These answers to the problem of evil are unsatisfactory to me

[Quintessence]

God is the first cause, the cause of everything that came into existence, but God is not the cause of anything that happened after everything was created.

Thus, if I'm understanding you correctly, if something is a certain number of degrees removed from the First Cause you consider it to not be the cause? How many degrees removed does something have to be for one to decide "nah, my god didn't do this?"

It's interesting to think about this in a broader context, actually - I have always found it odd how some humans think about causality. That is, some only think about immediate causality or what is immediately obvious to them in terms of causality. Others see beyond these immediate causes to the more complex relationships between things that stretch through all time and space. I tend to do the second of these, so I just have trouble squaring this notion that a first cause god isn't the fundamental cause of everything. Causality doesn't have to be immediate (zero degrees removed) to be causality.

Humans were given dominion over the earth and humans are the cause of what happens on this earth, other than natural disasters which are just a part of nature, not caused by God.

Ugh, I'll confess I really hate the whole "dominion" thing and it's a major reason I could never, ever follow an Abrahamic religion. It strikes me as so incredibly arrogant and disrespectful of what to me are the actual gods (nature and the universe itself), but that's neither here nor there I suppose as there are just some irreconcilable theological differences between indigenous/polytheist/animist religions and Abrahamic ones. We're not really talking about that here, so I'm going to pretend I just agree with you for the purpose of this thread.

God is responsible for creating a world in which people will suffer for various reasons. I suggest we discuss what God is actually responsible for, not what God is not responsible for.

I thought we were talking about causality? Causality is not the same thing as responsibility.

Causality is just - this led to this, which in turn led to this, and resulted in this (chain it back however many degrees your brain can handle). It's not making value judgements or stating how things ought to be, who should do what, or whatever.

Responsibility can refer to having an obligation to do something, having an authoritative role or purpose to do something (e.g., it is your responsibility to clean up after yourself; it is your responsibility to file this paperwork). It is also used in human justice systems to assign blame because humans are weird like that (e.g., you did this crime so you will be punished). Those are different from just observing causality.

 

[Alien826]

Yes, the last option makes logical sense, but we have no way of knowing if it is true.
The only way we can know if suffering has been beneficial for people is by asking them, but even if they say yes, does that justify the suffering?

That's not quite the point I was making. Imagine that where God lives, a multidimensional universe, there's a problem in the 9th dimension that is causing suffering to a level of 99 trillion sufferos (that's a unit of suffering we don't have). There are many ways to address this, but all of them involve creating an additional universe, which will totally remove all the suffering in the 9th dimension. All these possible universes have their own level of sufferos. The potential universe (ours!) that has the least sufferos (1 trillion) is the one God selects to create. So his actions, though creating 1 trillion additional sufferos, actually reduces the total suffero level in the multiverse by 98 trillion.

There is no way for us to determine if anything like that exists. We just have trust that God has some higher purpose that is beyond our understanding. We trust God about this, because .... er ..... well we just do.

That's so much easier, not having to be thinking what God is doing or not doing.
I'll meet you at the atheist kiosk in the mall.

I'd like an ice cream please. Vanilla with snickers bar.

 

[Trailblazer]

So...if you see a helpless child suffering,
you could easily help, but you just walk by?

If you'd help you are more moral than any
"God".

If you created something over which you
have not just total control, bur foresight to
know exactly what it will do- cause immense
suffering-but you make it anyway, then stand by
as it rips people to pieces*, you'd have to be a
psychopath.

Again, higher standards of decency for people
than for "god".

It is illogical to expect God to do what humans are responsible for doing.
Just because God is omnipotent that does not mean God should or can act like Superman.

To compare God to a human is the fallacy of false equivalence, since God is not a human.

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1] A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".

This fallacy is committed when one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.[2] False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear scrutiny because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.

False equivalence - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Of course, the christian god values suffering.
Nothing else satisfies it.

You don't know what satisfies God, nobody knows that.

* and blame the victims

Nobody is blaming the victims, we blame the perpetrators, since they alone are responsible for evil acts.
God is responsible for no evil because God commits no evil acts.

* Don't waste your time going on about what God did in the OT because I believe that is pure anthropomorphism, nothing that ever happened.

 

[Trailblazer]

Thus, if I'm understanding you correctly, if something is a certain number of degrees removed from the First Cause you consider it to not be the cause? How many degrees removed does something have to be for one to decide "nah, my god didn't do this?"

