If God wants to destroy evil...

[Zarathustra]

God created everything that has been, is, and is going to be in existence. He created the Earth and the Heavens. He created the Lake of Fire in which he casts sinners. He created Good, and He created evil. Does not the old adage says "I have created you, and so can I destroy you"?

If God wanted to, couldn't He, in theory, destroy evil with no need for the battle of the apocalypse?

[spetey]

As a result of God existing, all possible (P) events in total for the world have existence (Et).

I assume you don't really mean this, since it doesn't make sense. For example, it was also possible for there not to be a tsunami. But it's not the case that both of these possibilities "have existence".

Luckily, we don't need muddled talk of "boundaries" and "possibilities existing" and such. The question is simple: could God have prevented the tsunami? If not, why think such a God has the power to create the universe but not stop a simple tsunami? If yes, then why didn't God stop the tsunami?


spetey

[harvey1]

As a result of God existing, all possible (P) events in total for the world have existence (Et).

I assume you don't really mean this, since it doesn't make sense. For example, it was also possible for there not to be a tsunami. But it's not the case that both of these possibilities "have existence".

Why not? Actually, there's a pretty famous philosopher named David Lewis who led the charge for the last quarter of a century on modal realism. His philosophy is usually not discussed much at the undergrad level.

Luckily, we don't need muddled talk of "boundaries" and "possibilities existing" and such. The question is simple: could God have prevented the tsunami? If not, why think such a God has the power to create the universe but not stop a simple tsunami? If yes, then why didn't God stop the tsunami?

God could have prevented the tsunami, however that wouldn't rule out a world such as ours where he didn't. Of course, a tsunami is preventable by having different laws of physics, but that's an entirely different kind of universe. Our universe is one that exists, hence the boundaries of our universe allow tsunamis even though God exists and brings about good in the world.

[spetey]

Hullo... normally I restrict myself to one post/day-thread, but I couldn't resist adding a bit, today.

Why not? Actually, there's a pretty famous philosopher named David Lewis who led the charge for the last quarter of a century on modal realism. His philosophy is usually not discussed much at the undergrad level.

I should have known you meant modal realism, since it's a distracting philosophical can of worms that is irrelevant to the issue at hand. You have a knack for those, Harvey!

Look, like many of your distractions, modal realism does not address the problem at hand--it just pushes it back a step. If modal realism is correct, not only does this world (with its fair share of evil) exist, but all possible worlds exist--including truly horrifying worlds where babies are tortured constantly and stuff like that. You say these possibilities are real thanks to God. If God made all pw's, why did God make such truly horrifying worlds, let alone our only moderately horrifying world? Why didn't God only make good worlds? Seems kind of mean of God to create worlds where babies are tortured all the time. (And not just any babies. Babies as sensitive to pain as physically possible!) If it was impossible for God to do other than make all pw's, then in what sense is their existence due to God?

Our universe is one that exists, hence the boundaries of our universe allow tsunamis even though God exists and brings about good in the world.

This is the part I'm asking about. Yes, we can conclude it's possible to have deadly tsunamis in this world ("the boundaries of our universe allow tsunamis"). We can conclude this because there are actually deadly tsunamis, and actuality is a proof of possibility. The key is: you say this happens "even though" God is good and powerful. But this is exactly the question. Why do you think God is good and powerful even though there is this evil?


spetey

[harvey1]

Why not? Actually, there's a pretty famous philosopher named David Lewis who led the charge for the last quarter of a century on modal realism. His philosophy is usually not discussed much at the undergrad level.

I should have known you meant modal realism, since it's a distracting philosophical can of worms that is irrelevant to the issue at hand. You have a knack for those, Harvey!

I think it is very relevant, but that's my view, of course.

Look, like many of your distractions, modal realism does not address the problem at hand--it just pushes it back a step. If modal realism is correct, not only does this world (with its fair share of evil) exist, but all possible worlds exist--including truly horrifying worlds where babies are tortured constantly and stuff like that.

Not necessarily. If we use Lewis' modal realism views, then the answer is yes. But, I am not that kind of modal realist. My modal realism is based on the premise to be a possibility--a real possible world--the possibility must also be instantiated by God in order to be actualized. Many possible worlds are non-instantiated possibilities while other worlds are instantiated possibilities (i.e., becoming actualized). Take for example pure mathematical structures. I am not suggesting that there is a world of every conceivable geometric structure that exists "out there." Rather, there are mathematical theorems that exist "out there" (i.e., non-instantiated possibilities), and those mathematical theorems dictate what can be "true." They might be true, but they have no phenomenal representation.

My view is that God instantiates only those universes where they are possible worlds that conform to the will of God. That is, the end result is such that God's will can be accomplished.

You say these possibilities are real thanks to God. If God made all pw's, why did God make such truly horrifying worlds, let alone our only moderately horrifying world? Why didn't God only make good worlds?

