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?

[bjs]

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?

[sleepyhead]

The Problem of Evil only applies to those who believe its premises; it doesn't apply whatsoever to those who have different premises. In order for PoE to apply, it must be agreed that God exists, that God has sovereignty over the laws of the universe, that God is omnipotent (can actualize any logically possible state of affairs), that God is omniscient (absolutely knows all logically possible states of affairs), and that God is omnibenevolent (is never malevolent). If all of these are believed the contradiction arises with the existence of suffering. If even one of these is not believed or believed to be slightly different, the PoE does not apply at all to that person.

Hello meow mix,

Thank you for your acknowledgement that the problem of evil is only valid for the basic Christian understanding of God.

[bjs]

Allow me to propose here how an omnipotent/omniscient being could actualize a world which contains beings with free will without suffering.

An omnipotent being -- where omnipotence is defined as the capacity to actualize any logically possible state of affairs -- can do exactly that. If it's logically possible, then God can actualize it.

An omniscient being absolutely knows all possible states of affairs (and their ramifications) to actualize.

We mere humans are already capable of simulating a world without suffering: this already happens on a daily basis in principle in the living rooms of many people when they turn on "god mode" in video games. Anything which can be simulated must by definition be logically possible, and therefore an omnipotent being could actualize it.

For instance, consider if I had a baseball bat and I wanted to swat the living daylights out of my neighbor. Suppose that when I took the swing that instead of imparting harmful force on their face, reality had an "if-then" conditional programmed into it that read something like "if baseball bat hits sentient being, then set force to zero. else impart impulse of force." There's nothing about that which violates logic -- it's capable of being simulated, for instance, which means it's within an omnipotent being's capacity to actualize.

"But that removes your free will to be able to hit someone with a bat if you want!" some might object. But that's already the case with the current world: as much as I might desire to walk on the ceiling the simple physics of this world prevents me from doing so un-aided. Does that infringe my free will? Of course not!

I submit that it's possible for an omnipotent being to actualize a world in which we have free will but in which physical suffering of any sort is as incapable of existing as it is impossible for us to walk on the ceiling unaided. So why does the capacity for physical suffering exist?

The problem with “god mode� is that we aren’t 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.


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, it’s 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.

[dianaiad]

.

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

"What if . . . " isn't much of an "argument" -- it is purely speculative and hypothetical.

Can you show evidence that "the purpose is to train up . . . " (and make it a valid question for debate)?

ZZYZX, you believe that ALL theistic belief systems are speculative and hypothetical--and fiction. The 'problem of evil,' as Meow Mix has pointed out, requires a specific description of Deity...and is an attempt to point out a perceived logical disconnect within the proposed belief system.

One which, again, you think is speculative and hypothetical...and not real.

There is nothing different, then, about my proposition that should make it any different from the one you like arguing with, is there?

So.

What if God's purpose is to train up future creators of universes?

[Filthy Tugboat]

Actually, this is not my question, I have no problem with the cause and effect system

So my actual question is, why are the consequences what they are?

You might as well ask why does water, when the temperature drops below zero, freeze?

Yes. That is in effect the same question except water freezing has no implications for a proposed "designer's" benevolence.

The difference between cause and effect and cause and consequence is two additional syllables not much else.

I may have phrased myself poorly, Cause and effect being generally known as every action has a reaction(whether equal and opposite I don't really care). I want to better understand the motives behind Cause and Specific Consequence, why are the consequences what they are?

Why THOSE laws? Why not no laws to govern cause and consequence?

Without law whether physical or moral there is chaos, and as I explained in my previous post (see above) intelligent beings cannot be happy in such an environment, neither indeed can any society successfully function. God put in place one moral law, one single law under which the order of human society could successfully operate, that of their need to recognise His sovereignty.

I don't like that you added in the second question, that was not what I was inferring and your response to it here is pointless.

Why? Because, like water, we were made in a certain way and operating outside of that field would bring us harm.

Why? Why was this system and us created so that this would be the result? How is this benevolent? It almost seems like God created us chained to him and if we escaped he would kill us. This is abhorrent. How could anyone consider this benevolent?

Why were we not made capable of breaking that law WITHOUT consequence? Because such a thing would create pure evil and that could not be part of the plan of a benevolent God.

The concept of evil was created by God with everything else, he chose to define it as 'rejecting God' but this sounds nothing more than egotism and obsession with being worshiped. I don't see how forcing people to love and worship you and then threatening them with pain, suffering and death if they reject you can be considered loving.

Imagine, if you dare, a world were not only could Hitler decide to cook up Mrs Geenbalm but were there were no moral or supreme law by which this could be judged as inacceptable? Where a man could rape a baby and God would say, that particular action is simply that, one of any number of actions, no divine law has been violated, no divine retribution should be expected. Would you chose to live in such a world? The principle that humans must use their god given powers within a scope, that each action has a consequence in line with divine law and that this balance will be respected, gives us as humans the sense of justice we crave. Why create us with such a craving for balance? A tour of Auswitch is all we need to reject the notion of a morally chaotic lawless universe.

