Trilemma

[BioMors]

I’m sure many of you are familiar with the trilemma, the logical fallacy inherent in one of the most common [Christian] definitions of theistic reality:

-God is all-powerful, all-knowing, etc.
-God is pure good
-Evil exists

A set of premises that cannot be reconciled with each other. If a god is all good and all-powerful, then evil could not exist. There are various means theologists and apologists have used throughout the ages, and I’m curious of the religious members of this forum; which do you subscribe to?

What follows are the most common reconciliations I’ve discovered and my take on them:

Evil does not exist, the world is pure good and what is perceived to be evil is only god’s way of testing us (which is completely unnecessary because if a god is truly omniscient then it already knows how we’re going to respond to the sadistic experiments – thus begs the question of how the god can be pure good)

Evil must exist in order for good to exist; there can be no light without darkness, no warmth without cold. (If this god is all-powerful, it doesn’t have to follow the rules because it makes the rules, truly being all good this being would not make up a rule that caused so much suffering)

Evil is only the privation of good and is not an entity of its own, it is the lack of god created reality (again, like the good/evil dichotomy, if this god is really all powerful it could have simply created a reality of equal goodness to itself)

All things that are perceived as evil are simply in the process of becoming good as god transforms the chaotic nothingness into good (an extension often used with the above argument, if this god is all powerful it wouldn’t take it any time effort or process to change nothingness(evil) into something(good), and if the being is all good the fact of this process causing suffering would certainly ensure it never had to take place)

Evil is an effect of free will and not an action of god in any way- to restrict free will would be to take it from us thus god cannot intervene (if this god is omniscient it knew that Satan/Lucifer/whatever would rebel and turn away from good- just as it must know exactly what evil deeds will be done and why. From the very instant of creation this god knew these things and thus by creating, because the god is omnipotent and thus created reality exactly as it wanted, the god intended these things from the start and as such was the ultimate perpetrator of all the evil in existence- thus not an all good god)

As you can see, most entail dissecting the third, “evil exists”, likely because it is supposedly a human observation rather than divine doctrine. Ultimately, if anyone is feeling suffering it’s hard to deny it, and any omnipotent god could prevent such things if it so desired. There are of course other [less-Christian] takes on the first two premises:

God is not all good, but rather has good and evil impulses like everybody (this I have no logical problems with, but I wouldn’t be so eager to worship such a being as my god)

God is not omnipotent and thus has limited powers to fight the evils we face (Again, I have no problem with this, but it kind of flies in the face of the very definition of god. Not all powerful simply makes the being no different than us on many fundamental basis, just potent to an unidentified greater degree: this being could no more be a god to me than I am a god to an insect- we are both essentially limited)

I wouldn’t insist that no *greater* or more powerful beings exist, nor that there isn’t the possibility of some supernatural forces at work yet to be understood. However, I would presume that any being I would define as a god (by at least Christian terms) could, by observation of simple logic, absolutely not exist.

As I said, I’m curious to examine others’ take on this, and it would be interesting to determine the most common interpretations: call it an informal poll if you like.

 

[painted wolf]

my view on creator is that

yes he/she/it is all-knowing and all-powerful in as much as a creator can be... but that creator isn't a meddler... creator doesn't play with our lives.

creator made everything in ballance.. good and evil et. cet... I know this is going to sound wierd but evil isn't nessisarily a bad thing.

creator is byond human notions of good and evil. We can't eaven decide these things ammongst ourselves let alone hold creator to them.

wa:-do

 

[Alaric]

There might be a problem with the free will argument - free will might necessarily imply certain things, such as what we perceive as evil. In which case God could either create mindless worshipping robots, or create beings with free will who could have the capacity to truly love Him, but would then have to face the problems of evil. In order for God to be good, however, it means that He must all judge us equally in the end - none of this condemning people who don't manage to repent before they die, for example.

