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

[Clara Tea]

Is it really outside the parameters of the argument, though?

I mean, historically, it’s been most often used by theists trying to resolve discrepancies between their beliefs and reality, but it can also be reframed as a proof by contradiction:

- define God as having the properties of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence.
- assume this God exists.
- this God's existence implies there would be no evil in the world.
- but we see that there is evil in the world.
- therefore this God does not exist.

This argument is sound for any God that has the attributes assumed in the argument. The fact that some people believe in gods that don't have those attributes doesn't make the argument wrong; it just means that there are limits to its scope.

Lets assume that God allows Satan and hell to exist because some time, in the distant future, it will somehow serve God.

How serve? What if evil souls sent to hell, later reform, and are released from hell and are allowed to enter heaven. Lets face it, burning for eternity in the fires of hell can't be nice. Therefore, God will get more saved souls. Maybe Satan exists to jail and torture evildoers until they behave?

 

[Clara Tea]

The problem with evil is that it's a supernatural concept. So using the word evil automatically assumes gods.

Mafia is evil, but not supernatural.

 

[Clara Tea]

Sure, he takes responsibility, says he guides and misguides, and could've made sure every soul was given guidance, but his word to fill hell has become incumbent on himself on disbelievers.

I'm sure God never wanted anyone including Iblis to be misguided, but creating a forced world where everyone is forced to worship God in a non-meaningful way, is not better.

Many people attend churches for social reasons, and they don't believe in God. Some laugh at the reverends behind their backs because they believe in an invisible God that cannot be proven. They think that in this modern world, we should not believe in superstitions from thousands of years ago.

 

[Clara Tea]

No one has right to grant reward or punishment but God. God can't rape because he is an unseen being and won't even if he can. But he allows evil things and trials of people to occur through people including rape.

God will reward resilience to rape and will also reward people trying to prevent rape.

Christians believe that God is the father of Jesus.

You said that "God can't rape because he is an unseen being and won't even if he can."

 

[rational experiences]

If you ask a Man of god.

What are your human thoughts about God.

He says highest greatest forms.

Aren't evil as they are the coldest in any God type.

As the human sees observed gives the status.

So you then ask the same human thinker what's evil?

He says I theoried by two instead of natural as one...
..oh. so you think you are man human woman human in one body. Why you hated homosexual men pretending to be a woman or a better woman than a natural woman?

Yes it's one evil I caused to conscious human as two natural one self each.

Oh you did evil to one God then?

Yes he said.

I never accepted only one natural place exact was holy.

Why?

Because it varied every single one exact anything.

Is how evil a theist is. By want of the way chosen to think.

Okay why does your modern brother say space is just space?

So you wont theory fake woman quotes not any woman. As a fake thinker.

As a baby son adult man in thinking placed his natural human mothers life out in space by thought.

So today a satanist memory says he's successful. As he now owns two humans safely in his one body as a man. Theorising real human females life continuance destruction.

As he said his wisdom about Satan s power came from his a n a l sex.

Truth he never wanted gods position in science. He wanted gods position destroyed by science.

Just as everyone was taught.

It's why he's now trying to convince you that humans are part machine.

Yet in gods human earth life no machine even exists first.

God versus satanisms...theisms.

 

[rational experiences]

If you ask a Man of god.

What are your human thoughts about God.

He says highest greatest forms.

Aren't evil as they are the coldest in any God type.

As the human sees observed gives the status.

So you then ask the same human thinker what's evil?

He says I theoried by two instead of natural as one...
..oh. so you think you are man human woman human in one body. Why you hated homosexual men pretending to be a woman or a better woman than a natural woman?

Yes it's one evil I caused to conscious human as two natural one self each.

Oh you did evil to one God then?

Yes he said.

I never accepted only one natural place exact was holy.

Why?

Because it varied every single one exact anything.

Is how evil a theist is. By want of the way chosen to think.

Okay why does your modern brother say space is just space?

So you wont theory fake woman quotes not any woman. As a fake thinker.

As a baby son adult man in thinking placed his natural human mothers life out in space by thought.

So today a satanist memory says he's successful. As he now owns two humans safely in his one body as a man. Theorising real human females life continuance destruction.

As he said his wisdom about Satan s power came from his a n a l sex.

Truth he never wanted gods position in science. He wanted gods position destroyed by science.

Just as everyone was taught.

It's why he's now trying to convince you that humans are part machine.

Yet in gods human earth life no machine even exists first.

God versus satanisms...theisms.

Remembering...science said humans lived in evil light day as gods body in heavens is not alight as it was the immaculate.

Is the con he uses against us today.

 

[ChristineM]

Mafia is evil, but not supernatural.

Nope, the Mafia are criminal, but if you want to call them evil...

