Logical Problem of Evil

[Meow Mix]

I'm sorry if this topic has [probably] been done to death on this board but it's one of my favorite subjects with respect to Christianity and I thought I would bring it up.

Epicurus put the problem fairly well when he supposedly said:

If God is willing to prevent evil but unable,
Then He is impotent.
If He is able but not willing,
Then He is malevolent.
If He is both able and willing,
Then whence cometh evil?
If He is neither able nor willing,
Then why call Him God?

Now, rather than get into the whole debate over what "evil" means, I'm going to make this a little easier by simply talking about suffering. I think most of us can probably agree that suffering is undesirable and that a being which causes or allows unnecessary suffering can't possibly fulfill the definition of "benevolent."

Thus we arrive at the question: if God is omnipotent (can actualize any logically possible state of affairs), omniscient (absolutely knows all possible states of affairs), and omnibenevolent (never malevolent), then why does suffering exist in the actual world?

I'll pre-emptively remove the most typical response: that of the "free will" theodicy. Suffering isn't entirely explained by the existence of human free choice -- after all, what free choice was responsible for, say, child leukemia? Beyond that, an omnipotent being should be able to create a world in which there is no physical suffering that remains conducive to free will.

I could go on, but I'd rather focus on responses as they come. Thoughts?

[Goat]

To Zzyzx, morals are subjective. He decides for himself what he regards as moral. The obvious concern is that we must hope Zzyzx does not decide child molestation, murder, human sacrifice, cannibalism, and/or genocide are moral. If he has no basis for his morals, they would be completely arbitrary and would result in whatever fits his needs.

Partly true, but not totally. Morality is a culturally conditioned response To a large extent, morality gets defined by the culture you are in. There are disagreements between individuals about what is moral and what is not moral. This disagreement can cause what is considered moral in a society to evolve over time.

It is not completely arbitrary, because if a set of morals causes social disruption, those morals get abandoned, and a more stable set gets adopted by the culture.

your arguments are what would be considered a 'straw man'. It is a total misrepresentation.

hmmm...if we let society define what is moral, we still are left with cannablism, genocide, widow immolation, child molestation, community suicide, etc., etc. Are we doing anything today that 100 years from now would be considered detestable? Please verify with evidence without begging the question.

I have no idea.. since I don't live 100 years in the future. I suspect the western societies will still stay away from Cannibalism, since from the historical data we have, that specific tradition has been winnowed out.

I know when it comes to widow immolation, even though that practice is still being done in some areas of India, there is a majority push to eliminate it. Unless some unforeseen factor arises, the pattern now established is that widow immolation will be much less in 100 years.

But, that is only extrapolating the current available data, and is certainly no guarantee unforeseen influences happen.

I am not a soothsayer. That is the providence of religion and superstition.

I didn't ask will we revert back to cannibalism, etc in 100 years. I asked are we doing anything now that will be considered deplorable in 100 years. Or have we reached the peak of moral humanity? Please verify your answer with evidence.

For example, pederasty was morally good or at lease acceptable in Ancient Greece and Rome. pederasty:antiquity::____:today

Did you not read my full reply??? Why are you picking out one thing, yet totally ignore the rest? Is that an HONEST thing to do?

I said 'I have no idea. I am not a soothsayer, the is the realm of religion and superstition.

I can point out that certain patterns will probably be maintained... but I can't see into the future. Neither can you.

The only thing I am sure of is that in the past, those people who tried to predict the future almost invariably got it wrong.

[Flail]

.

hmmm...if we let society define what is moral, we still are left with cannablism, genocide, widow immolation, child molestation, community suicide, etc., etc.

Society DOES define what is moral. Notice that there are many societies that do not worship the Christian "god" or perhaps any "god". Is there evidence to show that societies that claim to worship "gods" are more "moral" than others?

Are there examples of present cannibalism, promoted or conducted by those societies?

That's irrelevant. If society defines what is moral, then cannibalism within that particular society was (by your definition) moral. Child molestation was moral within other societies. Eating a defeated enemy was moral in other societies. Murdering thousands of Jews was moral in another society. etc. etc. Do you think what you think is moral today will be tomorrow? 10 years from now? 100 years?

