dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
This is a unique creator.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Problem of Evil has been solved.(?)
- Thread starter an anarchist
- Start date
This is a unique creator.
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
Not necessarily.
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
A reflection is an inverse 2 dimensional image of a 3 dimensional object. Inverse. Flat compared to the original. They're literally opposite in fundamental ways.
Heyo
Veteran Member
I agree. But that agreement is only for deistic gods, which have created the universe and then left. They can't be responsible for everything what happens later - except when that god was omniscient in the form that it knew the future of its creation and did it anyway.
But we are talking about a theistic god which is constantly intervening (or at least could intervene).
First a word on nomenclature. The theodicy problem is variously called the problem of evil and the problem of suffering. Even when submitted "the problem of suffering" to AI, the answer came back "The problem of suffering is a philosophical question that attempts to reconcile the existence of suffering and evil with the idea of a God who is all-powerful, all-loving, and all-knowing."
The dilemma encompasses the problem of all non-constructive (gratuitous) suffering in a world ruled by a tri-omni deity. Evil, however defined, would be a subset of that and need not be mentioned separately. The existence of suffering, though a problem to be grappled with and minimized, is not a dilemma to unbelievers.
Also, evil is a word I avoid because of its religious baggage. It evokes the idea of a universal principle in opposition to a universal principle of goodness in Abrahamic dogma, represented by a supernatural deity and a supernatural demon, or in the case of some other traditions, disembodied opposing forces of nature. I prefer malice to refer to the harm people deliberately, do to one another, and no other harm is called anything but nature or bad luck.
This is how the humanist views the matter if he stipulates to a tri-omni deity for the sake of discussion, and asks the believer to reconcile that with his beliefs:
"Either God can do nothing to stop the catastrophes, or he doesn't care to, or he doesn't exist. God is either impotent, evil, or imaginary. Take your pick, and choose wisely." -- Sam Harris
"If this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also his work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty being? In giving out punishment and rewards he would to a certain extent be passing judgment on himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to him?" - Albert Einstein
I don't see an answer to the theodicy problem there from either your pastor or Holmes.
Omnipotence alone isn't enough.
The theodicy argument rejects the possibility of a tri-omni god in the face of gratuitous suffering, so there is no theodicy problem without including omniscience and omnibenevolence as well. A god (or a person "such as you and me") with none, one, or two of the three qualities would not be expected to prevent all gratuitous suffering.
Here's Epicurus's formulation of the problem, but he addresses non-tri-omni gods. I would quibble with Epicurus's first and second comments. The god described in the first line is not necessarily non-omnipotent. It might be non-omniscient. It might be all-loving and all-powerful, but unaware of our existence.
Also, an unwilling god needn't be malevolent. It might be indifferent or lazy.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" - Epicurus
You're not alone. This was a post from me to him from this past summer:
"You seem to be unable to post without condescension and unprovoked hostility. And it's not just directed at me, although this is the third rude and ill-mannered post you've written to me over the years. I've seen you verbally expectorate at least a half-dozen other RF posters as well. Why so bitter? Why so cantankerous? Do you yell at children or kick dogs?"
We interacted again briefly in this short thread, and it was civil at first, but by post 20, things began going south again. He had made a suggestion that two of us declined, and he became judgmental. By post 25, he was implying a cognitive defect in those not taking his advice.
As you suggested with your use of the word cathartic, dishing out verbal abuse apparently meets some need in him, and since I don't expect that need to be met in any other way, I don't expect him to want to or be able to change.
\
I believe Arendt, a philosopher from Germany deals with the problem of evil magnificently.
Tell me your stance on Nazis. (But it's all useless, I already know you won't):
I was speaking of Nazis.
I believe Arendt, a philosopher from Germany deals with the problem of evil magnificently.
Tell me your stance on Nazis. (But it's all useless, I already know you won't):
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
Only? I disagree. To the contrary, it cannot be a deistic god, either. My reasoning is complicated. Very briefly. If God is absolutely literally infinite, creation of others, plural, necessarily requires on-going forebearance. Forebearance is intentional. It cannot be deist. It its intention shifts for a single moment, all of it reassimilates back to the source like water droplets in an endless sea.
Instead of doing weird word games, how about you put some thought into actually responding to my point?
The failure of a creation is ultimately a failure of the creator: if the creation was not fit for its intended purpose, then there is a flaw or error in the creation's design or making. Any such flaw or error is on the part of the designer or creator.
Last edited:
For the traditional PoE, sure: you need all three.
I think it's interesting to explore the case when we have at least two, though: omnipotence and omniscience.
With those two, we can infer that the world must be precisely as God has willed it, and then use this inference to make judgments of God's character.
Heyo
Veteran Member
"With great power comes great responsibility." - Uncle Ben
That god of yours creates or maintains everything, which makes it responsible for everything. Creating or maintaining suffering is not compatible with benevolence. Your god has a Problem of Evil. Necessarily.
Kind of like saying "Race will remain a problem as long as anyone believes in it."
Or "Money will remain a problem as long as anyone believes in it."
Or "God will remain a problem as long as anyone believes in it."
an anarchist
Your local loco.
I suppose this is where I differ from most people. I often tout that suffering is not inevitable, and when I say that, I mean that in the most literal sense. That would then imply physical suffering, which then often seems nonsensical to most. The idea that we as a collective can transcend our physical state is scoffed at usually. But I am optimistic and truly believe that we are in fact triomni, or at least, have the capacity to become “God” in every sense of the word. I say this while viewing the human race as a singular collective. So this entire human race would have to realize and take advantage of their god potential. So it is likely unlikely that the transcendence of suffering can be achieved, but if you have my very specific theological framework, it suggest that a triomni God can exists besides us. But since we are not (yet) benevolent, we fail to see or understand how we can move closer to transcending suffering. And since we humans ultimately have access to this omnipotent power source, we can obstruct the alleviation of suffering through our free will.