Wait a moment, for the most part they are Italian Catholics so from the religious point of view they could be sinning against their god and would be considered evil.

 

[Ella S.]

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.

It's irrational because it uses different definitions of these terms than the ones you think it should?

Okay.

 

[firedragon]

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.

The conflation is in all honesty, evil with suffering and good with not suffering.

These are just dreamt up matters for evangelism. They don't make sense from a naturalistic worldview, but are used for polemics.

The question of free-will and determinism is a completely different topic, unless someone is equating it to suffering due to one of these acts of free-will or/and determinism. As in suicide, abuse, etc.

Suffering can come from a flood, and cannot be deemed evil from a naturalistic perspective. It's an equation made for polemics alone.

 

[Ella S.]

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.

I'll wait for those reasons.

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

No, it isn't, because "good" here isn't what you think it is. Under the theological conception of good, it cannot exist without the ability to choose evil.

For God to create a world with goodness in it at all, that world would also have to include evil by necessity, according to theology, because of the way "good" is defined.

If you think that's irrational, then I don't know what to tell you. It's deductively valid.

P1: If good exists, then you have free will, by definition.
P2: If you have free will, then you are able to choose evil, by definition.
C: If good exists, then you are able to choose evil, by definition.

However, this is only one facet of the theological solution that I proposed. The problem of "natural evil" is not addressed by free will, but is instead a direct product of God's limited omnipotence when creating an ordered universe. The laws of physics are going to be the laws of physics regardless of who that harms.

Theologically, free will is simply as much a part of the universe as the laws of physics are.

Obviously, I don't believe that this is the case, since I am an atheist and a hard determinist, but the idea isn't fundamentally incoherent. The issue is that there's no evidence for it, not that it's nonsensical.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'll wait for those reasons.

- free will is about choosing between our desires. It's not about what desires we have - which we can't choose - that free will acts upon. Those desires - and therefore the decisions of humans to commit evil acts - would still be God's responsibility even with free will.

- as it is, physical laws thwart our will from being realized all the time. You can't kill someone by telekinesis; when you try to shoot someone, you might miss; etc., etc. A scenario with fewer effects of evil or suffering would still be in keeping with the sort of universe we already have.

- if we're assuming Heaven as a package deal with God, then there's the whole "is there free will in Heaven?" dilemma: if yes, then free will is compatible with an absence of suffering. If no, then God isn't actually concerned with preserving human free will.

No, it isn't, because "good" here isn't what you think it is.

Please don't presume to tell me what I think.

Under the theological conception of good, it cannot exist without the ability to choose evil.

Which "theological conception of good" is that, exactly?

For God to create a world with goodness in it at all, that world would also have to include evil by necessity, according to theology, because of the way "good" is defined.

And how are you defining "good"?

BTW: the "good" and "evil" in the Problem of Evil is a bit arbitrary. The main point of the PoE is that God has a standard, but his creation - and therefore he as a creator - fails to meet that standard.

If you think that's irrational, then I don't know what to tell you. It's deductively valid.

Your argument has changed a few times now. Once you settle on what you're actually arguing, I'll decide whether it's rational.

P1: If good exists, then you have free will, by definition.
P2: If you have free will, then you are able to choose evil, by definition.
C: If good exists, then you are able to choose evil, by definition.

Yeah... that's irrational nonsense.

However, this is only one facet of the theological solution that I proposed. The problem of "natural evil" is not addressed by free will, but is instead a direct product of God's limited omnipotence when creating an ordered universe. The laws of physics are going to be the laws of physics regardless of who that harms.

Theologically, free will is simply as much a part of the universe as the laws of physics are.

Obviously, I don't believe that this is the case, since I am an atheist and a hard determinist, but the idea isn't fundamentally incoherent. The issue is that there's no evidence for it, not that it's nonsensical.

No, what you've argued is nonsensical.

 

[Ella S.]

- free will is about choosing between our desires. It's not about what desires we have - which we can't choose - that free will acts upon. Those desires - and therefore the decisions of humans to commit evil acts - would still be God's responsibility even with free will.

- as it is, physical laws thwart our will from being realized all the time. You can't kill someone by telekinesis; when you try to shoot someone, you might miss; etc., etc. A scenario with fewer effects of evil or suffering would still be in keeping with the sort of universe we already have.

- if we're assuming Heaven as a package deal with God, then there's the whole "is there free will in Heaven?" dilemma: if yes, then free will is compatible with an absence of suffering. If no, then God isn't actually concerned with preserving human free will.

None of this is relevant.

Please don't presume to tell me what I think.

I'm trying to interpret what you're telling me, but you aren't giving me much.

Which "theological conception of good" is that, exactly And how are you defining "good"?