 

[BioMors]

Painted wolf,
So, unless I took that wrong, it is by believing that god is not necessarily “all good” because good and evil are not a simple dichotomy (a more reasonable relativistic approach) that you reconcile the presence of suffering with an all-powerful being.
Certainly morals are relative to the individual who possesses them, they’re all opinions so god could not be all good- that’s why some religions just don’t make any sense.
You seem to have a more realistic take on the creator, which is refreshing to hear. Thank you for your input.

Alaric, thanks for replying;

“In which case God could either create mindless worshipping robots, or create beings with free will who could have the capacity to truly love Him, but would then have to face the problems of evil.”

That’s the theistic argument, however, it doesn’t hold water because free will is incompatible with omniscience. When a god knows what you’re going to do before you do it, and every “decision” you’re going to make your entire life, it really doesn’t leave much room for free will. Free will is merely the illusion created by lack of ability to predict one another’s actions accurately. There are so many variables that affect our actions that they define us each in a unique way- this god knows all those variables and being infinitely intelligent would have no more trouble predicting us than it would predicting the roll of dice. There is no aspect of randomness to the universe, everything is constrained to laws of physics and if all the forces that affect it are known, then the exact outcome can always be predicted. Humans have developed the concept of “chance” and “free will” to describe those things their limited knowledge and intelligence have trouble predicting- god, by definition, may have no concept of these things.

“In order for God to be good, however, it means that He must all judge us equally in the end - none of this condemning people who don't manage to repent before they die, for example.”

Certainly so, especially because the god created them knowing exactly how they would turn out in the end and thus fully intended every action they did.

Even though a pointless god-driven existence (partly what you were getting at in the other thread) is the only logical conclusion to most forms of theism, people don’t enjoy believing that and thus turn a blind eye to the fact that free will can’t exist under an omniscient creator.

 

[Alaric]

That’s the theistic argument, however, it doesn’t hold water because free will is incompatible with omniscience. ... Free will is merely the illusion created by lack of ability to predict one another’s actions accurately.

I agree, which is why the argument does hold water! Free will is only incompatible with omniscience if we require that it means to have complete control over our actions, but free will is just an illusion, so it's no problem that God knows what we do before we do it. However, free will as we perceive it is necessary if we are to learn to love God or 'earn' enlightenment - if we were lacking in the ability of abstract thought, we could not understand the concepts at all, and if we were much smarter and more aware of the variables we would just know it and would have no need to have faith. I think our perception of free will is like a bubble of awareness between two states of consciousness - that of animal and that of God, neither of whom can 'think' at all, and neither are free. Free will is the perception of 'self' and control over our actions by imagining ourselves taking different viable paths without knowing exactly where they will lead, and selecting one while rejecting the others - we feel 'free' because we remember the paths we didn't take. A godlike intelligence would know instantly which path to take, and so would not be free, while an animal just acts and hopes its instincts are correct.

So God couldn't help doing what He did, creating the world as He did, because He automatically did what was 'best'. OR God is less-than-all-powerful and created us to be able to 'get back to Him' but doesn't know our individual actions. Either way, we just have to accept our less-than-perfect knowledge and be 'good', while seeking the 'divine', and accepting and trying to mitigate the 'evil' that comes with the free will necessary to be able to get back to God.

The problem is just that God could snap His fingers to get us back to Him. The general idea of Heaven and Hell implies that God only wants those that 'pass the test' which isn't very nice - but then, omnipotence is a nasty concept. As far as I can see, it's impossible - complete control implies complete knowledge, and when you follow this through you reach the conclusion that God is literally everything, and He is effectively impotent, because He cannot do anything without violating the rules of omnipotence.

 

[Lightkeeper]

Nothing can exist without it's opposite. If God is pure then we have to have evil as it's opposite. If you have a nickel and take off the heads side, you do not have a nickel. If everything was white we couldn't see anything. The thought of going to Heaven after death has never appealed to me, it's too perfect and actually couldn't exist without an opposite, which is supposedly, Hell. We need a balance of opposites to function.

