The problem of evil; is it evidence for God's nonexistence?

[Koldo]

Still, for the 5th time maybe, it can only try to assert that "your idea of your God is wrong". That's all it can do.

Lets say someone believes his father is a great guy, and a patriot, but an outsider accuses his father is not a patriot, neither is he a great guy, all he can do is assert the idea this person has about his father is wrong. That's all.

Generally philosophical atheists (not like these internet missionary atheists) don't make the argument you are making. It's illogical, that's the reason.

Ciao.

Within the context of the problem of evil, to assert that God can be God and also lack either omnipotence, omniscience and/or omnibenevolence is a logical contradiction. In the same way that saying that a triangle can have 6 sides. Those are not accidental properties, but rather essential properties. So, within the context of the problem of evil, to put it simple: Nope, you are wrong to call something that lacks one of those 3 properties by the word 'God'.

 

[firedragon]

Within the context of the problem of evil, to assert that God can be God and also lack either omnipotence, omniscience and/or omnibenevolence is a logical contradiction

You have to understand what a contradiction is. A contradiction is when an internal proposition is A and not A. If you show a contradiction in someones belief about God, that could only mean that it's a contradiction. Thus, all you can prove is that in order to not contradict, one has to accept the features that are contradicting has to be taken away. (You theist, you believe A but A is wrong, so you have to change your conception which is A). Not existence. That too, you are addressing not an internal contradiction but external.

With your approach to someones conception of God which you insist upon, all you can do maximum is pose an argument to take away their conception, not the existence of god.

 

[Koldo]

You have to understand what a contradiction is. A contradiction is when an internal proposition is A and not A. If you show a contradiction in someones belief about God, that could only mean that it's a contradiction. Thus, all you can prove is that in order to not contradict, one has to accept the features that are contradicting has to be taken away. (You theist, you believe A but A is wrong, so you have to change your conception which is A). Not existence. That too, you are addressing not an internal contradiction but external.

With your approach to someones conception of God which you insist upon, all you can do maximum is pose an argument to take away their conception, not the existence of god.

You can not posit that God is not omnipotent, omniscient and/or omnibenevolent when talking about the problem of evil. If you do, you are contradicting the definition of God in the problem of evil.

I am therefore not saying that your belief in God is contradictory in itself. What I am however stating is that you are approaching the problem of evil with a definition of God that creates a contradiction in the problem of evil by contradicting the definition provided with a distinct definition.

The problem of evil starts with defining God as omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. If you proceed by disregarding the definition provided obviously the conclusion won't be that God doesn't exist. If however, you accept that definition, the conclusion is that God doesn't exist, for God is only God, in the problem of evil, if it has those three characteristics in the definition provided.

To reach the conclusion that God doesn't exist you must obviously accept not just the premises but also the definition provided.

 

[Truth in love]

The problem of evil is not a new topic. The topic of theodicy has been in existence probably since time immemorial, but the curious fact is that a lot of times it props up without an external objection. That is, from the theists who engage in theodicy. So the external objection I refer to is from atheists.

The reason for this topic is due to a few atheists assessing "the problem of evil" as the best argument atheists posit as evidence for God's nonexistence. Do they really? I know some atheists do make that argument but do they really make it to mean God does not exist? Does that even work?

The usual argument is that a good God (the usually repeated terms like all knowing, omnibenevolent, etc) has allowed evil in this universe thus it's a contradiction. This thread is not meant to discuss this contradiction, but to discuss the topic; "is it evidence for God's nonexistence?".

It is logically absurd to make that argument and it's illogical for a theist to think this is the atheists best argument against the existence of God. First steps first. The maximum it could prove is that God is not good, not so good, not as good as you thought, bad, or evil. It can never be an argument against the existence God, logically speaking.

• If an atheist is making this argument with that intention, how would it prove God does not exist?
• If a theist thinks this is the best argument atheists give against the existence of God, on what basis?

What say you?

No the existence of snow is not evidnace that the sun does not exist.

 

[firedragon]

You can not posit that God is not omnipotent, omniscient and/or omnibenevolent when talking about the problem of evil. If you do, you are contradicting the definition of God in the problem of evil.

