are as worthless and useful as each other

and both must be transcended....

to assume evil is good for us is like saying puss filled warts on our buttocks help you sit at a computer...

 

[Gharib]

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?

The Purpose of Creation of Evils and the Devil


Why does Allah create evils and the devil? If Allah wants me not to commit evils, then why does He create them?

17.11.2009

Creating the evils is not evil but committing evil is evil

Knife was invented for the purpose of many benefits and it makes life easier by answering the purpose in many areas. If some people use the knife for killing, is it logical to say “Both knife and its invention is evil.”? Doubtlessly, not the creation of knife but using the knife for committing evil is evil.

Likewise, everything in the universe serves goodness and fineness unless man misuses them. When he misuses anything in the universe, however beneficial and beautiful they are, they turn into depredation and evil for him.
Today, the main reason for the catastrophes is the humankind’s breaking the natural laws and disturbing the natural balance. So it’s the man who converts many goods to evils.


Is it reasonable to abandon numerous good so as to avoid minor evils?

Rain is the lifeblood of earth but; it is inevitable for a lazy and careless man’s leaky roof to get damaged because of rain. It is the same for fire, electricity, soil, devil and everything in our lives. Can we say that “Rain gives harms to humankind. It is nothing but evil. Why does Allah (swt) create and allow evil?” Of course it is obvious that the evil does not belong to its creation; but belongs to misusage of it.

If the rain had been abolished from the earth for the purpose of avoiding a few minor damages, it would be the epitome of the evil and the end of the world! Because rain may cause a few damages but its harms are very few when its benefits are considered. Do you think it is fair and reasonable to abandon numerous good so as to avoid minor evils? And is it fair to consider the creation of rain or fire as evil because of leaky roofs and carelessness of man? Doubtlessly mind, logic and conscience will cry out “No, it is exactly not fair!”


Even the creation of devil is good; but following his way is evil

There are good purposes in the creation of devil, as well.
Man has free-will to make his own choices. If he chooses the way of devil, of course he will be punished; but if he regards the devil as a test for him and follows the righteous way, he will gain the happiness of two worlds and everlasting rewards in the eternity.


Evil and devil are created to increase the level of man

The purpose of the creation of the evil and the devil is to increase the level of man.
If we think about a seed, we’ll see that, its development potentials convert into action through plenty of transactions. Thus, by passing many stages it grows into a tree and then; if it is a type of fruitful tree, it will bear fruit.

Likewise, human nature has a great number of abilities and potentials. In order to develop and convert these potentials and abilities, a struggle is required. That’s why Allah gives tests and devil as a struggle for man to develop his abilities and potentials. Thus, each man striving against the devil and choosing the righteous path reaches high levels of humanity while the people following the devil (satan-shaitan) sink to the depths of sin; all people get what they deserve and numerous levels of humanity come out.

And also if there were no evils and devil; just like the angels, the degree of human would be steady and never increase. For angels are not striving against the devil, their levels always stand constant. However, through the devils, Allah (swt) gave humankind the ability of superiority to the angels.

In this world where we come for the purpose of being tested, human will either fall to the lower levels than the animals by following the devils or raise higher levels than the angels by striving against the devil and the evil. It’s up to his will to convert the consequences of the opportunities he is given into good or bad by choosing the right or the wrong path with his will.
The Purpose of Creation of Evils and the Devil


hope that helps.

 

[imaginaryme]

Heat can be defined in terms of an objective measure: energy. In contrast, "coldness" can only be defined in relative terms: "hot" implies higher temperature than some reference, "cold" implies a temperature less than some reference.

You say that an air conditioner blows cold air into a hot room; what's "cold"? What's "hot"? These relativistic terms really only have meaning when you quantify things in terms of the actual measure: heat or temperature. The air coming in has more specific heat than the air going out. In this process, "joules of coldness" aren't added; joules of heat are removed.

And as I pointed out before, the sure sign that this is the correct way of looking at things is at absolute zero: if it were valid to think of temperature in terms of "adding coldness" to something, then there would be no absolute zero - you could cram more and more "coldness" into an object without limit. However, this doesn't happen - in reality, you cool something by removing heat, and once all the heat is gone, it's impossible to make the thing any colder.

Just to be contentious - - this may not be entirely correct. Alistair Reynolds writes of cryo-arithmetic engines in several works of sci-fi, computers that create cold by processing esoteric mathematics; and, sure, it's sci-fi, but the guy is also an astronomer. And I've read of something similar being possible in the real world, even though I'm not sure of the engineering; the same type of reasoning may be applicable.

A reduction of entropy. Part of the reason why I argue for my version of evil, rather than accept common conception, is through the research of things like entropy and causality...

But, hey; this is a religious forum. Don't mind me.

 

[Storm]

Zombie thread, run!

With respect, Storm, that is question begging. You are assuming that evil must be beneficial while ignoring the contradiction you've just proved.

Is it really begging the question to accept a given set of premises? Because, if we do accept them, the conclusion is inevitable.

It is certainly true in one sense to say without evil 'good' has no meaning. But what an appallingly immoral argument it is to say that someone must suffer in order to make others feel good about themselves! We can't make a moral case for becoming wiser and stronger, if it is at somebody else's expense. There is surely nothing noble about that. It is also illogical to make the case for using evil to overcome evil. And nor does it make sense to say 'choice' has a higher moral worth than the alleviation of suffering. [emphasis added]

This is a gross and inaccurate oversimplification of my argument, and I'm tempted to call strawman.

God could have made the world neutral or indifferent. And then there would still have been the opportunity for individuals to rise above themselves, to exceed mediocrity and seek greater moral heights. Self-respect could still be attained without the existence pain and suffering. Can it really be virtuous to depend upon of evil and sing its praises as the wonderful God-given means to better ourselves? It poses an almost sacrificial concept, where some must suffer on the alter of evil in order for others to show how good they are. But more to the point, none of it is logically necessary. Self-evidently God isn't constrained in any way, or obliged to cause suffering, and therefore it is unnecessary, unwarranted and evil.

It's not about self-respect; it's about how we choose to react.

You're right, though, it is a sacrificial system.

 

[cottage]

Zombie thread, run!

Is it really begging the question to accept a given set of premises? Because, if we do accept them, the conclusion is inevitable.

But it's not a matter of whether you accept them, it's a matter of whether they are true.
No truth was demonstrated. In fact you demonstrated a contradiction. S/b: if an omnipotent and omnibenevolent creator exists, then there can be no evil. There is evil, therefore no omnipotent, omnibenevolent God.

This is a gross and inaccurate oversimplification of my argument, and I'm tempted to call straw man.

In what way is it an oversimplification? And no Straw Man, my objection was made on two counts: a moral argument and a logical argument.

It's not about self-respect; it's about how we choose to react.

But the choice is about wanting to do the right thing, isn't it?