This is a tangential topic, but "good" is living in accordance with divine law, under theology, although there are various interpretations of what that means. It's the choice to follow divine law.

BTW: the "good" and "evil" in the Problem of Evil is a bit arbitrary. The main point of the PoE is that God has a standard, but his creation - and therefore he as a creator - fails to meet that standard.

And I'm saying that this isn't an actual contradiction in theology. (ETA: God as the source of divine law cannot be in violation of it, theologically.)

Your argument has changed a few times now. Once you settle on what you're actually arguing, I'll decide whether it's rational.

My argument has been consistent.

Yeah... that's irrational nonsense.

Definitions of terms is not "irrational nonsense," it is the foundation of all argumentation.

No, what you've argued is nonsensical.

It's going to remain nonsensical to you so long as you continue to intentionally misunderstand it, and at this point this conversation is a waste of my energy. If you're actually interested in understanding the theology surrounding the problem of evil, then you can read up on it yourself, but it's not a genuine problem for theology.

 

[Eli G]

I would ask myself: is evil in everything, everywhere, always? In all three cases the answer is NO.

Also, since it is about God and ancient religious knowledge, as far as I know from ancient myths, legends, beliefs and traditions about the origin of mankind most of them agree that there was a golden age for human beings at the beginning. The question is what happened that we lost it and if it is recoverable. The Bible says it is ... that when the Creator of the entire Universe sets his mind to something, it always ends up happening... we can't expect anything less.

Is. 55:10 For just as the rain and the snow pour down from heaven
And do not return there until they saturate the earth, making it produce and sprout,
Giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater,
11 So my word that goes out of my mouth will be.
It will not return to me without results,
But it will certainly accomplish whatever is my delight,
And it will have sure success in what I send it to do.

 

[Alien826]

It's irrational because it uses different definitions of these terms than the ones you think it should?

Okay.

The definition of evil is OK. My point is that we can have a concept of evil without actual evil existing. I was trying refute the claim that evil is necessary for us to know what good is. As another example, take the idea of "nothingness". I would suggest that it is something that we cannot experience, particularly as a vacuum has now been recognized to not be "nothing". Nevertheless, we have no problem conceptualizing the idea of a space containing nothing.

 

[Alien826]

The conflation is in all honesty, evil with suffering and good with not suffering.

These are just dreamt up matters for evangelism. They don't make sense from a naturalistic worldview, but are used for polemics.

The question of free-will and determinism is a completely different topic, unless someone is equating it to suffering due to one of these acts of free-will or/and determinism. As in suicide, abuse, etc.

Suffering can come from a flood, and cannot be deemed evil from a naturalistic perspective. It's an equation made for polemics alone.

I agree that there is something that we can call "natural evil" which is not evil, as it's just a mindless part of the natural world. We can say that having my house swept away in a flood is certainly not something I would desire, and I will label it "bad". I wouldn't call a flood evil though. It's mindless. On the other hand, my suffering or distress, call it what you will, is real. In an alternate world, perhaps floods wouldn't exist, and in that world I couldn't suffer as a result of them. The question is, is it fair to call suffering, however caused, evil? Use a different word if you wish. "Bad" is pretty neutral.

Also, "suffering" is used loosely here. Suffering to a good end (like the pain following surgery) is good, I would say, or at least neutral. Suffering that has no mitigating factors is typically bad though. And there are many different types of bad things involved, not just pain. Don't you agree?

 

[firedragon]

I agree that there is something that we can call "natural evil" which is not evil, as it's just a mindless part of the natural world. We can say that having my house swept away in a flood is certainly not something I would desire, and I will label it "bad". I wouldn't call a flood evil though. It's mindless. On the other hand, my suffering or distress, call it what you will, is real. In an alternate world, perhaps floods wouldn't exist, and in that world I couldn't suffer as a result of them. The question is, is it fair to call suffering, however caused, evil? Use a different word if you wish. "Bad" is pretty neutral.

Also, "suffering" is used loosely here. Suffering to a good end (like the pain following surgery) is good, I would say, or at least neutral. Suffering that has no mitigating factors is typically bad though. And there are many different types of bad things involved, not just pain. Don't you agree?

Alien. I am not using these words that simplistically. One could use all of these words as arbitrarily as one could, but that will just muddy the water. I remember one guy was saying that he uses the word "Shiiit" to refer to all the so called "bad things" that happen in this world. And you say "bad". No problem. How do you deem something "bad"? What is the source?

I hope you understand the question. Is it something you feel innately? Is it something objective? Is it morality? Subjective or objective? Where does it come from?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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?

It could speak somewhat to God's nature. Nothing more.

 

[firedragon]

It could speak somewhat to God's nature. Nothing more.

Yes. I agree with you.