Are we doing anything today that 100 years from now would be considered detestable? Please verify with evidence without begging the question.

Probably. the morals of society change over time. I refuse to speculate but leave that to those who are more prone to speculation (and do not necessarily agree with their guesses).

The morals of religionists and religions change over time.

You really lost me there. Are you agnostic about morals? You leave morals to others and then don't necessarily agree with them? Is someone raping your wife a bad thing? Will it be tomorrow? Please provide evidence that it is or not.

What is considered moral by one society may be considered immoral by another, today, tomorrow or yesterday. We humans are by nature, transitional beings. We adapt or attempt to adapt as we transition in our movements forward thru time. The only absolute is what is considered absolute by those in agreement...until things change. Not long ago it was considered immoral for a woman to be unwed with child, or even to smoke cigarettes, further back, even to speak in church. Some in Islam find it immoral for a woman to have uncovered skin in public. Societies generally come to some form of common sense practical implicit 'agreement' within the larger segment of that society about what is normal or moral and what is not...until it changes.

As we change so will our religions, however slowly. I would not be surprised at anything futuristic societies might come up with to worship, or what type of gods with which some people will attract a following. We will always have superstitions.

Probably(hopefully), homosexuality will become considered more and more moral as time passes...same with abortion. It just makes less and less sense to judge other people on such issues as we progress from indoctrination toward rationality...we have better things to do.

[Zzyzx]

.
Zzyzx has donated 1000 tokens to Flail with the following comment:

Excellent summation of morality and religion. Your points are, in my opinion, unassailable (You should have been an attorney )

Note: That is my first use of an emoticon

[ST_JB]

.

I am more that willing to debate whether "Intelligent design" is a valid concept. Care to try that in Closely Monitored Head to Head?

I accept.

Excellent. I suggest that the topic be "Is Intelligent Design a valid concept to explain the origin of the universe and its contents?"

Hold on. What do you mean by "Is Intelligent Design a valid concept to explain the origin of the universe and its contents?" ?

Do you find acceptable the title and:

1. Ten posts total (five each)
2. No personal comments
3. All claims and statements to be substantiated or formally withdrawn / retracted
4. Bible is not to be considered any more authoritative than any other book (similar to C&A)

If agreeable, you can request that Otseng grant you "One on one participant" status, open the thread with the above title, and present your opening post / argument.

*Waiting for reply on my clarification

But you must be aware that you are in a debate forum and that you are expected to present counter-claim and proof on why you need or have to"reject" the evidence/arguments presented for any claims by Christian debater.

Kindly cite a Forum Rule or Guideline that specifies that requirement or expectation. That you may "expect" or prefer is of no consequence whatsoever.

You always gives me reason to chuckle.

You are not addressing a novice. Many "challengers" have come and gone " none of the Fundamentalists / Biblicists / Literalists stay very long (check the date joined to verify).

It doesn't matter if you are a doctorate or honorary member of this forum, I never asked and I never care. It's not about the time you spent, it's the quality of arguments that counts.

With That I mean, you are expected to present your counter-evidence and/or counter-arguments that are essential in establishing your grounds for rejection.

My grounds for acceptance or rejection of claims of knowledge are very simple " either you can SHOW that what you claim or tell is true and accurate or you cannot.

Your grounds and acceptance is acceptable if it is fully supported. You cannot just say "it's unacceptable" just because it doesn't suits your taste. A counter-argument plus additional sources or any form of admissible evidence for rejection must be presented. If you want to dismiss the evidence/argument/proof I presented, you must establish the ground for dismissal.

There is no requirement that I present "counter-evidence" when claims of knowledge cannot be shown to be truthful and accurate.

Don't make it difficult. It's plain and simple. Whatever evidence/proof/argument you want to dismiss as non-meritorious to my claim, you must have valid reason/argument/proof/evidence for not considering. Period.

