The Problem of Evil

[Jayhawker Soule]

Specifically, omnipotence is illogical. It means, literally, that anything is possible. As in ANYTHING.

Wow, Alice. That's a pretty potent drink! Thanks.

What do you mean, Humpty?​

Why, I mean it tastes like anything - as in ANYTHING - of course.

curiouser and couriouser ​

 

[gree0232]

Wow, Alice. That's a pretty potent drink! Thanks.

What do you mean, Humpty?​

Why, I mean it tastes like anything - as in ANYTHING - of course.

curiouser and couriouser ​

Such is the reality of omnipotence.

What does your drink taste like?

Whatever the hell you want it too when you are omnipotent.

That is kind of the point of omnipotence is it not?

 

[cottage]

Neither good or evil may indicate indifference....sometimes good and sometimes evil doesn't at all.

That of course is the argument: If there is sometimes good and sometimes not, then there is no God who is good or evil; therefore if there is a God then he/it is indifferent to human suffering. And crucially that reduces to what is also confirmed for us in experience.

 

[gree0232]

That of course is the argument: If there is sometimes good and sometimes not, then there is no God who is good or evil; therefore if there is a God then he/it is indifferent to human suffering. And crucially that reduces to what is also confirmed for us in experience.

If he is sometimes good and sometimes evil, that would seem to very much indicate that there is a God that cares enough to respond to our actions.

He would ostensibly be rewarding good behavior, and punishing bad behavior.

For some reason though, its not evil to capture and enslave an entire community? Expose them to murderously difficult labor, sell them like cattle, whip them to death, rape their women, and all the attendant indignities of slavery ...

... but to rebel against that and have to kill off the pursuing Army intent of re-enslaving you is down right evil, eh?

Now why would an indifferent God do something like that?

 

[nazz]

Good for you. I just happen to subscribe to dialectical monism.

I'm a monist too. It's just that "God" means different things to me. I have monistic, dualistic, and pluralistic definitions for that term.

 

[cottage]

If he is sometimes good and sometimes evil, that would seem to very much indicate that there is a God that cares enough to respond to our actions.

He would ostensibly be rewarding good behavior, and punishing bad behavior.

The Problem of Evil isn’t restricted to behaviour or ‘our actions’. When we’re speaking of evil what we’re actually referring to is suffering, and the infant dying of Leukemia for example hasn’t contracted that dreadful condition through its misbehaviour.

For some reason though, its not evil to capture and enslave an entire community? Expose them to murderously difficult labor, sell them like cattle, whip them to death, rape their women, and all the attendant indignities of slavery ...

... but to rebel against that and have to kill off the pursuing Army intent of re-enslaving you is down right evil, eh?

Now why would an indifferent God do something like that?

I’m sorry but I don’t know the point you’re making above, or what it alludes to.

 

[CG Didymus]

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.

Who or what is God to a Valentenian Gnostic?

Valentinians believed that God is incomprehensible and cannot be known directly. Therefore he defies accurate description. He is infinite, without beginning or end and is the ultimate origin of all things. He encompasses all things without being encompassed. Everything including the world lies within the deity and continues to be part of it. The Godhead manifests itself through a process of self-unfolding in the subsequent multiplicity of being while maintaining its unity.
Valentinians believed that God is androgynous and frequently depicted him as a male-female dyad. This is related to the notion that God provides the universe with both form and substance. The feminine aspect of the deity is called Silence, Grace and Thought. Silence is God's primordial state of tranquillity and self-awareness She is also the active creative Thought that makes all subsequent states of being (or "Aeons") substantial. The masculine aspect of God is Depth, also called Ineffable and First Father. Depth is the profoundly incomprehensible, all-encompassing aspect of the deity. He is essentially passive, yet when moved to action by his feminine Thought, he gives the universe form.

What that has to do with the argument against a fundy Christian definition of who God is, I don't know.

 

[dust1n]

Weird. If someone believes that God is incomprehensible and "defies accurate description," than how would that description and all the following descriptions in that paragraph work exactly?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Weird. If someone believes that God is incomprehensible and "defies accurate description," than how would that description and all the following descriptions in that paragraph work exactly?

I had the same reaction. If He's imcomprehensible, how do we know He's infinite and the ultimate origin of all things.

If He's imcomprehensible, then we should just toss the word, I think.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Wow, Alice. That's a pretty potent drink! Thanks.

What do you mean, Humpty?​

Why, I mean it tastes like anything - as in ANYTHING - of course.

curiouser and couriouser ​

Such is the reality of omnipotence.

Such is the reality of one view of omnipotence (and not a particularly potent one at that). See, for example: Omnipotence.

 

[gree0232]

The Problem of Evil isn’t restricted to behaviour or ‘our actions’. When we’re speaking of evil what we’re actually referring to is suffering, and the infant dying of Leukemia for example hasn’t contracted that dreadful condition through its misbehaviour.

Well, I am going to have to disagree with you here.

Is it evil when a pack of wolves chances down a deer and eats it?

When a pack of lions takes down a baby zebra, is that evil?

