The Problem of Evil

[CynthiaCypher]

We have all heard this classic "argument" against theism. Usually presented in some form of the Epicurus Riddle:

“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?”

Lot of people of the more atheistic persuasion are somehow convinced that this is somehow actually an argument against the existence of God. As if presenting evidence that evil exists in the world is proof that God does not exist. But to tell you the truth, this argument is weak and shallow.

The presence and existence of evil is not a problem for many theistic traditions out there, including some forms of Judaism, Islam, Christianity (especially the more mystical and Gnostic strains) and Hinduism amongst others.

Yes people, these religion have dealt with the problem of evil in various ways that offer satisfying answers to the practitioners of those religions. Some of us even except the presence of evil and God's responsibility for evil. But some of you continued to persist in this argument as if it is your trump card.

So ok. Let's have at it, you want to argue the problem of evil, then let us do so. But be aware it is no real argument against God but rather an argument against certain sectarian beliefs of various religious systems and nothing more than that.

I am prepare for a throw down.

Quieres unos chingasos?

 

[Amechania]

Like good, evil would seem to me to be a relative term. What is evil to a Jew may not be to a Hindu for example, and so what is evil to man may not be evil to god.

 

[EtuMalku]

Good & Evil are subjective terms . . . therefore one man's Good will be another man's Evil and vice versa. That said, the 'problem' of Evil in regards to theists and non-theists alike, is that the objective universe is what is perceived as divinity. This 'divine' presence is nothing more than the physical laws and processes of object reality / nature which can be exceedingly cruel and unusual from our scope of things.

Given this paradigm both the non-existence of god as well any misunderstood bestowing of Evil this non-existing god throws at us can be comprehended and put to bed.

 

[technomage]

But to tell you the truth, this argument is weak and shallow.

The closest the Problem of Evil would come to affecting classical Gnosticism is as a condemnation of the Demiurge. In classic Gnosticism (I know you know this already, I'm explaining for those who do not), God is pure spirit. The Demiurge is the one who created the material world, and in doing so introduced evil, because matter is invariably affected by imperfection, sorrow, and death.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

The closest the Problem of Evil would come to affecting classical Gnosticism is as a condemnation of the Demiurge. In classic Gnosticism (I know you know this already, I'm explaining for those who do not), God is pure spirit. The Demiurge is the one who created the material world, and in doing so introduced evil, because matter is invariably affected by imperfection, sorrow, and death.

In Valentinian Gnosticism it is thought that evil, error, fear and a whole host of negative aspects are intrinsic to the Pleroma or the Fullness of the Godhead. And in no way do these negative aspects detract from the perfection of the Pleroma but in fact the inclusion of them is what makes the Pleroma perfect.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

The problem of evil is not an argument against gods. It is an argument against perfect loving gods. And a good one at that.

 

[fantome profane]

The presence and existence of evil is not a problem for many theistic traditions out there, including some forms of Judaism, Islam, Christianity (especially the more mystical and Gnostic strains) and Hinduism amongst others.

Yes people, these religion have dealt with the problem of evil in various ways that offer satisfying answers to the practitioners of those religions.

Yes, it is obviously that many followers of those religions have dealt with the problem of evil in ways that are satisfactory to them. And I respect that. But I have never heard of a response to this problem that is satisfactory to me.

I acknowledge that there are a few ways to deal with this problem, but in my experience all of these ways of dealing with the problem of evil bring about new problems of their own.

Perhaps a way to proceed here would be for you to explain to us how you personally have dealt with this problem, and see if that answer is satisfactory to others.

For myself I will only say that I find the following unsatisfactory, denying the existence of evil, blaming the victim, or devaluing experience in this life. And many answers to the problem of evil end up doing one or more of those things. Other responses to the problem of evil involve either defining "God" as evil, or limited. These of course are not refutations, but capitulations.

I will add that I agree with you that the problem of evil is not the knock-out punch that many atheists think it is. But nor is it something simply solved. The kind of theists I respect are those who acknowledge and continue to struggle with the problem of evil.

 

[Sees]

 

[technomage]

But nor is it something simply solved.

Actually, it is--because it rests on a false dichotomy.