God doesn't do anything since God does not have behavior. Only humans and animals have behavior. God has a will and wills things to happen but we have no way of knowing what God wills, except through scriptures.

God is either the cause of something or God is not the cause if it. We can only know what God caused by reading scriptures, so we believe that God caused the universe and this world to come into existence, including all life on this planet. After that, we have no reason to believe that God caused anything else, except for sending Messengers to appear on earth in every age.

It's interesting to think about this in a broader context, actually - I have always found it odd how some humans think about causality. That is, some only think about immediate causality or what is immediately obvious to them in terms of causality. Others see beyond these immediate causes to the more complex relationships between things that stretch through all time and space. I tend to do the second of these, so I just have trouble squaring this notion that a first cause god isn't the fundamental cause of everything. Causality doesn't have to be immediate (zero degrees removed) to be causality.

I agree with the broader context, but still we have no way of knowing what God has caused except through various scriptures. I believe that God maintains the universe so God is probably causing things to happen but we have no way of knowing what those things are. What God is not causing are human choices and actions. Humans are causing those.

Ugh, I'll confess I really hate the whole "dominion" thing and it's a major reason I could never, ever follow an Abrahamic religion. It strikes me as so incredibly arrogant and disrespectful of what to me are the actual gods (nature and the universe itself), but that's neither here nor there I suppose as there are just some irreconcilable theological differences between indigenous/polytheist/animist religions and Abrahamic ones. We're not really talking about that here, so I'm going to pretend I just agree with you for the purpose of this thread.

When I said dominion over the earth I did not mean it the way you think. That is the term the Bible uses so I used it since most people can relate to the words in the Bible, but what I meant is that after the earth was created God put humans in charge of taking care of the earth, including themselves!

To be honest, I am not much of an Abrahamist. Although technically speaking I belong to an Abrahamic religion, the Baha'i Faith is a new religion that I believe ushered in a whole new religious cycle, so it is different from Judaism, Christianity, and Islam in many ways, although it is similar in certain ways, given the spiritual verities are the same.

Given that I relate better to animals and nature than to humans, I would have made a better Druid than a Baha'i. You'd know that if you ever saw my house and surrounding property which is dedicated to all manner of animals and wildlife, birds and the habitat they require. What was once a manicured lot is now a forest.

I thought we were talking about causality? Causality is not the same thing as responsibility.

Causality is just - this led to this, which in turn led to this, and resulted in this (chain it back however many degrees your brain can handle). It's not making value judgements or stating how things ought to be, who should do what, or whatever

I agree with all of the above. Just because God set things in motion, thus causing them to happen, that does not mean that God is responsible for what happened after that. To believe that is illogical

Responsibility can refer to having an obligation to do something, having an authoritative role or purpose to do something (e.g., it is your responsibility to clean up after yourself; it is your responsibility to file this paperwork). It is also used in human justice systems to assign blame because humans are weird like that (e.g., you did this crime so you will be punished). Those are different from just observing causality.

Again, I agree with all of the above. Some atheists believe that God is responsible to do certain things because God has all power to do them, i.e., putting an end to suffering, but there is no logical connection between being all-powerful and being responsible.

God has committed no crimes, only humans commit crimes, so God is not responsible for committing any crimes. Some atheists hold God responsible for not stopping humans from committing crimes, but why would God be responsible to intervene? God should intervene because God allegedly can since God is all-powerful is the atheist answer but it is not a logical answer.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's not quite the point I was making. Imagine that where God lives, a multidimensional universe, there's a problem in the 9th dimension that is causing suffering to a level of 99 trillion sufferos (that's a unit of suffering we don't have). There are many ways to address this, but all of them involve creating an additional universe, which will totally remove all the suffering in the 9th dimension. All these possible universes have their own level of sufferos. The potential universe (ours!) that has the least sufferos (1 trillion) is the one God selects to create. So his actions, though creating 1 trillion additional sufferos, actually reduces the total suffero level in the multiverse by 98 trillion.

There is no way for us to determine if anything like that exists. We just have trust that God has some higher purpose that is beyond our understanding. We trust God about this, because .... er ..... well we just do.

Yes, if we are believers we just have trust that God has some higher purpose for our suffering that is beyond our understanding.
Truer words were never uttered. That reminded me of one of my favorite passages that expressed that sentiment.