Again, I don't know why you decided that I was wondering what it would be like with 'no consequences'. I never suggested that.

I have a problem with is the proposition that a benevolent God set up a system where he determined the consequences for certain actions and those consequences were suffering and misery.

That indeed is the sad price to pay for the original rebellion. As I said, it would be impossible for humans to be happy without law and impossible for them to be happy breaking divine law. Thus the only reasonable choice SHOULD have been to respect the law, especially as breaking it would humans from the source of health and spiritual balance.

That didn't answer the question, you've set up a false dichotomy by proposing this law or no law.

The principle is repeated today over and over. Man needs the trees, man needs clean water. Natural law is there? Why? because its how the planet was designed. Why? because is the best way for us to enjoy life, love and beauty a marvelously efficient ecosystem. What SHOULD we do? Respect the planet. What happens when we don't? What happens when we chuck poisons in the oceans and start cuting down all the tree? We start to die and threaten our very existence. Who are you going to blame? The trees?

Of course not but this is nothing like the God situation.

We were made in a perfect balance with our creator, physically and spiritually without disease. What did we need to do? Respect the source of that health. What did we (as in our first parents) do? They cut of their noses to spite their faces and then complained they couldn't smell. Who caused the suffering? Who caused the disease? Who caused the death?

God certainly did. He created that consequence. He created the system that Adam and Eve eventually broke away from. He is entirely responsible for all of the pain and suffering everywhere, those things didn't exist until God came along and decided to create them.

What made God decide that pain and suffering should be the result of rejecting God?

This is like asking Newton "why should pain and suffering be the result of jumping off a high building?"

No, it's nothing like that.

In a universe created according to certain laws (which are good and reasonable laws in line with the original design) that ensure our happiness, breaking them will automatically result in pain and suffering.

You've skipped the question I'm asking and just said "which are good and reasonable laws, in line with the original design". This is what I want to discuss, the creation of these laws, I don't care about all the other things you've written in this reply.

Also, "Because that is the only way intelligent beings can exist happily." Due to your terribly unfortunate condition of 'not being omniscient', how do you know this? Why do you think this is true?

My ability to reason logically. (see previous posts)

I doubt the conclusion you've reached, can you support it with the reasoning you used to reach it?

CONCLUSION So the answer to why are there moral and spiritual laws that result in pain when broken is comparable to why are their physical laws. Because the universe was designed that way. Any injustice is not from the existence of the laws but from the initiative to break them.

But why was it designed that way? Why is pain and suffering a part of the design? How can this be the result of benevolence?

[sleepyhead]

Hello meow mix,

This is just a reprint of my past response to a similar question taken from this thread:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... c&start=30

My understanding of the question is that your asking for a scenario under which the above could happen and God still have the highest morals conceivable. Here is my scenario:

We are living, thinking entities prior to our beginning our earthly experience. This present life is just one of many. When the baby leaves the womb we enter into the baby and begin a new experience on earth. As entities we make different choices on what experiences we want or need. In the present some people are happy to exercise by taking walks and others aren't happy unless there running a marathon or climbing mt. Everest. Some entities choose to come to an environment which will be most likely short. For God to interfere with our choices would be immoral.

[Flail]

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?

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?

[ST_JB]

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?

Regardless of the nature of the existence of evil (physical, moral, metaphysical), the Problem of Evil should be treated in relation to Divine Providence - that all events in the universe is govern by God - that in the end the purpose of the created world may be realized. Providence operates based on the consideration of the whole Universe and not as an isolated creation of man.

As St. Thomas put it that natural operations tend to what is better for the whole, but not necessarily what is better for each part (individual) except in relation to the whole (mankind/universe).

Suffering is considered evil because it is contrary to the good of the individual and to the original purpose of God. But individual suffering may be contingent to the order or betterment of all creation as a whole (Universe) not only to each part (the one who suffered).

[Zzyzx]

.

Regardless of the nature of the existence of evil (physical, moral, metaphysical), the Problem of Evil should be treated in relation to Divine Providence - that all events in the universe is govern by God - that in the end the purpose of the created world may be realized. Providence operates based on the consideration of the whole Universe and not as an isolated creation of man.

WHY should a Non-Christian accept this suggestion?

What evidence can you present to show that "divine providence" exists -- or that it is an explanation for anything?

It appears as though one must accept the dogma of Christianity to accept this position. Not all who debate here are Christians.

[JehovahsWitness]

.... I have no problem with the cause and effect system

By accepting a cause and effect system you are accepting the LAWS that govern that system. I presume you {quote} have no problem with it {unquote} because you see its value. Ask yourself "why do I agree with the LAWS that govern a system of cause and effect? If you see its physical value are you suggesting that the same principals should not be applied to moral law?

Evidently not, since when I sited the example of the horrors of the concentration camps - implying it is based on the unspoken MORAL law that some things are WRONG and should not be done, your reply was you were NOT arguing here should be no moral consequences.

I may have phrased myself poorly, ... I want to better understand the motives behind Cause and Specific Consequence, why are the consequences what they are?