I don’t want to make a whole new thread asking the following so I’ll ask it here. What if there are two omnipotent entities? In my head, that would be a sort of “pantheistic” yet benevolent and caring “God”, and then the other entity is the human race. I know I should make a case for our omnipotence maybe I’ll get back to that but for now let’s move on. My question is, can 2 omnipotent beings simultaneously exist? Sort of like the question “Can God make a rock so heavy he can’t lift?” Can 2 beings with ultimate power have opposing motivations and conflict with each other? Would they then not be “omnipotent”?
Koldo
Outstanding Member
As far as the problem of evil is concerned, it is inconsequential if humans can completely overcome suffering.
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
Nevermind. Not interested.
I have. It's already been refuted. If you don't see it, I'm not going to explain further.
Have a pleasant rest of your day.
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
I agree, evil is not a problem, it is what people choose and want. In the beginning people wanted to know evil like God knows. That is why they were expelled to this first death, where we can experience what evil truly means. Luckily this is just a short lesson and those who are, or become righteous can get back to life, without evil.
Evil cannot destroy our soul, which is the important thing, Therefore evil is not a problem, only something that people wanted to know, and God allowed it, because He is good.
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
It is compatible. But I don't need to show you how. It's not important. Respectfully, sincerely, the PoE is a petty objection to theism in the the way it's being discussed.
The PoE is not actually about whether or not evil is compatible with benevolence. The impact of the PoE comes from the magnitude of the suffering. Even if I show you that evil, as a concept, is compatible with benevolence, in this case, ( and there's a couple of ways I can I do that ), it won't matter at all. The actual objection to theism, in regard to the PoE is: "Why is it this bad? Why is there so much suffering?" I think most people would be tolerant and understanding of a little suffering here and there. What is not understood is this:
"If God is all powerful and benevolent, certainly God would intervene and make some adjustments to change reality to reduce the suffering. This is too much."
That's the real PoE. Even that can be logically explained without contradiction. But, you don't need to believe me. And I do not need to convince you.
This is what I've noticed.
There are layers of objections to "abrahamic" theism coming from the PoE. Critics of it have patience for discussing the first layer or two, but, I have never met a critic who is willing to look at it in total, acknowlege and evaluate their assumptions, and fill in the gaps in their knowledge of theology.
For me, I found a great deal of solace putting the peices together, seeing the puzzle completed. Because. I love my religion. That's what fueled my pssion to find an answer to this problem. Critics, I expect, receive that same sense of solace from their objections. This has the converse effect. They have almost zero patience for discussing this in depth. For these people, the perceived inherent contradicitons in the abrahamic faith are very important for them, personally, in order for the individual to make sense of the world. In the worst cases, showing the individual that they're wrong about the PoE, will send them into a bit of tail-spin. It's because the hooks and barbs from the their childhood indoctrination never really go away. The religion was engraved on their personality. It will always be there, the individual will need to re-convince themself, justify, regularly, that leaving their faith, and all the associated heart-ache, family turmoil, that comes with it, was the right choice for them. If they're shown they're wrong about the PoE, it opens up the possibllity they are wrong about God. This is not good for the bible-critic who is coping with being raised in a harmful environment.
If the individual, like me, finds solace in the the PoE, but from the opposing valence, they will never listen to me with an open mind for the entire duration of the discussion. It's too complicated. They're going to lose patience. Naturally. It will be be irritating for them. I'll be accused of apologetics, with mocking and virtual snickers. And, I completely understand. But, this puts me in an awkward position. I need to determine whether or not the individual actually wants me to answer the question. Or, are they arguing with me looking for an opportnity to validate the reasons they left their faith, the reasons they blame the ignorant irrational God-believers in America ( and Israel ) for the entire world's problems. If I decide, "Yes, they are actually curious" then I need to decide where to begin. Should I just go for it, and explain in detail from the beginning? Or, do I give little bits which don't actually address the dilemma, but, at least I look like I have some of it figured out. Even if I don't solve it completely for the individual, it will produce a modicum of credibility for future discussion?
But. Regardless of my approach:
If they are looking for validation, if they need my religion to be wrong and false and contadictiory in order to make sense of the world? To be completely honest, it's probably wrong for me to take that away from them. They need to find fault my religion, in that way? To make sense of their world and the circumstances they observe around them, near and far?
...
In this case, I feel confident you are curious, Heyo. I believe you'll be fair in your judgement of what I write. But, if you really want me to explain fully, I'll need to be convinced that you'll listen to the whole explanation. Also, when we get to the end, I'll need you to trust me that what I have written is, indeed, consistent with the Hebrew bible. It will be very dissapointing, if I do well explaining my case, only to have it fall flat beause the English language translation is assumed to be the original "holy" text. And I'm the only one between us who can read Hebrew.
Last edited:
Heyo
Veteran Member
When you want to introduce gradients to a fundamental problem, that's easy. Just apply gradients to your god's potency, knowledge or beneficence. Only if your god is perfect in all aspects, we have to expect a perfect world with no gratuitous suffering.
As I said above, the PoE is not a good argument in my view as it is so easy to get rid of. You just have to make a little compromise. (And it's not that there aren't examples of theistic compromises. Aquinas has reduced his god to a maximal powerful being, not an absolute.)
I carry no baggage, as I never left a faith, and I'm not bound to a biblical god (especially as there are so many of those).
My interest is mostly philosophic in this question. I'm just annoyed by bad logic. And believing in a tri-omni god, in face of reality, is bad logic.