“Wert thou to ponder in thine heart, from now until the end that hath no end, and with all the concentrated intelligence and understanding which the greatest minds have attained in the past or will attain in the future, this divinely ordained and subtle Reality, this sign of the revelation of the All-Abiding, All-Glorious God, thou wilt fail to comprehend its mystery or to appraise its virtue. Having recognized thy powerlessness to attain to an adequate understanding of that Reality which abideth within thee, thou wilt readily admit the futility of such efforts as may be attempted by thee, or by any of the created things, to fathom the mystery of the Living God, the Day Star of unfading glory, the Ancient of everlasting days. This confession of helplessness which mature contemplation must eventually impel every mind to make is in itself the acme of human understanding, and marketh the culmination of man’s development.”

Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 164-166

reference.bahai.org

What bothers me is when my Baha'i cohorts insist they know the purpose of suffering. It annoys me to no end.

I'd like an ice cream please. Vanilla with snickers bar.

At your service.

 

[PearlSeeker]

* Don't waste your time going on about what God did in the OT because I believe that is pure anthropomorphism, nothing that ever happened.

So God of the Bible is evil. He can act like Superman but does nothing.

 

[Twilight Hue]

How do you explain the existence of evil, despite God being almighty, and all knowing, and perfect love?

How do you forum posters explain that evil exists despite God being, all powerful, all knowing and all love? Why does God permit or create evil? Or did God not want it for anything? Is evil and illusion? Why did Jesus create the situation of the crucifixion and go through that? Why does the...

www.christianforums.com

I don't think of evil as being a problem no more than being good is a solution.

I view these concepts pretty much as natural forces of nature that cannot be completely tamed or controlled.

 

[McBell]

I don't think of evil as being a problem no more than being good is a solution.

I view these concepts pretty much as natural forces of nature that cannot be completely tamed or controlled.

I see good and bad (morality) as things that are done with intent.

Evil is something really bad (morality) done with intent.

No intent, means no morality applied there for not evil.
Weather for example.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Let's turn that around.
Why would not stopping suffering just because you have the ability to stop suffering be evil?

Because to act morally literally means to increase well-being / decrease suffering.
This is why people are outraged when passersby just carry on their way without helping, while some guy is bleeding to death at the side of the road after an accident

Another question: Since God created a world in which He knew that suffering would exist, that being part of the design, why would God do an about face and prevent the suffering that is inherent in the material world?

Good question. An even better question would be to why even create such a world.
I mean, if we accept he created such a world willingly, and assume he could have done it otherwise, then we have already established that the dude is a masochistic sob. So yeah, I wouldn't expect such a person to try and decrease suffering. If anything, I would expect the opposite.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Evil is something really bad (morality) done with intent.

This is moral evil. But there is also natural evil.

 

[McBell]

This is moral evil. But there is also natural evil.

Do tell

 

[Trailblazer]

Because to act morally literally means to increase well-being / decrease suffering.
This is why people are outraged when passersby just carry on their way without helping, while some guy is bleeding to death at the side of the road after an accident

God is not a moral agent. Only humans are moral agents.

A moral agent is a person who has the ability to discern right from wrong and to be held accountable for his or her own actions. Moral agents have a moral responsibility not to cause unjustified harm.

Traditionally, moral agency is assigned only to those who can be held responsible for their actions. Children, and adults with certain mental disabilities, may have little or no capacity to be moral agents. Adults with full mental capacity relinquish their moral agency only in extreme situations, like being held hostage.

By expecting people to act as moral agents, we hold people accountable for the harm they cause others.

Moral Agent - Ethics Unwrapped

A Moral Agent is a person who can be held accountable for his or her actions because he or she has the ability to tell right from wrong.

ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu

Good question. An even better question would be to why even create such a world.
I mean, if we accept he created such a world willingly, and assume he could have done it otherwise,

Even if God could have done otherwise, God had His Reasons for creating the world the way He did.

Do YOU know more than God about how the world should have been created?
Are you all-knowing or all-wise?

then we have already established that the dude is a masochistic sob. So yeah, I wouldn't expect such a person to try and decrease suffering. If anything, I would expect the opposite.

God is not a person. To compare God to a person and expect God to act like a person is illogical, it is the fallacy of false equivalence.

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1] A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".

This fallacy is committed when one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.[2] False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear scrutiny because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.