Why THOSE laws? Why not no laws to govern cause and consequence?

Without law whether physical or moral there is chaos, and as I explained in my previous post (see above) intelligent beings cannot be happy in such an environment, neither indeed can any society successfully function. God put in place one moral law, one single law under which the order of human society could successfully operate, that of their need to recognise His sovereignty.

I don't like that you added in the second question, that was not what I was inferring and your response to it here is pointless.

The question seems pointless because you cannot fully grasp that that is essentually what you are asking. If you want to know "why are the consequences what they are" you are effectively asking "why are the laws what they are".

• To illustrate: If a man steals a car and the consequence of his stealing is, he has to pay he owner the price of the car (or spend the rest of his life on the run) those "consequences" are there BECAUSE of the law. If he asks why does my stealing a car have the consequence of pay or run, the answer is one and the same as if he asks 'what is the law' that governs this action.

I short the LAW is simply that which imposes the consequence. The answer to *both* questions has therefore been answered I see no need to repeat myself.

CONSEQUENCES

... why are the consequences what they are?

Why was this system and us created so that this would be the result?

Since you accept there must be consequences and you have "no problem" with the principle of cause and effect (cause and consequence) your insisting on why THOSE consequences simply reflects a somewhat tenuous grasp of what reality is.

When something exists the corresponding absence of its existence comes into being. Your question is like asking "I accept the concept of up but why is down a consequence of not being up?" Down IS not up. As long as "up" exists the consequence of not being there will be *down*. In short the result (consequence/effect) will always correspond to what exists. The absence of good is evil. The consequence of breaking our connection to what keeps us alive has to correspondingly be... death.

Why? Because, like water, we were made in a certain way and operating outside of that field would bring us harm.

Why? Why was this system and us created so that this would be the result? How is this benevolent? It almost seems like God created us chained to him and if we escaped he would kill us. This is abhorrent. How could anyone consider this benevolent?

In this, whether the nature of our existence stemmed from benevolence is in this largely a matter of attitude. Yes we were created dependent on our Creator just as a baby is born totally dependent on its parents. If those parents left it out in the garden for a week it would die. Is parenthood a benevolent or an malevolent system? Whether you view being tied to something a threatening burden "a chain" or a "loving provision" also depends on attitude. A man "chained" to his parachute that jumps out of a plane, will be happy for the connection. If he rescents the parachute he is free to remove it, and scream how unfair it is he was not created a bird - that is while he plummets to his death. Those recuperating the scattered parts of his remains may well blame the system that didn't give him the choice of whether he wanted to be born a bird or not, but I doubt if they'll have time since they'll be busy thinking about what an absolute and complete idiot he was.

WHO GETS TO DECIDE?

I have a problem with is the proposition that a benevolent God set up a system where HE determined the consequences for certain actions ....

(CAPs mine)

Who would you suggest determines the concequesnces for certain actions? Obama? God is our creator and lifegiver, he is naturally in the best position to say the conditions of our design and what will happen if those limitations are not respected. To illustrate: Would you bewail a "system" where the designer of a car, explained that the car will not run on anything but Petrol. Would the designer be "punishing" us with breakdown if we don't respect these limitations.

Anyone that wants to create a life that is totally independent of outside sustainance they are free to do so, but until they do they have to respect the confines and limitations of the life they have.

But why was it designed that way? Why is pain and suffering a part of the design? How can this be the result of benevolence?

Pain and suffering is NOT part of the original design - no more than breakdown would be part of the original design of a well made car. Pain and suffering, like breakdown, are part of not respecting the limitations of the design.

#IF GOD IS PERFECT WHY DID HIS CREATION SIN?

This question is based on the premise that being created with the ABILITY to choose 'bad' is automatically sysnonymus with imperfection. This is like saying a perfectly designed car cannot run someone over. If something does what it is designed to do, then, biblically speaking, it is "perfect".

God designed his intelligent creatures with the ability to examine both good and bad options because, at any given moment in time both possibilities exist (unless god blocks the possibility of the negative, which would encroach on his subject's freedom). If we think of perfection as having no internal flaws that force or oblige us to perform at less than optimum level (NOT an inability to see or mentally grasp the fact that a bad option exists) then we can understand that a perfect creator could set in motion events that could lead to bad without having bad either IN his creation or himself.

Deuteronomy 32 verse 4 says of God "The Rock, perfect is his activity/for all his ways are justice." meaning everything God starts or creates is perfect - meets the divine standard of flawlessness and completion. It does not mean that nothing he creates can go bad

• To illustrate: Suppose someone built a "perfect" car, no faults or flaws. What would happen if the owner chose, instead of putting gas (petrol) in the tank put pepsi or dirty water. Would the car work properly? Could the owner complain to the maker that the car hadn't been made well?The car was perfect but even a perfect car will breakdown if it is not used to the maker's instructions (biblically speaking perfection does not mean indestructable or incorruptable). In a similar way, humans chose to mismanage or misuse their capacities. The Creator (maker) is not to blame for this.