PoE vs. Evolution - creationist's dilemma

[Copernicus]

I , actually, prefer to approach this matter with the evil part than the suffering part.

Having read your entire post, I am mystified as to why you would take that stand. You did not address my point that evil is normally associated with malicious intent, but natural disasters, famines, and illnesses cause tremendous suffering that has nothing to do with malice (unless one considers them to be caused by a malicious being such as a god or demon).

The ability to feel pain is nowadays seen as an important trait to grant our survival...

I've survived a couple of serious abdominal surgeries, and I can assure you that my survival was enhanced by anesthesia. But this point is irrelevant, as we were discussing people who feel unbearable pain.

Also, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc. are not natural disasters so to say. They are ,rather, natural events. We are the ones perceiving them as disasters...

Basically, you seem to be saying that there is no such thing as a natural disaster. I am in violent agreement with you that natural disasters are natural events. That is why we call those kinds of disasters "natural". What qualifies them as "disasters" is how they affect large numbers of human beings.

A interesting question flourish from that line of thought: "Couldn't God allow us to live in a reality where pain is not needed to exist to grant our survival?". I am not talking about diseases when i make this question, rather i am talking about the whole ability to feel physical suffering, in general.

Yes. Have you not heard of heaven? :slap:

The reason of why i like to look it at this matter more from the "evil" side of it is because God created everything. God created the humans and if humans are capable of evil then that is how God intended it to be because he is the perfect creator...

That does not address my point that much human suffering has nothing to do with humans behaving badly. It is a natural consequence of the reality we find ourselves in. The "Problem of Evil" is really more about the existence of victims than of evil perpetrators. The whole point is not that God lets people do bad things but that he doesn't stop people from becoming victims. One could, of course, argue that God is evil by allowing such suffering and that therefore victims exist because of evil behavior (in this case, God's). However, that contradicts the notion that God is benevolent.

Also, i don't believe you can disprove God existence with PoE. Given it is always possible to create such a scenario where God's existence is still possible. The big win here is to make your opponent concede about something that wasn't part of his original beliefs. Even Platinga had to concede the existence of powerfull nonhuman agents to make God's existence possible. And those concessions are , in my point of view, a very important win.

I do not believe that we can use the PoE (or PoS) to prove God impossible. We can, however, use it to prove him implausible. Plantinga has proposed a clever method for trying to absolve God from the responsibility of creating evil directly, but I do not think he has done much more than embarked on a "turtles all the way down" explanation. It is a second order "free will defense", but the FWD has the same problem no matter how many layers of free agents you put between God and the ultimate act of suffering. God is still part of the chain of responsibility, since he is a free agent that can stop the suffering. For God to allow an intermediary free agent to choose to commit evil is the same as allowing a human agent to choose to commit evil. It seems to constitute depraved indifference to suffering.

 

[PolyHedral]

Like I said, every child that grows up will do sin continually. Eating a fruit from a tree is the same as murder in the sense that it is a rebellion from God, a rejection of God's commands. Eating the fruit was just the beginning of what man is capable of, and we see that now. The first murder was from the first children on earth.

You didn't answer the question: Is it just for you to be sent to jail for your father's crime?

And also, why is God self-centered enough to demand that we obey Him, even at no benefit to ourselves?

 

[Copernicus]

Like I said, every child that grows up will do sin continually. Eating a fruit from a tree is the same as murder in the sense that it is a rebellion from God, a rejection of God's commands. Eating the fruit was just the beginning of what man is capable of, and we see that now. The first murder was from the first children on earth.

When I see this kind of reasoning, I am reminded of the great harm that religion can do to the human mind. The Bible was constructed at a time when people were best able to account for natural disasters as the acts of gods. Armies lost battles because the gods on the losing side were angry with those that pleaded for their help. Yahweh alternately punished and rewarded his worshipers depending on how faithful they were to him. Since those times, we have come to understand that there are better explanations for natural disasters and diseases than spiritual beings with magical powers. Unfortunately, some versions of religion still try to promote the idea that bad things happen to us because a spirit being is mad at us.

 

[Tristesse]

Like I said, every child that grows up will do sin continually. Eating a fruit from a tree is the same as murder in the sense that it is a rebellion from God, a rejection of God's commands. Eating the fruit was just the beginning of what man is capable of, and we see that now. The first murder was from the first children on earth.

How do you know every child that grows up will do "sin?" Are you psychic? Or maybe god just knows that every child will do sin when they grow up. If thats the case, then god knows what everyones gonna be doing, he knows I'm gonna grow up and become an atheist. Therefore, god knows who he's sending to hell in advance. And only people who are guidable enough to buy into the correct religion will ascend to "heaven."

So, in your theology, I'm no better than a murderer? What kind of sick rules are these? I don't happen to believe the unbelievable, but the guy who murders and rapes a child, and asks god for forgiveness. He gets rewarded after death. These are not laws that are moral or just. These are immoral rules from a jealous dictator. I'm sorry that you've bought into this absurdity, that has polluted your mind. And if you cannot see the immorality in what you're saying, it's just another testament to the power of indoctrination.

 

[Koldo]

Having read your entire post, I am mystified as to why you would take that stand. You did not address my point that evil is normally associated with malicious intent, but natural disasters, famines, and illnesses cause tremendous suffering that has nothing to do with malice (unless one considers them to be caused by a malicious being such as a god or demon).

i beg your pardon because i rushed through your first lines while reading them and had the impression that you were suggesting to ignore the evil intent part of the argument and simply go on with the suffering that has nothing to do with evil intent. I am really sorry for this ridiculous mistake of mine. And i have to say that in fact i agree with you in this matter now that i read your post correctly.