False equivalence - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Alien826]

God is not a moral agent. Only humans are moral agents.

A moral agent is a person who has the ability to discern right from wrong and to be held accountable for his or her own actions. Moral agents have a moral responsibility not to cause unjustified harm.

Traditionally, moral agency is assigned only to those who can be held responsible for their actions. Children, and adults with certain mental disabilities, may have little or no capacity to be moral agents. Adults with full mental capacity relinquish their moral agency only in extreme situations, like being held hostage.

By expecting people to act as moral agents, we hold people accountable for the harm they cause others.

Moral Agent - Ethics Unwrapped

A Moral Agent is a person who can be held accountable for his or her actions because he or she has the ability to tell right from wrong.

ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu

I think you are getting onto slippery ground here. The definition of "moral agent" you give rests on two principles, the ability to discern right from wrong and the ability to be held accountable. Hopefully we can agree that God can discern right from wrong, otherwise what's he doing giving us rules to regulate our behavior? That leaves accountability.

First, that standard is really a legal one. If a person is judged to be insane for example, we don't prosecute him/her for whatever crimes are committed. God does know right from wrong, so according to this rule if we could drag God into a courtroom he could be charged with whatever. Obviously we can't get God into a courtroom, so how does that affect his moral agency? If this was a valid criterion, anyone who escaped arrest would not be considered a moral agent and thus immune from prosecution. I hope you see how silly that would be.

So God is a moral agent, or at least doesn't escape judgement by your argument. Let's see if there are other ways he gets off the hook.

Even if God could have done otherwise, God had His Reasons for creating the world the way He did.

Do YOU know more than God about how the world should have been created?
Are you all-knowing or all-wise?

I won't rerun the argument about higher motives, but the problem is that in the absence of his telling us what they are, we can only go by what we see.

God is not a person. To compare God to a person and expect God to act like a person is illogical, it is the fallacy of false equivalence.

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1] A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".

This fallacy is committed when one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.[2] False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear scrutiny because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.

False equivalence - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This one is interesting. Let's try an analogy. When a male lion takes over a pride, he kills the cubs that were sired by the previous male. It's easy to explain from an evolutionary standpoint. He is removing the other male's genes from the gene pool and adding his own. Now, the question becomes, do we judge the lion as "evil" or needing punishment? We don't (hopefully) because we recognize that this action is OK for lions.

Now let's make the lions us, and us God. Just in that we have different moral rules, don't stretch the analogy too far. We think that murder is wrong and God (maybe) doesn't. Is it fair for us to judge God by our standards? I think this is your point. If humans intervene and save the lion cubs, the lions, if they thought about these things, might say we were wrong to intervene in something that they consider is good. So we're approaching a rule that when different species are involved each species should respect the morality of the other. Thus, turn about, lions shouldn't kill human babies and we are justified in stopping them.

If you are still with me, the idea is that God should behave in our realm according to our morality (which he gave us!) regardless of how he might behave "at home". And if he doesn't we are perfectly justified in allocating right and wrong judgements on his actions.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Do tell

Natural evil: natural disasters, accidents, serious child diseases etc.

 

[Trailblazer]

I think you are getting onto slippery ground here. The definition of "moral agent" you give rests on two principles, the ability to discern right from wrong and the ability to be held accountable. Hopefully we can agree that God can discern right from wrong, otherwise what's he doing giving us rules to regulate our behavior? That leaves accountability.

God does not have to 'discern' right from wrong in Himself because God is all-knowing, so God knows what is right and wrong by His nature.
God does not have right and wrong behavior because God has no behavior. Only humans and animals have behavior.
God sets the standards for human behavior and then judges human behavior as right or wrong.

First, that standard is really a legal one. If a person is judged to be insane for example, we don't prosecute him/her for whatever crimes are committed. God does know right from wrong, so according to this rule if we could drag God into a courtroom he could be charged with whatever. Obviously we can't get God into a courtroom, so how does that affect his moral agency? If this was a valid criterion, anyone who escaped arrest would not be considered a moral agent and thus immune from prosecution. I hope you see how silly that would be.

So God is a moral agent, or at least doesn't escape judgement by your argument. Let's see if there are other ways he gets off the hook.

Again, God is not a moral agent because God is not a human being.

A moral agent is a person who has the ability to discern right from wrong and to be held accountable for his or her own actions. Moral agents have a moral responsibility not to cause unjustified harm.