In the Problem of Evil, "God" is seen as either entirely "omnibenevolent", or malevolent. If any such entity exists, what prevents said entity from being a mixture of benevolence, malevolence, or even indifference?

The false dichotomy makes the argument untenable.

Now, to be sure, I have neither a definite belief nor a definite disbelief in any such entity as "God". BUt this particular argument is fundamentally flawed.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Yes, it is obviously that many followers of those religions have dealt with the problem of evil in ways that are satisfactory to them. And I respect that. But I have never heard of a response to this problem that is satisfactory to me.

I acknowledge that there are a few ways to deal with this problem, but in my experience all of these ways of dealing with the problem of evil bring about new problems of their own.

Perhaps a way to proceed here would be for you to explain to us how you personally have dealt with this problem, and see if that answer is satisfactory to others.

For myself I will only say that I find the following unsatisfactory, denying the existence of evil, blaming the victim, or devaluing experience in this life. And many answers to the problem of evil end up doing one or more of those things. Other responses to the problem of evil involve either defining "God" as evil, or limited. These of course are not refutations, but capitulations.

I will add that I agree with you that the problem of evil is not the knock-out punch that many atheists think it is. But nor is it something simply solved. The kind of theists I respect are those who acknowledge and continue to struggle with the problem of evil.

I am a Valentinian Gnostic, I believe God has both positive and negative aspects, much like the Tao of Taoism does. I believe that both these aspects, the positive and the negative are intrinsic to this universe and even though these aspects seem to beopposing each other they are in fact a unified whole. Hot implies cold, Darkness implies light, death implies life and so on.

So the evil of God is not something I would deny nor does it make me feel discomfort. In fact it offers some comfort and encouragement because God is just as good as God is evil. God's evil offers me assurance of God's goodness.

 

[fantome profane]

Actually, it is--because it rests on a false dichotomy.

In the Problem of Evil, "God" is seen as either entirely "omnibenevolent", or malevolent. If any such entity exists, what prevents said entity from being a mixture of benevolence, malevolence, or even indifference?

The false dichotomy makes the argument untenable.

Now, to be sure, I have neither a definite belief nor a definite disbelief in any such entity as "God". BUt this particular argument is fundamentally flawed.

I am a Valentinian Gnostic, I believe God has both positive and negative aspects, much like the Tao of Taoism does. I believe that both these aspects, the positive and the negative are intrinsic to this universe and even though these aspects seem to beopposing each other they are in fact a unified whole. Hot implies cold, Darkness implies light, death implies life and so on.

So the evil of God is not something I would deny nor does it make me feel discomfort. In fact it offers some comfort and encouragement because God is just as good as God is evil. God's evil offers me assurance of God's goodness.

Ok, but if the argument is understood to mean that an omni-benevolent "God" is untenable, then by suggesting that "God" may be a mix of good and evil, you are agreeing with the conclusion of the argument, not refuting it.

 

[technomage]

Ok, but it the argument is understood to mean that an omni-benevolent is untenable, then by suggesting that "God" may be a mix of good and evil, you are agreeing with the conclusion of the argument, not refuting it.

Absolutely! If there is a God, "omni-benevolent" is not among his, her, or its attributes.

ETA: More accurately, "omni-benevolent," _as we use the term_, is not among his, her, or its attributes. I personally believe that _if_ such an entity exists, it is fundamentally beyond our understanding.

 

[9Westy9]

We have all heard this classic "argument" against theism. Usually presented in some form of the Epicurus Riddle:

I see it more of an argument for non-belief than an argument against theism

“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?”

I see nothing wrong with that

Lot of people of the more atheistic persuasion are somehow convinced that this is somehow actually an argument against the existence of God. As if presenting evidence that evil exists in the world is proof that God does not exist.

Then they're foolish because that's not what the argument concludes

But to tell you the truth, this argument is weak and shallow.

Go ahead then

 

[cottage]

Let's make it absolutely plain that the Problem of Evil applies only to classical theism and to any other Gods that are described as omnipotent, omnibenevolent and necessarily existent. It doesn't affect belief in gods that are indifferent or malevolent (although I can't imagine why anyone would want to worship an indifferent or malevolent deity).