A mere statement such as"the claims of KNOWLEDGE of supernatural characters and events cannot / have not been shown to be anything more than opinion and overactive imagination (often based upon reading ancient texts claiming knowledge that cannot be shown to be anything more than opinion and overactive imagination" is clearly unacceptable.

It may be "unacceptable" to you, but that is of no consequence to one (me in this instance) who is concerned about READERS rather than "opponents"

How come it's all about you and the readers? I am only interested on what you can bring on the table. It's not always about you.

I said:

A mere statement such as"the claims of KNOWLEDGE of supernatural characters and events cannot / have not been shown to be anything more than opinion and overactive imagination (often based upon reading ancient texts claiming knowledge that cannot be shown to be anything more than opinion and overactive imagination" is clearly unacceptable.

[cholland]

I didn't ask will we revert back to cannibalism, etc in 100 years. I asked are we doing anything now that will be considered deplorable in 100 years. Or have we reached the peak of moral humanity? Please verify your answer with evidence.

For example, pederasty was morally good or at lease acceptable in Ancient Greece and Rome. pederasty:antiquity::____:today

Did you not read my full reply??? Why are you picking out one thing, yet totally ignore the rest? Is that an HONEST thing to do?

I said 'I have no idea. I am not a soothsayer, the is the realm of religion and superstition.

I can point out that certain patterns will probably be maintained... but I can't see into the future. Neither can you.

The only thing I am sure of is that in the past, those people who tried to predict the future almost invariably got it wrong.

Thank you for being honest...you don't know. That's comforting.

You really lost me there. Are you agnostic about morals? You leave morals to others and then don't necessarily agree with them? Is someone raping your wife a bad thing? Will it be tomorrow? Please provide evidence that it is or not.

What is considered moral by one society may be considered immoral by another, today, tomorrow or yesterday. We humans are by nature, transitional beings. We adapt or attempt to adapt as we transition in our movements forward thru time. The only absolute is what is considered absolute by those in agreement...until things change. Not long ago it was considered immoral for a woman to be unwed with child, or even to smoke cigarettes, further back, even to speak in church. Some in Islam find it immoral for a woman to have uncovered skin in public. Societies generally come to some form of common sense practical implicit 'agreement' within the larger segment of that society about what is normal or moral and what is not...until it changes.

As we change so will our religions, however slowly. I would not be surprised at anything futuristic societies might come up with to worship, or what type of gods with which some people will attract a following. We will always have superstitions.

Probably(hopefully), homosexuality will become considered more and more moral as time passes...same with abortion. It just makes less and less sense to judge other people on such issues as we progress from indoctrination toward rationality...we have better things to do.

Another long explanation of "society defines morals." Thank you for begging the question once again. Does anybody realize that this completely validates the Holocaust? It also validates community suicide. Child molestation.

You bring up pregnancy out of wedlock, smoking, head coverings, homosexuality, abortion and then validate them all because of your "hope" and "it just makes less sense" (begging the question). Please give me some basis for why we should validate these things without begging the question.

please, oh please, don't say "because society says so"

[Zzyzx]

.

Excellent. I suggest that the topic be "Is Intelligent Design a valid concept to explain the origin of the universe and its contents?"

Hold on. What do you mean by "Is Intelligent Design a valid concept to explain the origin of the universe and its contents?" ?

Intelligent design is defined as:

Intelligent design is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." It is neo-creationism, a form of creationism restated in non-religious terms. It is also a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one that deliberately avoids specifying the nature or identity of the intelligent designer. Its leading proponents"all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank[n 1]"believe the designer to be the Christian God.[n 2][n 3]

It seeks to redefine science in a fundamental way that would invoke supernatural explanations, a viewpoint known as theistic science. It puts forward a number of arguments, the most prominent of which are irreducible complexity and specified complexity, in support of the existence of a designer. The scientific community rejects the extension of science to include supernatural explanations in favor of continued acceptance of methodological naturalism, and has rejected both irreducible complexity and specified complexity for a wide range of conceptual and factual flaws
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

valid is defined as: "well grounded or justifiable : applicable to the matter at hand"

Explain is defined as: "to give the meaning or significance of : provide an understanding of"

concept is defined as: "something conceived in the mind"

Origin of the universe and its contents should be clear enough unless you require additional information.