I am therefore not saying that your belief in God is contradictory in itself. What I am however stating is that you are approaching the problem of evil with a definition of God that creates a contradiction in the problem of evil by contradicting the definition provided with a distinct definition.

The problem of evil starts with defining God as omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. If you proceed by disregarding the definition provided obviously the conclusion won't be that God doesn't exist. If however, you accept that definition, the conclusion is that God doesn't exist, for God is only God, in the problem of evil, if it has those three characteristics in the definition provided.

To reach the conclusion that God doesn't exist you must obviously accept not just the premises but also the definition provided.

).

 

[rational experiences]

A man said no man is God. All men.

As God doesn't exist it's just the status man gave title as evolution.

Coldest holding in created creation that overcame evil. Burning.

Not burning consuming as space the law has not overcome it. Sun.

Why just humans the same human as a human said the sun isn't a God.

Yet you did not destroy the documents discussing the sun god. When in science it was a false status.

On earth was with God.

Where one two three was expressed.

Human adult father authority....non sexual second place his man as a son. Living supported by all holy spirit hosts. Gases. As unseen body mass.

Exact human scientific teaching.

Father sexual being mutual sexual life partner mother equality.

Mother holy authority...daughter second non sexual place with same holy hosts.

Three mutual. Not discussed as unholy.

Son non sexual is not the authority.

Father mother mutual is the holy authority.

Once the church never owned A pulpit.

Pulpit was re introduced to false preach science.

Science is natural first by a human.

Every one single species on earth is owner two of.

You have to see them all to make the review as a human scientist.

Closest living biology to living humans. Apes.

Topic natural science is the living only.

Was the only science term allowed as its natural human expressed observations.

A non human term. .... Not yet conceived. Yet owns human identity sperm ovary to mean human. The word used...human. Is exact.

When not a human it is a deceased human.

As human is both subject and topic.

Human sciences exact position.

Old legal position stated as man learnt evil from the tree of life wood. It caused his life sacrifice. As oxygen was given as a separate status by nature to biologies life. Mind aware.

Water could not be theoried as a basic subject water.

The exact defined human warned teaching.

No looking back as yesterday owned all death of all things living.

There isn't a theory about the dead.

Therefore the evil was determined life's sacrifice and the man's science claim he had returned from the dead. Evil terminology as it was fake.

You are not a Deceased human until you are actually deceased. Some humans prove they were considered dead yet were not. Several days later were healthier.

Death is exact and it is the decomposition position. As notification the use of the word about a deceased human.

Humans teaching said even though humans died in the past. The living life lived on by the sin of human sex.

Was a scientific teaching.

Authority father.

His son a man said not as the authority first father. My life adult took over my deceased father's adult position. As a woman's O ovary was no man as an adult man body had not owned or expressed an ovary.

Summarised as one of the reasons a human theoried as two humans as a man. Caused life's sacrifice. He does not own two life forms. So nor does he think on a woman's behalf.

It was a lesson about man's egotism.

Is a medical determined analogy.

The evil as caused by human men in science.

 

[Brian2]

Well, no.

It does disprove the existence of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God if by omnipotent we mean, "can literally do anything, even the impossible and inconceivable, and whose power is completely limitless" and by omnibenevolent we mean "compassionate and sympathetic."

It's just that this isn't how theologians usually define those terms anymore, but many people do still define God in this way and their God does not exist.

We all have wrong ideas about God. Those peoples' God may still exist, it is just that those people have wrong ideas about their God.
They might need to understand that the impossible is impossible and that other aspects of God may mean that God does not act solely on His compassion and sympathy all the time.

 

[Ella S.]

Yeah... I've heard people make these sorts of arguments, but they end up just replacing one problem for many others. For instance, if this universe is maximally good and anything better would involve a contradiction, then:

1. it would be not only futile but counter-productive for any human being to try to improve anything. Even if it might seem that feeding the hungry or fighting cancer might make things better, they won't. Charity is evil.

2. despite the point above, every action humans have ever done is perfectly morally neutral. Since the universe has been maximally good from when God created it until right now, nothing that anyone has ever done has "moved the needle" on the goodness of the universe up or down at all.