Perhaps the good worlds do not accomplish God's will, and without God accomplishing that will there is an unsolvable and paradoxial problem. For example, let's say that I am correct and that many--if not most---propositions of truth don't need phenomenal instantiation. In that case, God could just allow no world to be instantiated: unless the "no instantiation" policy prevents structures to exist that must exist. Perhaps saved souls are such kind of must structures. In that case, God might allow pain and suffering to exist in the world to avoid the paradox of "must-have structures that aren't instantiated." If God is avoiding paradox, then God has not only the right, but the duty to perform the will that is best for the Universe as a whole. God must minimize the pain and suffering, and that might give God certain flexibilities such as not instantiating a universe where worlds of pure hell exist.

Seems kind of mean of God to create worlds where babies are tortured all the time. (And not just any babies. Babies as sensitive to pain as physically possible!) If it was impossible for God to do other than make all pw's, then in what sense is their existence due to God?

For all we know, we might be on the worst end of the spectrum when it comes to universes of pain and suffering that God has instantiated. Although, if we use the Copernican principle then we are neither in heaven nor in hell, but somewhere between heaven and hell, then those who find themselves in a universe of hell would not be so fortunate, I suppose. I can only hope that if such universes existed, at minimum it would only happen to the people who have it coming for their evil ways (although I can't wish that on anyone, okay, except for the terrorists of 9/11, I might not feel so bad if they tasted the taste of such a universe)...

Our universe is one that exists, hence the boundaries of our universe allow tsunamis even though God exists and brings about good in the world.

This is the part I'm asking about. Yes, we can conclude it's possible to have deadly tsunamis in this world ("the boundaries of our universe allow tsunamis"). We can conclude this because there are actually deadly tsunamis, and actuality is a proof of possibility. The key is: you say this happens "even though" God is good and powerful. But this is exactly the question. Why do you think God is good and powerful even though there is this evil?

I think the laws of physics are good and powerful too, but that only means that they control all things that are contingent. They can't control those things that are necessitated. I think necessary things are only necessary because God exists, but I do not think that God can make something necessary (i.e., it draws its existence from God in a necessary and unavoidable fashion) into a contingent thing. I believe that God has a choice of which universes to instantiate to bring about the divine will, but God must instantiate a number of universes. If God does not instantiate universes, then key structures that help to escape paradox do not come about, and those paradoxes eventually defy some heavenly logic. If this "heavenly logic" is found too contradictory to salvage a Universe, then the paradox results in ruin.

Ultimately, I think logical paradox is the cause of evil. It is constantly exemplifying itself even in our world in terms of concepts that we can understand even in everyday life (e.g., survival). Even God is working hard to keep the whole thing afloat. And, you got people like yourself who just aren't happy and complaining all the way. Little do you know how much behind the scenes God is working to save us from the consequences of this horrendous evil.

[spetey]

Okay, your view is that God makes some possible worlds real and not others. (You don't mean actualize in this case, since in this context 'actual' is an indexical for the pw you inhabit. Only this pw is actual for us; you think other possibilities are real but not actual.)

Then the problem of evil is: why did God make a world like ours, where there is lots of evil? You claim maybe God needed to make rotten worlds in order to resolve paradoxes. Like what? Why, for example, does God need to drown children in order to save souls? If you are just trusting that all that innocent suffering is part of God's great plan to make things good for us, this is a big step of trust, and amounts simply to an appeal to faith. I'm asking for reasons to believe God is good and powerful despite such crappy things happening to innocent people from natural disasters. I know you believe there is a good and powerful God despite drowning children. Why should I believe that--what reason can you give me? Just saying "trust God" doesn't work when I take the existence of evil to cast doubt on the existence of such a God in the first place.


spetey

[Bro Dave]

Things seem to have gone off-topic. I'm still curious: why would God allow (for example) something like the tsunami to kill hundreds of thousands, including thousands of innocent children? Of course it's cheating to say "God has God's reasons; we must have faith that it was for the best to torture and kill those children." This is simply an appeal to faith, and (as I argue here) that is not acceptable.


spetey

I pretty much agree wth harvey1. Once God set the unverse into motion, many random, and so not random events occure. Since God is a full participant in ALL that happens, i.e. he experiences everything that happens within his universe, his part in all this is one of comforting those who were affected by it.
The affects, and the timeframe are relative; In eternity, this few uncomfortable moments we share with Father will be as nothing...

Bro Dave

[harvey1]

Okay, your view is that God makes some possible worlds real and not others. (You don't mean actualize in this case, since in this context 'actual' is an indexical for the pw you inhabit. Only this pw is actual for us; you think other possibilities are real but not actual.)

Okay...

Then the problem of evil is: why did God make a world like ours, where there is lots of evil? You claim maybe God needed to make rotten worlds in order to resolve paradoxes. Like what?