When Mount Saint Helens erupted and killed a bunch of trees, and a few people, rather than down town Seattle, was that evil?

When a lumber jack kills cuts down a tree? Evil?

When we eat a hamburger, from a cow put through inhumane slaughterhouses, is that evil?

And the difference here is naturalism. rarely in human history have we seen people claim that natural occurring events are 'evil'. If we move in to a fertile valley because the sol if volcanic ... when it goes boom as we know it will ... its not evil. Diseases also happen, and certainly there is suffering, but unless someone is walking around deliberately infecting people its simply what viruses are designed to do. Is that evil?

That stands in sharp contrast to what I would term actual evil. Those who murder for personal or political gain. The tragedy of human trafficking to support the modern sex trade. The deliberate targeting of civilians by terrorists. Rwandan genocide and other mass kill events. the stoking of ethno-religious conflict in Bosnia/Kosovo resulting in thousands upon thousands of humans killed and the systemic rape of captured and enslaved women.

Those are deliberate acts. Acts of evil intent.

They stand in sharp contrast to natural events.

and the curious thing about natural events is that those who blame God the most for them are those who believe in him the least.

The simply fact of the matter is that scripture is quite clear that we will not live lives fee from suffering. Such an expectation is unrealistic and illogical, and it is an expectation that God, through scripture (Islamic, Jewish, Christian, etc.) has been clear to state is unrealistic.

The idea that those who don't even believe in God somehow know better is ... interesting.

I’m sorry but I don’t know the point you’re making above, or what it alludes to.

The point that I am making is that many people who see God as 'evil' do so by applying double standards to God. Its rather often listed as an example of mass murder what God did to Egypt. And yet the people 'murdered' were actively enslaving people. Continued to so even after multiple warnings that there would be resistance. Is it wrong for an enslaved people to resist their captor?

Why then is God 'evil' for fighting back against the Egyptians whom enslaved his people?

Why are the Jews following God's commandments in the subsequent establishment of the Kingdom of Israel evil when they follow militarily sound advice? When their enemies respond or even provoke the behavior in often brutal terms, this context and provocation are largely ignored?

Is self defense wrong? Evil?

Is Patton Evil? Was he wrong to conclude that fighting a few brief but horrifically violent battles with heavy casualties was better than fighting more battles, with fewer casualties, that would ultimately cost more lives and resources to achieve the same military objective?

So why is God's advice to follow that path, short term pain over long term suffering evil? Particularly in light of the claim that it is indeed suffering that is evil as we see above?

My claim is that what atheists call evil, the vast majority of them would themselves advocate in similar circumstances.

 

[gree0232]

Such is the reality of one view of omnipotence (and not a particularly potent one at that). See, for example: plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipotence/]Omnipotence.

Interesting.

I prefer:

ww.thomasinternational.org/ralphmc/readings/mcinerny002.htm

I will also not that your source begins with the limitations of the stone, its classic Plato is it not? It ends with ... "And this appears to be paradoxical."

It also attempts to reasonably explain exactly what I explained, that an omnipotent being could indeed logically violate logic.

"If, on the other hand, Jane is an accidentally omnipotent agent, both (S1) and (S2) are possible, and it is possible for some omnipotent agent to bring it about that (S1) obtains at one time, and that (S2) obtains at a different time. Thus, there is a second solution to the paradox. In this case, Jane's being non-omnipotent is a possible state of affairs; thus, we may assume that it is possible for Jane to bring it about that she is non-omnipotent. So, Jane can create and move a stone, s, of mass, m, while omnipotent, and subsequently bring it about that she is not omnipotent and powerless to move s. As a consequence, Jane can bring about both (S1) and (S2), but only if they obtain at different times."

That is from your own source, so I am left wondering what point you are attempting to make here?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Interesting.

I prefer: ...

I'm more amused by the pretense than the preference.

 

[cottage]

Well, I am going to have to disagree with you here.

Is it evil when a pack of wolves chances down a deer and eats it?

When a pack of lions takes down a baby zebra, is that evil?

When Mount Saint Helens erupted and killed a bunch of trees, and a few people, rather than down town Seattle, was that evil?

When a lumber jack kills cuts down a tree? Evil?

When we eat a hamburger, from a cow put through inhumane slaughterhouses, is that evil?

And the difference here is naturalism. rarely in human history have we seen people claim that natural occurring events are 'evil'. If we move in to a fertile valley because the sol if volcanic ... when it goes boom as we know it will ... its not evil. Diseases also happen, and certainly there is suffering, but unless someone is walking around deliberately infecting people its simply what viruses are designed to do. Is that evil?

That stands in sharp contrast to what I would term actual evil. Those who murder for personal or political gain. The tragedy of human trafficking to support the modern sex trade. The deliberate targeting of civilians by terrorists. Rwandan genocide and other mass kill events. the stoking of ethno-religious conflict in Bosnia/Kosovo resulting in thousands upon thousands of humans killed and the systemic rape of captured and enslaved women.

Those are deliberate acts. Acts of evil intent.

They stand in sharp contrast to natural events.

and the curious thing about natural events is that those who blame God the most for them are those who believe in him the least.