What is difficult to understand about "Is Intelligent Design a valid concept to explain the origin of the universe and its contents?" once one understands the definitions of the words?

But you must be aware that you are in a debate forum and that you are expected to present counter-claim and proof on why you need or have to"reject" the evidence/arguments presented for any claims by Christian debater.

Kindly cite a Forum Rule or Guideline that specifies that requirement or expectation. That you may "expect" or prefer is of no consequence whatsoever.

You always gives me reason to chuckle.

When you are done chucking, kindly cite the Forum rule or guideline that supports your contention.

You are not addressing a novice. Many "challengers" have come and gone " none of the Fundamentalists / Biblicists / Literalists stay very long (check the date joined to verify).

It doesn't matter if you are a doctorate or honorary member of this forum, I never asked and I never care. It's not about the time you spent, it's the quality of arguments that counts.

I agree -- and await the quality of your arguments.

With That I mean, you are expected to present your counter-evidence and/or counter-arguments that are essential in establishing your grounds for rejection.

My grounds for acceptance or rejection of claims of knowledge are very simple " either you can SHOW that what you claim or tell is true and accurate or you cannot.

Your grounds and acceptance is acceptable if it is fully supported. You cannot just say "it's unacceptable" just because it doesn't suits your taste. A counter-argument plus additional sources or any form of admissible evidence for rejection must be presented. If you want to dismiss the evidence/argument/proof I presented, you must establish the ground for dismissal.

I regularly and repeatedly specify that I do NOT accept opinion, conjecture, hearsay, and unverified tales as evidence in debate. If you expect me to accept such things as valid measures or indications of truth and accuracy, you have a problem. Can you show any reason that I should lower my standards to accept such questionable things as valid evidence?

There is no requirement that I present "counter-evidence" when claims of knowledge cannot be shown to be truthful and accurate.

Don't make it difficult. It's plain and simple. Whatever evidence/proof/argument you want to dismiss as non-meritorious to my claim, you must have valid reason/argument/proof/evidence for not considering. Period.

That will be established beyond question in the Head to Head. That debate has been set up through Otseng and awaits your comment.

A mere statement such as"the claims of KNOWLEDGE of supernatural characters and events cannot / have not been shown to be anything more than opinion and overactive imagination (often based upon reading ancient texts claiming knowledge that cannot be shown to be anything more than opinion and overactive imagination" is clearly unacceptable.

It may be "unacceptable" to you, but that is of no consequence to one (me in this instance) who is concerned about READERS rather than "opponents"

How come it's all about you and the readers? I am only interested on what you can bring on the table. It's not always about you.

I requested that Otseng set up the debate between you and me. Is that sufficient recognition of you or do you need more affirmation?

I clearly state that I do not write for the benefit of "opponents", but for the benefit of readers. If that is unacceptable to you, YOU have a problem, not me or the readers.

I said:

A mere statement such as"the claims of KNOWLEDGE of supernatural characters and events cannot / have not been shown to be anything more than opinion and overactive imagination (often based upon reading ancient texts claiming knowledge that cannot be shown to be anything more than opinion and overactive imagination" is clearly unacceptable.

You are encouraged to dispute anything I write. Go for it.

[Meow Mix]

I'm going to attempt to respond to everyone that directed comments/questions at me as promised, but due to a limitation of time and the sheer volume of attention this thread has garnered I'll probably only be able to meaningfully converse with only a few people at a time. I'll do my best, though, to accomodate everyone.

Normally I limit quotations to the last pertinant statement but due to the amount of material between these old posts I'm responding to I'll leave a bit more for context in my quotations.

That is fine..but also an abrogation of our free will, I think.

Here's a question, though....what if the purpose is to train up future creators of universes?

How does it conflict with our free will? Do you agree that my inability to hop through my computer screen into your living room because I'm physically unable to doesn't harm my free will? If so, then why do you suppose my inability to hit someone with a baseball bat would?