 

[Rex]

Nothing can exist without it's opposite. If God is pure then we have to have evil as it's opposite. If you have a nickel and take off the heads side, you do not have a nickel. If everything was white we couldn't see anything. The thought of going to Heaven after death has never appealed to me, it's too perfect and actually couldn't exist without an opposite, which is supposedly, Hell. We need a balance of opposites to function.

This could be an arguement for moderation. Everything balanced in moderation is good.

To have extremes is bad.

 

[BioMors]

Lightkeeper, thank you for your reply: so if I understand your view correctly, god is very powerful, but still has to follow some rules; i.e. there must be evil for good to exist, and darkness for light to exist. Thus you make logic of the trilemma by concluding that god isn’t *all-powerful*, but rather powerful within the predefined laws of existence? If so, I’m curious how you believe those laws of existence to be set- if god did not make the laws, then who/what did?

Alaric,
Woah, that’s the whole point. If you agree that free will isn’t real, then there isn’t really any argument is there? If we don’t have a choice then it is god’s will that causes evil actions and thus god is not pure good.
The argument doesn’t hold water because it says, “god is pure good because evil is all humanity’s fault as a consequence of free will”. If free will doesn’t exist, then the evil actions can’t be the fault of humans because god created them.
Consider a gun maker (an omniscient gun maker): This gun maker knows that if he/she makes this particular gun for a client then it will be used in a massacre, and if the gun is not made then this massacre will not occur. The gun maker chooses to make the gun in full knowledge that by this action much “evil” will be done. Although the gun maker didn’t directly kill those people, absolute knowledge of the consequences makes the massacre the fault of the gun maker.
That should be obvious enough, but also consider the hypothetical situation with god and creation- god is omnipotent so it can create any kind of world it wants, god is also omniscient so it knows every evil deed that will be done as a direct result of this creation. This god chose to create this world with many evils as opposed to a perfect and good world. The argument of free will tries to write the existing evil off as humanity’s fault, but free will doesn’t exist. This god knew its original humans would ‘sin’ and exactly what would happen when they did.
I really don’t know how I can explain it any better.
Omniscience of god => no free will for man = > free will of man cannot be an excuse for this god’s evil deeds.

I’m pretty sure you understand all that, but if you do then your hypothesis suffers from pretty severe circular logic.
From what I understand you’re arguing that the illusion of free will is both real and not real at the same time. Free will is not real to the extent that it is logical, but also it somehow has significance to a real choice even though it isn’t real?

To clarify, I will attempt to state your premise more bluntly:
Somehow it is important to this god that we be able to choose for ourselves the correct path to it.

That’s just fine as a premise if you like, never mind *why* it is important. But the fact is that without real free will we aren’t “choosing” anything at all. If free will isn’t real, but rather just an illusion we have (which implies that it is NOT real and thus does NOT result in a real choice), this whole choosing good over evil thing isn’t possible. Thus all this evil this god is subjecting us to is for naught.
Now, some might argue that the illusion seems real to us, and choosing god is not to benefit it, but rather to bring us a higher state of happiness.
To that I must ask: “If the ultimate goal is a higher state of happiness then why doesn’t god just snap its hypothetical fingers and grant us that instantly?”
To which it may be replied: “Because the only way to achieve that happiness is to make a choice by free will”
“But I thought god was omnipotent? It can give us that happiness however or whenever it wants.”
“God can’t interfere with free will or else it wouldn’t be free will!”
“Free will doesn’t exist remember? It’s just an illusion- so no, it isn’t free will thus god can do whatever it likes.”

No matter how much you poke it with a stick the justification of evil as an effect of free will argument is dead; killed by circular logic and an impossible contradiction.

I’ll tell you now; if you ever manage to come up with a theistic argument that defies the inherent logical fallacies of the trilemma, then you, sir, would be a multimillionaire over night. It’s a problem that has been debated for centuries by the most brilliant (an deluded) minds of apologists. Either this god is not omni-everything, this god is not all good, or somehow evil doesn’t exist.