The simply fact of the matter is that scripture is quite clear that we will not live lives fee from suffering. Such an expectation is unrealistic and illogical, and it is an expectation that God, through scripture (Islamic, Jewish, Christian, etc.) has been clear to state is unrealistic.

The idea that those who don't even believe in God somehow know better is ... interesting.





The point that I am making is that many people who see God as 'evil' do so by applying double standards to God. Its rather often listed as an example of mass murder what God did to Egypt. And yet the people 'murdered' were actively enslaving people. Continued to so even after multiple warnings that there would be resistance. Is it wrong for an enslaved people to resist their captor?

Why then is God 'evil' for fighting back against the Egyptians whom enslaved his people?

Why are the Jews following God's commandments in the subsequent establishment of the Kingdom of Israel evil when they follow militarily sound advice? When their enemies respond or even provoke the behavior in often brutal terms, this context and provocation are largely ignored?

Is self defense wrong? Evil?

Is Patton Evil? Was he wrong to conclude that fighting a few brief but horrifically violent battles with heavy casualties was better than fighting more battles, with fewer casualties, that would ultimately cost more lives and resources to achieve the same military objective?

So why is God's advice to follow that path, short term pain over long term suffering evil? Particularly in light of the claim that it is indeed suffering that is evil as we see above?

My claim is that what atheists call evil, the vast majority of them would themselves advocate in similar circumstances.

Oh it seems you’ve completely side-stepped the point by wanting to make an issue out of the term ‘evil’. My argument has to do with the existence of suffering and the contradiction that obtains as a result, if and where it is proposed that God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent. In other words it is a logical problem and not a moral question. And again I must explain that this doesn’t make necessarily make God evil but he is either indifferent to suffering (which fits with experience) or he has insufficient power to prevent it (not omnipotent). And note: if it is the latter then God is impossible, since by definition the Supreme Being has power augmented without limit.

 

[gree0232]

I'm more amused by the pretense than the preference.

Yeah, Thomas Aquinas was just a douche ...

And that totally explains why your own source agrees with me too boot.

Compelling case you have there ...

 

[gree0232]

Oh it seems you’ve completely side-stepped the point by wanting to make an issue out of the term ‘evil’. My argument has to do with the existence of suffering and the contradiction that obtains as a result, if and where it is proposed that God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent. In other words it is a logical problem and not a moral question. And again I must explain that this doesn’t make necessarily make God evil but he is either indifferent to suffering (which fits with experience) or he has insufficient power to prevent it (not omnipotent). And note: if it is the latter then God is impossible, since by definition the Supreme Being has power augmented without limit.

My point is that evil and suffering are not the same thing.

The problem set is not called the problem of suffering, its called the problem of evil.

Natural events are not evil.

Sufferiing in and of itself, is not evil. Its often quite necessary to induce change - to push us outside of our comfort level.

Death, in and of itself is not evil is it? We all die don't we? So whey then is natural death evil? Why is it needless suffering if we know our time here is finite?

Obviously you disagree, but the sidestep here is avoiding support for your claim.

IMHO< natural events are not evil.

They are indeed PROMISED.

And even if you blame God for them .... they are still there. Even if you don;t believe in God.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And that totally explains why your own source agrees with me too boot.

Congratulations on your impressive victory.

("too boot" ?)​

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Oh it seems you’ve completely side-stepped the point by wanting to make an issue out of the term ‘evil’. My argument has to do with the existence of suffering and the contradiction that obtains as a result, if and where it is proposed that God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent. In other words it is a logical problem and not a moral question. And again I must explain that this doesn’t make necessarily make God evil but he is either indifferent to suffering (which fits with experience) or he has insufficient power to prevent it (not omnipotent). And note: if it is the latter then God is impossible, since by definition the Supreme Being has power augmented without limit.

I just don't see the contradiction; why does the existence of suffering preclude God being good or loving?

 

[gree0232]

Congratulations on your impressive victory.

("too boot" ?)​

Well, being beaten by a newb in the first take ... I'll take that victory as a good beginning.

I mean, in terms of debate, its pretty impressive to have someone prove your point for you. :yes:

 

[CG Didymus]

IMHO< natural events are not evil.

They are indeed PROMISED.

And even if you blame God for them .... they are still there. Even if you don;t believe in God.

Some fundy Christians make their God to be a perfect loving being. That's what doesn't make perfect sense. Some try to argue that his sense of perfect justice causes him to punish sinners. But then, what about his mercy? Because of his mercy he forgives some sinners. But all people suffer because of natural disasters and evil caused by other people. Who do they blame for that? Us? We asked for it by Eve eating a fruit? I suppose they would say that before "The fall" there were no natural disasters? And there was no "evil"? I don't know.

However, the definition of "God" in this thread, ain't that God. This one embodies everything, light and darkness, good and evil. So then why did this God create a world with natural disasters? Is he/she evil? Well, yes, but totally good too. Why? I suppose because out of the mess comes new life? When somebody dies of some horrible disease or accident, we try and find ways to cure it or prevent it? So all is good in the long run. I guess.