It is possible (science fictionally speaking, at least) that someday you might actually be able to do that. Even now, there's nothing stopping you from TRYING. It is the consequences of that trial that tell you that perhaps that's not a viable choice.

I have a sort of deck outside my bedroom window. Now, I'm no bird; I"m not equipped to fly. However, there is nothing stopping me from stepping to the edge, flapping my arms really hard, and TRYING to. The consequences of my choice won't be comfortable and would probably involve broken bones (I'm not up that high)..but I can certainly make the choice to try.

What you are proposing is a bit different; that one cannot even attempt to swing the bat at a head; in order to do that, the very ability to think about doing so must be removed. If we can conceive of a possibility, we can try to do it. It is the consequences of the trial that teach us possibilities, not the impossibility of the thought.

Removing the negative consequences of a thing in order to keep suffering at bay...what does THAT teach us? Again, we are back to the video game players.

Perhaps you've misunderstood me. I've only said that in such a world you may indeed try to swing a bat at someone's face -- it just wouldn't harm them, as for instance all inertia is removed from the bat once it contacts a human face. Just as you can try to flap your arms to fly and fail, you could try to hit someone in the face with a bat and fail. Your ability to conceive of the action wouldn't be removed, either. I've never advocated removing the ability to come up with ideas, even bad ones -- because my whole point has been that it's possible to remove physical suffering without removing free will.

As for the latter question, there is no reason why God couldn't impart knowledge on how to create said universes without malevolently introducing suffering in its inhabitants. If God fails to do so, then again God wouldn't be omnibenevolent by way of negligence.

Ah....

But if He IS training up universe creators, He is also training up people who would, by the very nature of creating universes, able to decide whether those universes are good places, or bad ones...whether they are places of eternal possibilities, or eternal suffering.

Wouldn't He want to train universe creators who would prefer NOT to make their creations places of horrific misery? What better way to so that than allow them experience some of that, to develop empathy, and to understand on a very visceral level what suffering is?

Remember, according to my belief, He didn't even exempt
His Own Son from that experience.

Indeed, you are probably right; He may well be able to fix it so that we didn't have to suffer...but then how is that testing, or teaching, US? If we have free will, then that comes with taking very real consequences of the choices we make.....and we always have choices, no matter how physically constrained we may be. Even the blindfolded, bound and gagged guy in front of a firing squad has a choice...in what he chooses to think about in the last seconds of his life, if nothing else. If God takes all the negative consequences of our choices away--He's taking the choices themselves away, I believe.

You're forgetting that God could also simply impart in universe-creators' minds the distinction between a horrific pain filled universe and a peaceful paradise.

I disagree that removing the capacity to cause suffering removes free will. Consider that you live in a paradise where it's impossible to be physically harmed: what about this place infringes your ability to make free will choices?

What prevents you from freely choosing between going for a walk in the park or hanging out with friends? What prevents you from freely choosing what you want for dinner, or whether or not to rent a movie? What prevents you from freely choosing to wear blue or green pajama pants or to wear your hair a certain way?

It seems to me that you'd still be very free indeed. What about being able to crack someone else's head open makes you free in some kind of "better" way? Isn't that like asserting it's better to, say, arm a psychopath with a gun since now he's more free to be able to excercise his ability to cause suffering? In what way can anyone possibly argue that the physical ability to cause harm is such a good thing that it's bad to remove it?

[Meow Mix]

If someone responds that it's impossible for us to know then they're simply committing the fallacy of special pleading.

I am genuinely confused by the reasoning here. Please elaborate.

Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while not apply those standards to herself without providing justification for the exemption.

How does saying, We do not have sufficient information to know what amount of suffering God would prevent qualify as special pleading?

It's special pleading because if anyone else were to run around giving people smallpox, causing earthquakes, etc. we would consider them quite malevolent. "Your honor, I'm much smarter than you and have a special reason for committing these mass atrocities that you can never understand" would never fly in any reasonable court, either.

