The Problem of Evil

[AmbiguousGuy]

Hmm...
I am sorry. For some reason, I thought you were someone else, and I understood your post on a complete different light. Plus, it wasn't even 6 AM here, and I had just waken up. Please ignore what I replied to you because it is a bunch of nonsense.

Not a problem but thanks for the explanation.

 

[cottage]

‘Evil is a privation of good.’ ‘No goodness without evil.’

I’m going to take the opportunity to address two arguments at once in a very compressed form, the simplified Yin-Yang concept of interdependent or complimentary opposites, loosely based on the Chinese philosophy by that name, and Leibniz’ and St Augustine’s arguments from the privation of good as applied to the Problem of Evil. I will argue that ‘good’ isn’t a necessary correlative of evil, and that evil and suffering are actions or events that can exist on their own account, unlike the concept of goodness which is logically dependent upon those negative actions or events in order for the concept to have any meaning at all. Before moving on we must be quite clear what we mean by ‘evil’. I think we can fairly sum up evil as any state of affairs actually or potentially harmful or destructive to sentient creatures causing them distress and suffering.

The tem ‘goodness is dependent the term ‘evil’, and nothing is ‘good’ unless it stands in relation to something that is not good, which is to say ‘evil’. Therefore evil isn’t the absence of or a privation of ‘goodness’ and to demonstrate that let’s conceive of a world without evil, a conception that is logically possible. So now what do we have? We don't have evil, and nor do we have 'good', that is to say a state that exists in relation to evil, because evil doesn't happen toexist. But now can conceive of a possible world where there is only evil, in fact we will consider ourselves the creator of this possible world. We have created this evil world at the flick of switch, and note that as in the previous example the term itself would of course have no meaning to its inhabitants. But now, at the flick of a switch, we could put a stop to the evil. Those who did the killing would stop killing; those who did the robbing would stop robbing; and the volcanoes would stop pouring molten larva over the inhabitants. We've simply stopped the evil; we haven't introduced something called 'good'. The inhabitants didn't suddenly become 'good' to one another but simply ceased doing what they were doing previously. And the mountain wasn’t evil and didn't become 'good' but simply stopped spewing forth the deadly larva. In the example I given above I've tried to show that 'good' doesn't exist in the way that evil exists. Now murderis evil, while not murder is simply the former not enacted. To say not murder is 'good' is simply to make a special plea for a state of 'goodness' when its very existence as not murder is conditional upon 'murder'. But let’s try expressing that the other way round: for if we say if there was only ‘good’, all we are actually saying is that there wouldn't be any evil'. And a world without evil is just what it is, for without evil the term 'good' has no place. You can't be selfless where there is no selfishness, and you can't heal or console when there is nothing to be healed and no requirement for consolation.

We might ask what about love, isn’t that the exception? Surely it is the ultimate goodness, an entirely positive state of affairs that can exist on its own account? Well, if we have a state of affairs where everybody loves and is loved, it isn’t ‘good’ unless it is better than some other state of affairs, where for example only some are loved or none are loved. This is really no different to a possible world where no person ever goes hungry; that doesn’t make it a morally good world unless there are other worlds, such as this, where for some famine and want are a fact of life. What then if there is a state or condition in which everyone is to enjoy eternal pleasure and happiness, heaven for example, mustn’t that be the epitome of good? In that case I would argue that the concept of ‘good’ is being used in a different sense as pure pleasure and happiness, hedonistic and self-indulgent, but still stands in relation to the actual world of evil and suffering in which there isn’t universal pleasure and happiness.

So when theists say there can be no goodness without suffering, as a means to justify the existence of evil in the world, they are correct but only to the extent that ‘goodness’ requires evil to give it intelligibility and not because of it is a mutually necessary correlative. Evil and suffering are real states and conditions whereas ‘good is just a positive term that identifies if/when those negative states or conditions are absent or overcome.

 

[yoda89]

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.

As shallow as claiming we are the center of all things? That's shallow and selfish.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

As shallow as claiming we are the center of all things? That's shallow and selfish.

Non-sequitur. What does that have to do with the Argument from Evil?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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 Epicurus maxim, as I call it, is not supposed to be an argument against a general concept of God, but a very specific idea of an omnipotent, all-knowing, all-loving God, used to demonstrate that such a concept is internally inconsistent or, at the very least, nonsensical. Also, I very rarely see this maxim quoted in religious debates, and have - in fact - never seen it quoted on these forums before except when the poem itself is put up as the topic for discussion, as in this thread.

I really have to ask, why are you currently so fixated on strawmanning and attacking atheists?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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?

Its only an argument against an all loving and benevolent god. I can think of no way an all loving and benevolent god would allow evil to ravage the world.

The current standing Christian answer is that this world is supposed to be crappy and terrible. Though I still feel personally that this makes god a bit of a dick if he intentionally puts us through hell and then sends the majority of us to the real hell when there really isn't a purpose to it all.

 

[ruffen]

The problem is that God created a planet with diseases that cause suffering far, far worse than what Jesus was said to go through.

There is famine, disease, natural disasters etc., and they cause so much harm. If a God exists and is able but not willing to fix these things, he should be trialled for crimes against humanity.

And if God has a completely different concept of morality and evil and right and wrong from what we do, how can anyone claim that we have our morals from him? Who then is he to tell us what to do?