“I think our perception of free will is like a bubble of awareness between two states of consciousness - that of animal and that of God, neither of whom can 'think' at all, and neither are free”

I’m not sure I follow. We are animals of course, and driven by the same basic instincts as all things with brains- seek pleasure and avoid pain. The reason some other animals seem less “free” to many humans is that over time, because many of their thought processes are slightly less complex, humans can come to find them more predictable. The same is true for humans who base their lives off of studying sociology. The fundamental aspects of thought are essentially identical- no creatures have free will including humans.
As far as the illusion of free will, that’s just about as significant as the illusion of a giant bunny rabbit hopping behind you, it isn’t real so it has no significance. I would be very skeptical to any assumption that humans are the only species that suffer such delusions, all decision-making is made in the same manner, so if the creature has a detailed enough memory I doubt they fail to recall other possible decisions. Great apes, marine mammals, elephants, pigs, etc. Many mammals likely have the capacity to suffer from such a delusion. The key difference is that humans possess, due to their thousands of years old fixation on physical ownership and items, a more descriptive object based vocabulary. I don’t believe all humans to be capable of such original though as is necessary to invent a religion, but the few individuals that have been able to have shared this knowledge (right or wrong) with other members of their species. I would imagine that on occasion a singularly intelligent ape conceives of such a notion, but because their communication is less materialistic it wasn’t sufficient to share the idea with others unable to derive it on their own.

I certainly agree on your statement that god could not have a mind knowing everything and being “pure good”. It would amount to basically a force of nature.
The argument of this world being the best of all possible worlds was never very popular. “evil doesn’t exist” and “if the world was any more wonderful then you just couldn’t take it” don’t go over very well with normal people who aren’t tripped out on something. Clearly if there is displeasure in the world many would consider that evil- only by an unjust and illogical alteration of the definitions of good and evil to pertain to something as irrelevant as the existence or nonexistence of pink flying elephants may one make that argument work, and at that point it ceases to be the same argument at all.

“OR God is less-than-all-powerful and created us to be able to 'get back to Him' but doesn't know our individual actions.”

In that case the trilemma is avoided because god is no longer omni-everything, and thus not a typical Christian definition that spurned the debate.

Clearly between two atheists this banter is just a fun mental exercise, and it has been. Your description of the free will illusion was both eloquent and thoughtful- the inclusion of the individual looking back upon the decisions that he or she didn’t make is a nice touch I hadn’t thought of before when describing it to a theist (I’ll have to remember that, it should really aid in visualization).

 

[Master Vigil]

My view on this is the fact that since a solely good god would not create evil, and since if god was both good and evil god would not be perfect. I came to the conclusion that god (or as I prefer to call it, The great spirit) is neither good nor evil. But these concepts only exist in our minds and are subject to our perception of the world and the flow of nature.

 

[Master Vigil]

for more on this you can read my basic Vigil principles on my site. http://vigiltemple.8m.com

 

[Lightkeeper]

Lightkeeper, thank you for your reply: so if I understand your view correctly, god is very powerful, but still has to follow some rules; i.e. there must be evil for good to exist, and darkness for light to exist. Thus you make logic of the trilemma by concluding that god isn’t *all-powerful*, but rather powerful within the predefined laws of existence? If so, I’m curious how you believe those laws of existence to be set- if god did not make the laws, then who/what did?.

God is beyond knowing and understanding. I don't presume to know what God is. Everything has an opposite. We might say that God is beyond the opposites (union of opposites and beyond). I don't give human characteristics to God and don't care who made the rules.

 

[Runt]

God is not all good, but rather has good and evil impulses like everybody (this I have no logical problems with, but I wouldn’t be so eager to worship such a being as my god)

That would be my view... God is polar entity encompassing all opposites, including creation and destruction. "Good" and "evil" are human terms used to describe aspects of creation and destruction based on whether or not we "like" them. This, for me, means morals are purely of human creation, and while necessary to living in society, are not "God's Will" or any such "Divine Law".

As for not wanting to worship this being... well, I personally don't think it needs to be worshipped, simply acknowledged. Worship is something we do for US, not for IT. It will continue to do as it has always done and be as it has always been whether or not we try to worship it. Prayer, spells, and meditation, however, CAN be used to "appeal" to this entity and sometimes get answers back. You send energy out into the universe, you MAY get what you ask for (and you may not--it's up to God).