The Problem of Evil (also known as the Inconsistent Triad). In simple terms there cannot exist evil and a benevolent, omnipotent God.

However, the problem may also be expressed, as ‘evil exists because’:

1) God can do nothing to prevent it occurring.

2) God is not aware that it is occurring

3) God doesn’t intervene in the occurrence

A direct contradiction is implied in each of the three examples: The first is not compatible with God’s omnipotence. The second is not compatible with God’s supposed omnipresence and omniscience (although, omnipresence and omniscience are generally considered a part of omnipotence). And the third is not compatible with the concept of a loving God.

If it is said that God, the Supreme Being, is the omnipotent creator who causes and conserves everything existent, then he cannot be other than what he is, that is to say he cannot be without power and he cannot fail to be the creator. So we accept that the notion of a Supreme Being, as the cause of our contingent existence, is logically possible. But now, in addition to those necessary attributes mentioned above, we add the terms ‘benevolent’ and/or ‘loving.’ The first thing we notice here is that ‘benevolence’ and ‘loving’ are simply arbitrary add-ons. No contradiction is involved if it is said that ‘God is the creator’, but the existence of evil demonstrates that it is self-contradictory to state that ‘God the creator is all loving’. The second thing to say is that evil exists not just as a concept, but also as a matter of fact. Therefore it is the evidential fact of evil, not how or why it is manifested, that is in question when put against an omnipotent God’s supposed love and benevolence.


Some theists argue that the problem of evil poses no contradiction because the sceptic presumes to impose his or her own moral code, which is subjective. "By what standard it is asked is omni-benevolence being judged?" But that is an example of the biased sample fallacy and a plea to ignorance, for we’re talking about a definition, the meaning of which we all understand. If, for example, we speak of omnipotence we all understand it to mean ultimate power, a force and energy without limit. When we speak of omniscience we understand it to mean all knowing, the source of all possible knowledge. And when we speak of omnipresence we understand that as meaning ever present, that is to say always and everywhere in being. When we speak of omni-benevolence we understand it to mean the most caring, charitable, loving, protective and gracious thing possible. From the evidence we see all around us there plainly is nothing that corresponds with that definition. So we see that approach is pleading special terms as an argument from ignorance for one defined meaning in order to avoid a contradiction.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Ok, but if the argument is understood to mean that an omni-benevolent "God" is untenable, then by suggesting that "God" may be a mix of good and evil, you are agreeing with the conclusion of the argument, not refuting it.

I agree. But that means it is an argument against certain theological positions or certain religious traditions and therefore should not be put forth as any proof against the existence of God.

To me, the problem is solved to my satisfaction. God is evil just as much as God is good.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

3) God doesn’t intervene in the occurrence

God's non-intervention does not in any way imply not God is not loving. The argument is weak because you are imposing your own definition of what is loving and moral onto God.

 

[cottage]

God's non-intervention does not in any way imply not God is not loving. The argument is weak because you are imposing your own definition of what is loving and moral onto God.

No I'm not! The logical argument stands unassailed without even having to mention morals or definitions of love. The Problem of Evil is concerned with suffering.

P1. If God were all merciful there would be no suffering.

P2. There is suffering

Conclusion: Therefore there is no all merciful God.

But this doesn't affect your god, as you've already explained that he is also evil.

 

[fantome profane]

God's non-intervention does not in any way imply not God is not loving. The argument is weak because you are imposing your own definition of what is loving and moral onto God.

Right, and when people say that there is a contradiction in a unicorn being simultaneously invisible and pink, that is because they are imposing their own definition of "pink". But the invisible pink unicorn's definition of pink is completely different than our limited human understanding.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

So ok. Let's have at it, you want to argue the problem of evil, then let us do so. But be aware it is no real argument against God but rather an argument against certain sectarian beliefs of various religious systems and nothing more than that.

God is nothing more than a sectarian belief of various religious systems.

Actually God is just a word.

Unless you disagree. In that case, you'll have to give a close definition of what you mean by God. Once you do that, we might or might not be able to show how the problem of evil makes your God impossible.

 

[averageJOE]

I am one not to conclude that "evil exists, therefore there is no god". But I take issue with theists who claim that god is not responsible what so ever for evil.