Also ,my first sentence in the last post of mine is VERY misleading. I also beg your pardon for that. Actually, i have addressed just the suffering part regardless of evil intent from the 2nd until the 4th paragraphs. At the 5th paragraph i started to look at the matter from the malicous intent perspective. As you see, i prefer to argument from the malicous instead of the suffering part, although i did both in my last post. When taking simply the suffering approach i came up in the end with a question as a result of my thoughts : "Couldn't God allow us to live in a reality where pain is not needed to exist to grant our survival?". But when i took the evil ( malicous intent ) approach i came up with a very strong , in my humble opinion, statement as a conclusion : "...it's God's the responsability for all the evil that exists."

If i take the suffering without malicious intent route i will end up having to arguee against Adam and Eve story and the original sin and all of that, as that is the usual defense as to why humans suffer, which is still fine for me to go against. But if i take the suffering with malicous intent route i will end up with a much quicker and stronger ,in my humble opinion, statement that God is responsible for all evil that exists. I find it rather hard to defend against such statement. Because even if you give excuses as to why the evil exists, the statement still remains true.

Obviously, now that i gave a real thought to it one should , in fact, use both approaches to this matter together to make up for an even stronger argument...just like you suggested in first place...

( Can i be forgiven for my mistakes because it is my birthday?! )

Yes. Have you not heard of heaven?

Haha. So let me make my question a little bit more complete : "Couldn't God allow us to live our current lives in a reality where pain is not needed to exist to grant our survival?"

Which will of course be replied along the lines of Adam and Eve story by the believers of such story.

That does not address my point that much human suffering has nothing to do with humans behaving badly. It is a natural consequence of the reality we find ourselves in.

I agree with you. It is also God whom created our reality. Which is why I made the question in the above paragraph.

The "Problem of Evil" is really more about the existence of victims than of evil perpetrators. The whole point is not that God lets people do bad things but that he doesn't stop people from becoming victims. One could, of course, argue that God is evil by allowing such suffering and that therefore victims exist because of evil behavior (in this case, God's). However, that contradicts the notion that God is benevolent.

Interesting. I always thought the "Problem of Evil" could be looked at both ways. Both the existence of victims left unprotected by God and/or the existence of evil perpetrators. I will take the freedom to switch the word "human" for the "evil perpetrators" in my argument to make it more complete:

"The reason of why i like to look it at this matter more from the "evil" side of it is because God created everything. God created the evil perpetrators and if evil perpetrators are capable of evil then that is how God intended it to be because he is the perfect creator... "

I do not believe that we can use the PoE (or PoS) to prove God impossible. We can, however, use it to prove him implausible. Plantinga has proposed a clever method for trying to absolve God from the responsibility of creating evil directly, but I do not think he has done much more than embarked on a "turtles all the way down" explanation. It is a second order "free will defense", but the FWD has the same problem no matter how many layers of free agents you put between God and the ultimate act of suffering. God is still part of the chain of responsibility, since he is a free agent that can stop the suffering. For God to allow an intermediary free agent to choose to commit evil is the same as allowing a human agent to choose to commit evil. It seems to constitute depraved indifference to suffering.

I understand what you are saying. Yet, i must say it was a somewhat clever move. As there is actually a "religion" which believes in Spirits with free will able to do just like him said to begin with. Of course, i agree that "For God to allow an intermediary free agent to choose to commit evil is the same as allowing a human agent to choose to commit evil." and Platinga's defense to this is that to reach a greater good the free will is necessary. Why can't such free will be restricted until no possible evil is viable given the omnipotency of God is one of the possible attacks to this. And i bet that the defenders of this idea will simply claim God can NOT concede free will without the possibility of evil as a result. Nevertheless, God is still responsible for all evil that exists.

 

[Meow Mix]

It's all from original sin and the curse, everything bad, getting old, sickness, death, disease, dying young, pain, cancer, parasites, earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, storms, you name it. We can trace it all back to our sin. Any child that grows up will do evil continually their whole lives.

Two things: what, exactly, is just about inflicting punishment on the descendants of the original transgressor? And your theodicy doesn't seem to be exhaustive. For instance, I'm sure in hospitals all over the world infants are born into a great deal of suffering and die before they're ever able to comitt even the tiniest act of evil: how do you account for that?

 

[Copernicus]

Obviously, now that i gave a real thought to it one should , in fact, use both approaches to this matter together to make up for an even stronger argument...just like you suggested in first place...

( Can i be forgiven for my mistakes because it is my birthday?! )

There was no offense to forgive. Thank you for clarifying your thoughts. And Happy Birthday! Man, you shouldn't be reading about suffering on your birthday.
:birthday:

Haha. So let me make my question a little bit more complete : "Couldn't God allow us to live our current lives in a reality where pain is not needed to exist to grant our survival?"

In principle, God could make any kind of reality he wanted. The question is why that kind of being would choose to make this kind of reality. And let's not forget that it isn't just that God allows suffering. Not everyone suffers evenly, so there is the question of fairness. People of faith are faced with a tremendous challenge in the end. They must explain why God would always behave as if his existence were open to question, especially if he did not wish us to question his existence. The fact of suffering, the unfairness that we see in the world, and the lack of a clear explanation for divine silence in the face of it all cause a lot of believers to question their faith. It isn't hard at all to imagine why reality is the way it is if God did not exist or were indifferent to our existence. So this is an extremely important issue for believers in an omnimax God.