3. any punishment (by God or otherwise) would necessarily be unjust. Since it would be logically impossible for humans to do better (point #1) and since nothing humans have ever done is morally bad (point #2), punishing any person for anything they've ever done would be contrary to justice.

IMO, the claim that the Problem of Evil is "solved" because anything better than what we have would be impossible might help reassure a few unthinking Christians, but if we think about the implications of the claim for more than two minutes, we can see that it's deeply irrational and more than a little gaslighty.

I understand where you're coming from on this point, but I think it's still a misunderstanding.

The theological idea is that you can't have good without evil, so both have to be available as a free choice. It's not that everyone in this universe is morally neutral or that nobody can choose to be good because the universe is maximally good, but it's the exact opposite; everyone has the capacity to be good or evil, which is why the universe's design is good.

I don't think it's fair to call it irrational. I just think it betrays a very weird morality and a God that has his priorities completely wrong.

 

[Alien826]

Impossible. Only God is perfect. Nothing created can be equal to God.

Woo, a paradox.

God is perfect. I'll assume that includes being perfectly (that is totally) able.
God cannot create something else that is perfect.
There is something God can't do.
Therefore God is not perfect.

I do see that this arises from insufficient definition of "perfect". Perhaps the perfection of God is different from the perfection of the created object (in this case the world, which could or could not be perfectly (totally) lacking in evil). The argument still fails though, because the perfect world would not be the same as the perfect God.

 

[Alien826]

I understand what you are saying. But what you are not understanding is, it can only make a case that "God is not as you defined" to a theist who defines God as such. That's the only case this argument can do. It cannot posit itself as an attempt at proving God does not exist.

That's exactly what (pretty much) everyone has been saying over and over and over again. We're agreeing with you. Why does this only emerge in the 7th (on my PC) page of this thread?

 

[Alien826]

Within the context of the problem of evil, to assert that God can be God and also lack either omnipotence, omniscience and/or omnibenevolence is a logical contradiction. In the same way that saying that a triangle can have 6 sides. Those are not accidental properties, but rather essential properties. So, within the context of the problem of evil, to put it simple: Nope, you are wrong to call something that lacks one of those 3 properties by the word 'God'.

I don't understand why that is a logical contradiction. Or any kind of contradiction. Why must an entity have these characteristics to be called "God".

Edit: Sorry I should have read further. You have addressed this.

 

[Koldo]

I don't understand why that is a logical contradiction. Or any kind of contradiction. Why must an entity have these characteristics to be called "God".

Definition 1: God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. (Problem of Evil definition for God)
Definition 2: God can lack omnipotence, omniscience and/or omnibenevolence. (Someone else's definition for the term God)

Do you see the contradiction if we were to use the two definitions at the same time? If we use definition 2 while approaching the problem of evil instead of definition 1 the problem of evil shows no logical contradiction between the existence of God and evil. If we use definition 1 though, we reach the conclusion that God doesn't exist. It is not that you can't use your very own personal definition for God in your daily life, it is just that it is not fair to say the problem of evil doesn't prove God doesn't exist when you are going to use a distinct definition for God than the one intended in the problem of evil.

 

[Alien826]

I understand where you're coming from on this point, but I think it's still a misunderstanding.

The theological idea is that you can't have good without evil, so both have to be available as a free choice. It's not that everyone in this universe is morally neutral or that nobody can choose to be good because the universe is maximally good, but it's the exact opposite; everyone has the capacity to be good or evil, which is why the universe's design is good.

I don't think it's fair to call it irrational. I just think it betrays a very weird morality and a God that has his priorities completely wrong.

Seems pretty irrational to me.

First it conflates the concept of evil with the existence of evil. I see no contradiction in having the concept of evil so that good can be defined, while still making the commission of evil impossible, either by being practically impossible or making our natures such that we are unable to do evil. And I don't see why that negates the idea of free will. It just expands the realm of things we can't do, while leaving us free to choose to do anything else.