By expecting people to act as moral agents, we hold people accountable for the harm they cause others.

Moral Agent - Ethics Unwrapped

A Moral Agent is a person who can be held accountable for his or her actions because he or she has the ability to tell right from wrong.

ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu

God escapes judgement by humans because God is the judge of humans.
Anyone can judge God if they want to but it won't get them anywhere.

God does not need to get off the hook because God is not on anyone's hook except in their minds.
It is so silly to judge a being that is so far above us. Does an any judge a human?

I won't rerun the argument about higher motives, but the problem is that in the absence of his telling us what they are, we can only go by what we see.

We can go by what we see, but we also have scriptures to go by, although IMO they do a **** poor job of explaining the purpose of suffering.

This one is interesting. Let's try an analogy. When a male lion takes over a pride, he kills the cubs that were sired by the previous male. It's easy to explain from an evolutionary standpoint. He is removing the other male's genes from the gene pool and adding his own. Now, the question becomes, do we judge the lion as "evil" or needing punishment? We don't (hopefully) because we recognize that this action is OK for lions.

Now let's make the lions us, and us God. Just in that we have different moral rules, don't stretch the analogy too far. We think that murder is wrong and God (maybe) doesn't. Is it fair for us to judge God by our standards? I think this is your point. If humans intervene and save the lion cubs, the lions, if they thought about these things, might say we were wrong to intervene in something that they consider is good. So we're approaching a rule that when different species are involved each species should respect the morality of the other. Thus, turn about, lions shouldn't kill human babies and we are justified in stopping them.

I was with you up to this point and the analogy somewhat applies regarding different species, but it fails because God is not a species.
It is not fair for us to judge God by our standards because God is so far above us, and we cannot know what God knows.

If you are still with me, the idea is that God should behave in our realm according to our morality (which he gave us!) regardless of how he might behave "at home". And if he doesn't we are perfectly justified in allocating right and wrong judgements on his actions.

Another reason that your analogy fails is because (a) God does not behave, and (b) God is not in the earth realm. God is at home, wherever that is.

God does not behave at all since behavior is a characteristic of humans and animals. God wills things to happen and then they happen according to God's will, but we can never know what those things are unless they are recorded in scriptures. I don't mean the OT since I believe that is merely a human rendition of God, nothing God actually did, since God doesn't do things, God wills things.

 

[Trailblazer]

Natural evil: natural disasters, accidents, serious child diseases etc.

Evil means profoundly immoral and wicked.

Why do you consider those things evil?

 

[McBell]

Evil means profoundly immoral and wicked.

Why do you consider those things evil?

How about we start with a more complete definition of evil:

evil​

morally reprehensible​

​

arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct​

​

causing discomfort or repulsion​

​

causing harm​

​

marked by misfortune​

​

the fact of suffering, misfortune, and wrongdoing​

​

something that brings sorrow, distress, or calamity​

 

[Trailblazer]

How about we start with a more complete definition of evil:

evil​

morally reprehensible​

​

arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct​

​

causing discomfort or repulsion​

​

causing harm​

​

marked by misfortune​

​

the fact of suffering, misfortune, and wrongdoing​

​

something that brings sorrow, distress, or calamity​

That is rather subjective. By that broad definition, anything I don't like could be considered evil.

For example, the rodents on my property cause me discomfort and repulsion so they are evil to me, while none of the other wild animals on my property are evil since they don't cause me discomfort or repulsion. The raccoons caused harm to my decks but I don't consider them evil. The squirrels steal the bird food but I don't consider them evil, but when rodents steal the bird food I consider them evil.

So do you see how evil is subjective?

 

[McBell]

That is rather subjective. By that broad definition, anything I don't like could be considered evil.

For example, the rodents on my property cause me discomfort and repulsion so they are evil to me, while none of the other wild animals on my property are evil since they don't cause me discomfort or repulsion. The raccoons caused harm to my decks but I don't consider them evil. The squirrels steal the bird food but I don't consider them evil, but when rodents steal the bird food I consider them evil.

So do you see how evil is subjective?

Evil has always been subjective.

Do you have an objective definition for evil?
Cause if so, you have not provided it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Evil has always been subjective.

Do you have an objective definition for evil?
Cause if so, you have not provided it.

No, I don't have a objective definition because evil is subjective.