So, to assert that God has some mystical reason for causing and allowing suffering the theist must first offer evidence that this is the case rather than just saying it's "possible."

It's "possible" that Jeffrey Dahmer was the most benevolent human being ever to exist because of mystical reasons we'd never understand, too. But that's not an argument. It's a fallacy.

[Meow Mix]

The problem with god mode is that we arent really playing the game. Our actions have no consequences and our choices have no meaning.

In a video game this removes the challenge and (in my opinion) most of the fun of the game. In real life it removes moral responsibility.

If my actions have no consequences " if God is constantly reordering the nature of the universe so that I cannot commit and immoral act " then I am not a morally responsible agent. For me to show genuine love to another person I must at some point I must be able to show the opposite of love to a person. If my actions have no consequences then I cannot have more responsibility.

I've never argued that you couldn't show the opposite of love to a person. I've only argued that you couldn't inflict physical harm and couldn't be harmed by the environment either. You could still call someone a nasty name, tell them you dislike them, etc. You just couldn't cause physical suffering.

Also, why make the distinction between physical suffering and other suffering (such as emotional suffering)? I am reminded of a story from the Bible. Abraham was talking to God. God was going to destroy Sodom but Abraham said If you find 50 righteous people, will you relent? God said, Okay, its a big city, if there are fifty people who might yet be redeemed, I will relent. Then Abe said, What about 45 righteous people? And then What about 40? What about 35. And he kept on working God down.

It seems that we would be the same way with suffering. If God removed all physical suffering then we would say, Why is there so much emotional pain? Or Why can I not have everything that I want. If bones did not break then we would complain about bruises. For us it is paradise of nothing. Wondering about physical suffering as opposed to any other kind of suffering seems meaningless to me.

I disagree. If physical suffering is removed then suffering comes down to a matter of choice -- "sticks and stones may break my bones" and all that. If I were to say something mean to you, you would have to CHOOSE to be angered or upset by it. You don't have any choice in the matter if I were to use violence against you.

The fundamental thing I'm getting at here is that this world contains "innocent victims," which is unconscionable on God's part to allow. In the world I describe, all victims have only themselves to blame for allowing it to get to them. In this world, you can have done nothing wrong -- made no poor choices -- and still end up suffering because of someone else's bad choice -- or because God up and decided to create leukemia. That's fundamentally a poor sort of world to create, it seems to me.

[Meow Mix]

I have no idea if there are 'Gods' or even what a God would be, but assuming a hypothetical omnipotent, omniscient God, one would have to presume that 'He' created the 'best of all possible worlds', and that therefore suffering is necessary for such a 'best world'. After all, isn't pain and suffering our training ground for understanding and improvement? What would 'good' be without evil, what would up be without down? What really, is wrong with evil or with suffering? Just because something is painful or difficult or unfair or egregious, doesn't necessarily mean that it is bad or evil does it? Isn't evil just a notion we assign to things, isn't sin just something we are indoctrinated into?

If I were God, I might eliminate the fly...or rats...but they have their purpose in the scheme of things do they not?

I disagree that evil is necessary for good to exist. There seems to be no contradiction in asserting there could be good in a world that has never experienced evil where the inhabitants can make that distinction. For instance, poof, I just created an imaginary person who has never suffered. Poof, I just made an imaginary plate of delicious watermelon appear. The imaginary person is happy -- no contradiction here with him knowing happiness even without sadness. Poof, I made him a girlfriend and he's falling in love. He makes a word to describe the feeling: it's a "good" feeling. I still don't see any contradiction with this happening in the absence of evil and suffering.

So, I disagree that evil is necessary for good to exist. I think we only make that association because it's so prevalent in this world that we can't think of it any other way. We also tend to make these convenient analogies of good and evil being like light and darkness so we also assume good and evil are tied to one another -- I disagree with that.

I don't want to get into the definition of "evil" anyway. This is why I tend to stick to the word "suffering." I think most of us would agree that suffering is a negative thing and not-suffering is a positive thing in the most general terms possible. Just substitute "suffering" for every time I said "evil" above and that's pretty much what I meant anyway.