In my view, the paradoxes that God must resolve are problems of existence. Philosophers and logicians struggle with a number of paradoxes, and it only makes sense that such struggles occur because they are real. When in doubt, my view is always to look at nature, since nature--in my view--is an exemplification of reality. Enter natural selection. It hints to us that nature is a struggle for existence where lifeforms must adapt or they die as new competition comes in. Another related example is the struggle that researchers have in fighting the advance of bacteria, etc. In my speculated account, God is fighting the "bacteria" of the Universe. These are the paradoxes that are constantly creeping in for every structure that exists. Another example is mathematics. Mathematicians have encountered more unsolvable problems, some pretty serious that will occupy the minds of humans (and computers?) for quite some time. All in all, it seems like a principle of existence--namely, struggle for survival. Which makes me think that this itself conforms to a more important principle: the struggle of meaning. Meaning is an emergent phenomena that perhaps struggle somehow brings about. Good or bad, it seems that this is part and parcel of our existence, it's how we define existence to some degree (which is somewhat intuitive on the part of the people who wrote the movie The Matrix).

for example, does God need to drown children in order to save souls? If you are just trusting that all that innocent suffering is part of God's great plan to make things good for us, this is a big step of trust, and amounts simply to an appeal to faith. I'm asking for reasons to believe God is good and powerful despite such crappy things happening to innocent people from natural disasters. I know you believe there is a good and powerful God despite drowning children. Why should I believe that--what reason can you give me? Just saying "trust God" doesn't work when I take the existence of evil to cast doubt on the existence of such a God in the first place.

Simplicity, Spetey. Simplicity. That's why you should believe. The most fundamentally simple view of the world is that "nothing" should be the case. However, "nothing" is not nothing if there is some kind of logic that exists. If logic exists, then I think it is sensible to think that paradoxes exemplify themselves as evil in the world. Afterall, what could be more paradoxial than a good God creating a universe with evil? It requires resolution, it requires a constant impetus to change and evolve as the world struggles with the hard questions of "why?" Of course, I don't expect you to buy into that reasoning, but God is required in any view of self-existing logico-mathematical structure, and logico-mathematical structure is the simplest account for the world (i.e., especially in light of quantum theory which destroys any kind of permanence to the concept of matter). Once materialism bit the dust with the advent of quantum theory (with chaos theory giving it another kick), there just isn't room anymore for atheism.

Now, the question is what kind of God is there. Not whether there is a God.

[spetey]

Hullo Bro Dave...

I pretty much agree wth harvey1. Once God set the unverse into motion, many random, and so not random events occure. Since God is a full participant in ALL that happens, i.e. he experiences everything that happens within his universe, his part in all this is one of comforting those who were affected by it.
The affects, and the timeframe are relative; In eternity, this few uncomfortable moments we share with Father will be as nothing...

Still, why does God torture children before comforting them? Why not just comfort them? Even if it's a small time relative to eternity, it seems totally unnecessary. Why does God do it? Are you, for example, happy to be tortured pointlessly and continually by God for the next twenty years before you die, since after all those years are nothing compared to eternity?


spetey

[harvey1]

I pretty much agree wth harvey1. Once God set the unverse into motion, many random, and so not random events occure. Since God is a full participant in ALL that happens, i.e. he experiences everything that happens within his universe, his part in all this is one of comforting those who were affected by it. The affects, and the timeframe are relative; In eternity, this few uncomfortable moments we share with Father will be as nothing...

Yes, I agree with you too Bro Dave. The world is one in which God is engaged and bringing about the Divine Will into the world. It is a transformation of the mind.

Still, why does God torture children before comforting them? Why not just comfort them? Even if it's a small time relative to eternity, it seems totally unnecessary. Why does God do it? Are you, for example, happy to be tortured pointlessly and continually by God for the next twenty years before you die, since after all those years are nothing compared to eternity?

God doesn't torture children, Spetey, the world that exists is what tortures children. God communicates to this world through the use of his word, and that word is the laws of existence. It inspires people to write about God, and over time those writings become scripturally inspired (assuming the right conditions are present, e.g., captivity, persecution, struggle for meaning, etc.). Unfortunately the laws of our universe allow for evil to exist. It is not God's fault that this is so, anymore than it is God's fault that there is a Liar's paradox that remains unsolved within logic.

Instead of arguing about God's existence, why don't you use that good intellect of yours to try and argue for God's existence? It's really too bad that you didn't put half the effort of your converted life that you put into your non-converted life.

[Bro Dave]

Hullo Bro Dave...
Still, why does God torture children before comforting them? Why not just comfort them? Even if it's a small time relative to eternity, it seems totally unnecessary. Why does God do it?

Technically God has the primary role of loving sustainer. He now participates as co-expierencer/comforter. The part we have difficulty with, is that ease and comfort do NOT produce growth, and growth is the reason for it all to begin with.
Are you, for example, happy to be tortured pointlessly and continually by God for the next twenty years before you die, since after all those years are nothing compared to eternity?

spetey

Loaded question. First, no one is EVER "tortured by God". This reality is chock full of opportunities to grow and to learn, and because we are so new to this process, we partake of a lot of pain that could be avoided. The secret, is to know that you have God as your partner in all that happens. And, if you pay attention, children, with their "chid-like-faith", seem to suffer less than the adults. We suffer much watching our kids suffering. Likewise, God, our Father, also hurts along with parents and kids. Of course his perspective allows Him to see the entire picture, and make sense of it all.
So, will I look back and regret? Yes! I'm sure of it. But what I will regret, is all the opportunities for growth I passed up, and all the opportunites I missed in helping God's kid understand the gifts of this life!

Bro Dave