 

[Alien826]

Definition 1: God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. (Problem of Evil definition for God)
Definition 2: God can lack omnipotence, omniscience and/or omnibenevolence. (Someone else's definition for the term God)

Do you see the contradiction if we were to use the two definitions at the same time? If we use definition 2 while approaching the problem of evil instead of definition 1 the problem of evil shows no logical contradiction between the existence of God and evil. If we use definition 1 though, we reach the conclusion that God doesn't exist. It is not that you can't use your very own personal definition for God in your daily life, it is just that it is not fair to say the problem of evil doesn't prove God doesn't exist when you are going to use a distinct definition for God than the one intended in the problem of evil.

Maybe you wrote that before I added my edit. Yes, I agree.

In general, you can't discuss anything productively without agreeing in the definition/s of what you are discussing. For some reason @firedragon has consistently refused to allow any definitions to be put forward.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I understand where you're coming from on this point, but I think it's still a misunderstanding.

The theological idea is that you can't have good without evil, so both have to be available as a free choice.

If you're falling back to the standard hand-waving about free will in response to the Problem of Evil, you could have saved us some steps and led with that.

It's also irrational, but for different reasons.

It's not that everyone in this universe is morally neutral or that nobody can choose to be good because the universe is maximally good, but it's the exact opposite; everyone has the capacity to be good or evil, which is why the universe's design is good.

This is a different argument than you opened with: that the universe is maximally good because any better would cause a logical contradiction.

I don't think it's fair to call it irrational. I just think it betrays a very weird morality and a God that has his priorities completely wrong.

I think it's completely fair to call it irrational.

 

[firedragon]

That's exactly what (pretty much) everyone has been saying over and over and over again. We're agreeing with you. Why does this only emerge in the 7th (on my PC) page of this thread?

Thanks for summarising the thread. But I don't know the answer to your last question. So you can make your assumption and make a comment. All yours.

 

[firedragon]

Maybe you wrote that before I added my edit. Yes, I agree.

In general, you can't discuss anything productively without agreeing in the definition/s of what you are discussing. For some reason @firedragon has consistently refused to allow any definitions to be put forward.

Thanks for your commentary.

 

[Koldo]

).

). indeed.

Couldn't resist.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Woo, a paradox.

God is perfect. I'll assume that includes being perfectly (that is totally) able.
God cannot create something else that is perfect.
There is something God can't do.
Therefore God is not perfect.

I do see that this arises from insufficient definition of "perfect". Perhaps the perfection of God is different from the perfection of the created object (in this case the world, which could or could not be perfectly (totally) lacking in evil). The argument still fails though, because the perfect world would not be the same as the perfect God.

God is by definition uncreated, perfect, infinite ... God creating God is a paradox. World created by God must be perfect indeed. However, this perfection is not the same as (on par with) divine perfection. Anything finite lacks the complete goodness possessed by God alone.

 

[Clara Tea]

The problem of evil is not a new topic. The topic of theodicy has been in existence probably since time immemorial, but the curious fact is that a lot of times it props up without an external objection. That is, from the theists who engage in theodicy. So the external objection I refer to is from atheists.

The reason for this topic is due to a few atheists assessing "the problem of evil" as the best argument atheists posit as evidence for God's nonexistence. Do they really? I know some atheists do make that argument but do they really make it to mean God does not exist? Does that even work?

The usual argument is that a good God (the usually repeated terms like all knowing, omnibenevolent, etc) has allowed evil in this universe thus it's a contradiction. This thread is not meant to discuss this contradiction, but to discuss the topic; "is it evidence for God's nonexistence?".

It is logically absurd to make that argument and it's illogical for a theist to think this is the atheists best argument against the existence of God. First steps first. The maximum it could prove is that God is not good, not so good, not as good as you thought, bad, or evil. It can never be an argument against the existence God, logically speaking.

• If an atheist is making this argument with that intention, how would it prove God does not exist?
• If a theist thinks this is the best argument atheists give against the existence of God, on what basis?

What say you?

I hope that evil is not evidence of God's existence.

Are atheists the only ones who wonder why evil exists? Couldn't a theist also wonder?

Atheists don't believe in God because they don't believe in anything without proof.

However, the fact that evil exists means that either God is powerless to get rid of it, or God is punishing us, or God (in his infinite wisdom, and ability to see the future) sees that everything will be okay later.

It would not be good to get into heaven then find out that God is cruel and wants to torture us for all eternity.