 

[Alien826]

Alien. I am not using these words that simplistically. One could use all of these words as arbitrarily as one could, but that will just muddy the water. I remember one guy was saying that he uses the word "Shiiit" to refer to all the so called "bad things" that happen in this world. And you say "bad". No problem. How do you deem something "bad"? What is the source?

I hope you understand the question. Is it something you feel innately? Is it something objective? Is it morality? Subjective or objective? Where does it come from?

OK, I'm happy to try to answer this. First though, I have to make it clear that I consider morality subjective, and I will answer for myself, not in some general definitive way. If all humans, or a large proportion of them, feel the same way, then there is a degree of generality, which could be said to approach an objective morality, but try as I might I cannot make an argument for an objective morality, comforting though that would be. I say that even if it were to be shown that there was an all powerful God who defines his own morality and commands us to follow it, it would still, in my view, be subjective to God.

My definition of "subjective" and "objective" is appropriate here. If something is objective, another person can experience it. X is objective if we can see it, touch it, and so on. "Subjective" things reside only in my mind. I can describe them to other people, but that's all. I know there are other definitions, but please read what follows in that light. If you believe morality to be objective, please answer - in a totally inanimate universe, would morality exist?

Given that, morality can only apply to sentient beings (trying to allow for other species and any possible beings that we might discover, like extra terrestrials and sentient computer programs). If a rock falls on another rock and breaks it, neither rock is capable of forming an opinion about its "goodness" or "badness". If the broken rock blocks a road, humans will, generally consider it to be "bad", but only in terms of how they are affected.

I'm going to continue using "bad" to describe what you are asking, and will drop the quotes from here on.

What is a bad thing to me? Obviously, something that causes me to feel some kind of discomfort. It might cause me pain, or frustrate my achieving something that I value, for example. If you ask where does the discomfort come from, it varies. A physical pain is obvious. Mental discomfort also applies, and is something I feel in a different way. Based on that, I form good/bad judgments on events that don't directly affect me. If you are hurt, I have something called empathy that allows me to understand how you feel and consider whatever caused that hurt to be bad (or not, obviously it gets complicated). I can feel that something that happens to inanimate objects is bad, but that tends to be because I have formed some subjective attachment to that object. For example if something that I consider beautiful is destroyed.

To answer "where does it come from"? Perhaps you can refine the question, as there are many directions in which that can go.

Have I answered what you asked?

I will also ask you to explain how this apples to the Problem of Evil.

 

[firedragon]

OK, I'm happy to try to answer this. First though, I have to make it clear that I consider morality subjective

If morality is subjective, on what basis are you imposing your subjective morality on anyone or thing? From a subjective framework, how do you judge something else which will have it's own subjective moral stance? Consider that very carefully.

If all humans, or a large proportion of them, feel the same way, then there is a degree of generality, which could be said to approach an objective morality, but try as I might I cannot make an argument for an objective morality, comforting though that would be. I say that even if it were to be shown that there was an all powerful God who defines his own morality and commands us to follow it, it would still, in my view, be subjective to God.

I see this quite often. Nevermind the counter argument, then this is Gods subjective morality "according to you". So that's that. You cannot make objective judgement calls.

My definition of "subjective" and "objective" is appropriate here. If something is objective, another person can experience it. X is objective if we can see it, touch it, and so on. "Subjective" things reside only in my mind. I can describe them to other people, but that's all. I know there are other definitions, but please read what follows in that light. If you believe morality to be objective, please answer - in a totally inanimate universe, would morality exist?

Is that a thought experiment?

Nevertheless, if the universe is inanimate, there is no thought. Morality does not exist.

What is a bad thing to me? Obviously, something that causes me to feel some kind of discomfort. It might cause me pain, or frustrate my achieving something that I value, for example.

But that's your subjective pain. That does not affect the other. So you have to be selfish and inconsiderate about the other to safeguard your happiness. Is that your epistemic stance?

Based on that, I form good/bad judgments on events that don't directly affect me. If you are hurt, I have something called empathy that allows me to understand how you feel and consider whatever caused that hurt to be bad (or not, obviously it gets complicated). I can feel that something that happens to inanimate objects is bad, but that tends to be because I have formed some subjective attachment to that object. For example if something that I consider beautiful is destroyed.

If that is subjective, the other person may have no empathy, no morality of your standard. It's acceptable, because morality is subjective according to you. You cannot pass objective judgments.

To answer "where does it come from"? Perhaps you can refine the question, as there are many directions in which that can go.

I appreciate your answer. But you just said "I have empathy" and that "I feel". Where does that empathy come from? Is it innate? How is it innate? If that is your subjective morality, according to you God can also have his subjective morality. What is your yardstick? Is it arbitrarily made by you?

Do you understand where this is going?