 

[Alaric]

Thanks for the long reply BioMors - I know the arguments, I have argued the same points before (although undoubtedly not as well as you); it's just recently that I've begun to be able to challenge my old views. I'm still not sure at all, but the necessary implications of the feeling of free will is worth looking into. I don't think it's as simple as it seems anymore. I'll be back about this!

 

[BioMors]

Everybody who responded with a good-evil god, or a god beyond good and evil,

Such concepts that many of you hold seem to make god analogous to simply existence as a whole. It seems the more logically one analyses the concept of a god, the more abstract it becomes until it is simply the belief in existence. It makes me wonder at what point religion becomes simply the status of being aware of one’s surroundings.

Master Vigil,

I read your website, you hold some very interesting views (and X-men inspired artwork). Here’s something I asked in another thread (incase you don’t see it there):

After reading more of your philosophy on religion I’m even more puzzled as to why you accept Descartes’ proof; your own recognition of relativity of good and evil as mental being concepts is inherently tied to a human’s concept of perfection. His ideas seem incompatible with yours on a fundamental basis; perhaps you could explain why exactly you feel his proof is valid by your philosophy?

 

[Master Vigil]

I never said I believed it, I was just putting it forth to debate with. I disagree with his argument for the sole reason that if god was soley perfect, and was solely good, then evil wouldn't exist. Thats where I came to the realization that god could not be either. Thats the only logical explanation I could come up with. I'm glad you enjoyed my work. If you have any more comments I would love to hear them.

 

[Runt]

It seems the more logically one analyses the concept of a god, the more abstract it becomes until it is simply the belief in existence. It makes me wonder at what point religion becomes simply the status of being aware of one’s surroundings.

Hmm, good point. I think people will gradually come to see God as an archetype (or system of archetypes) rather than a superhuman deity. Archetypes are as much a part of our understanding of reality as science is. One deals with the physical realm, the other with the MENTAL-SOCIAL realm...

 

[jonjohnrob11]

dear biomors: the trilemma holds true, assuming u believe we are created in God's image. our free-will reflects his except that we sometimes choose to be immoral whereas he doesn't and trust never will. people suffer not because of God but because of their choices and others choices. the world is both fair and unfair because of choices we make. we all have rights but sometimes they are violated. Jesus didn't want to suffer but because of our choices he did. his Father didn't want him to suffer but allowed him to. we are allowed to choose what we say, do and think. God has the same freedom. when u r saying, doing or dwelling on good thoughts u r doing God's will when not u are immoral unless of course u r sleeping or in a coma. miracles are when God intercedes and chooses for us which is always a good thing, but most of the time we must bear our cross as Christ did. at least God brings good to us even when we do evil, unless of course we are punished, which is used to educate and discipline us.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

jonjohn--

Everything you said in that last post was a claim which you haven't backed up by any observation or reasoning.

 

[BioMors]

Yeah.. when people use "u r" in their posts it can generally be gathered that they aren't putting much effort into formulating their thoughts.

His opinions are like many- the misconception that humans could have free will in the presence of an omniscient god.

He likley still believes that his god is omniscient and omnipotent, but doesn't realize that this means free will is impossible. Blaming everything on freewill and saying 'god can't interfere with free will or it wouldn't be free' is a fine copout for those whom logic forsakes.

 

[true blood]

Evil must exist in order for good to exist; there can be no light without darkness, no warmth without cold. (If this god is all-powerful, it doesn’t have to follow the rules because it makes the rules, truly being all good this being would not make up a rule that caused so much suffering)

I would agree with most of this however God is described in the bible as being a Just God as well as all-powerful so therefor if any rule was laid down he would abide by it.

But then again it is written that God will ultimately destroy all evil. hmm

I'm not so sure its fair to discriminate others for using "u" and "r" in their writing. Everyone should be able to lay out their words without being ridiculed, mocked or humiliated.