The Problem of Evil does not justify disbelief in God's existence.

Chat viewable by general public

Moderator: Moderators

Mattman
Student
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2022 2:07 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 3 times

The Problem of Evil does not justify disbelief in God's existence.

Post #1

Post by Mattman »

Hello!

I love discussing/debating arguments related to God's existence and Christianity, and I have a voice chat group I'm putting together to do that. Send me a PM if you're interested.

Below is a brief summarized version of an argument. I'd love to hear your thoughts!
____
CLAIM: The Problem of Evil does not justify disbelief in God's existence.

DEFINITIONS: I'll refer to the proponent of this argument as the "non-Theist" and the defender as the "Theist."

PRESUPPOSITIONS:
The problem of evil is an *internal* challenge to God's existence. As such, it assumes the worldview it challenges and attempts to point out some internal contradiction in the tenets of the worldview. In particular, the problem of evil makes the case that the concept of God as omnibenevolent and omnipotent is incompatible with the existence of evil.

BRIEF:
We all have some awareness of horrendous evils.

Child human trafficking is a prime example. If God were all-good, he seems to want to prevent such evils, and God could stop such evils if he were all-powerful. Since such evils do exist, it follows that an all-good and omnipotent God does not exist.

The properties of goodness and power are essential to God. So if there is no being that is all-good and omnipotent, there is no God.

We don't have to run this argument in absolutist terms. It needn't be the case that God's existence and the existence of horrendous evil is *literally* impossible. It need only be the case that the two are unlikely to coexist for the argument to provide some reason to reject God's existence.
-----
RESPONSE: The problem of evil argument assumes more than is justified.

For horrendous evil to be a challenge to God's existence, it must be the case that God lacks morally sufficient reasons to permit them. If God has morally sufficient reasons to allow evil, evil is no challenge to his goodness, and neither is evil a challenge to God's power since he could prevent it.

Remember that the burden for this argument is on the non-Theist. He is the one contending that such evils and God cannot coexist. Therefore, it is his burden to show that God lacks morally sufficient reasons. He cannot simply appeal to our ignorance of such reasons; he needs to give us some positive reason to think that God lacks these reasons.

The non-Theist typically supports his argument by appealing to moral intuition (which he may call a "common sense" appeal). The non-Theist will say that we should consider horrendous evils and realize that no one could be justified in permitting them. If no one could be justified to allow the evil, that includes God.

This move, however, is a misstep on the part of the non-Theist.

The non-Theist asks his faculties to provide more information than they can. Notice that all of our faculties are ego-centric. You only see what you see; you don't see what others see. You only remember your past; you don't remember anyone else's past. If you survey any of your faculties, you will find the same. All your faculties only deliver information from your own subjective experience. The information may be objective (objects are there when you see them), but the information is ego-centric (from your perspective).

I've pointed out that the non-Theist supports his claim that God lacks morally sufficient reasons by appealing to moral intuition. I've pointed out that our faculties (including moral intuition) deliver only ego-centric information. The next thing to consider is whether the state of God's moral justification is within the ego-centric information available to the non-Theist.

It seems very clear that it is not. The non-Theist's moral intuition can tell him only his justification (that the *non-Theist* would be unjustified in permitting evil). Perhaps the non-Theist could go further and say he could *never* be justified in allowing evil. At best, this intuition can tell the non-Theist that if *the non-Theist* were God, then *he* would be unjustified in permitting horrendous evils (all other things being equal). None of this gives us any reason to think that *God* is unjustified in allowing evil. Since the state of God's moral justification is not within the ego-centric information available to the non-Theist, he cannot say God lacks moral justification. Moral intuition cannot support the problem of evil; the non-Theist must provide alternative reasons.

REBUTTAL: We infer the state of other people's moral justifications all the time in criminal law.

We certainly do, but such inferences are from ego-centric information. We reflect on the state of *our* justification if we were in the accused's circumstances. We picture ourselves in their circumstances and ask, "Would it be reasonable to act as they did?" Such a maneuver requires that we are similar to the accused in relevant ways and sufficiently understand their circumstances.

There are plenty of cases where we don't make these inferences. For example, we do not infer moral justifications in the animal kingdom. Lions brutally kill and eat gazelle all the time, and we make no inferences about the morality of the lions. We recognize that we are different from lions and cannot expect lions to behave like us. This principle also works in reverse. If a murderer tried to justify his crimes by an appeal to lions, we'd rightly respond, "But you're not a lion!"

On the point that we sufficiently understand the accused's circumstances, such information seems crucial to our moral reasoning. Consider the question, "Is it OK to lie?" Well, it depends. If someone is in Nazi Germany and lies to the Gestapo to protect Jews, then we'd probably recognize the lie as morally permissible. If someone is lying to the police to help a friend get away with murder, we'd probably recognize it as impermissible. On reflection, it should be evident that one's circumstances impact one's justification.

We've seen two requirements to make inferences about someone's justification: we must be similar to the accused and understand their circumstances. Are we similar enough to God to infer his moral justifications from our own? Are we familiar enough with God's circumstances? At first blush, it certainly seems like a "no" on both accounts.

Remember that the non-Theist has the burden of proof since they put forward the argument.

The non-Theist needs to show that we *probably are* similar enough to God and know enough of his circumstances to make these judgments. Without this, we are left unable to make inferences about God's moral justifications and therefore cannot say that God is unjustified in permitting evil.

Mattman
Student
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2022 2:07 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: The Problem of Evil does not justify disbelief in God's existence.

Post #21

Post by Mattman »

alexxcJRO wrote: Tue Feb 08, 2022 2:01 am
P1. G exists.
P2. An omniscient being knows of a way to stop B.
P3. An omnipotent being who knows a way to stop B has the power to do so.
P4. A being who knows of a way to stop B, has the power to do so, and who wants to do so, would do it.
P5. If there exists G then B would not exist.
P6. Because G exists then B does not exist.
P7. B exists.(Logical contradiction)
C: Therefore G does not exist.
I'll point out that your syllogism fails because you haven't established that God wants to stop B. I don't think he would. If it wouldn't be the case that you would trust in God, I don't see why he would be particularly interested in the state of your beliefs.

Even so, God may have morally sufficient reasons for allowing you to disbelief. You would need to show that he doesn't. In other words, P4 doesn't follow because God may want to stop B but wants something else more (such as your ability to have free will, the impact you have in the world as you are now, etc).

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: The Problem of Evil does not justify disbelief in God's existence.

Post #22

Post by Bust Nak »

I am going to assume I am speaking to a Christian...
Mattman wrote: Tue Feb 08, 2022 11:53 am There are some goods that God can only bring about if evil exists, and to say otherwise is to imply a contradiction. Consider that the entire human population has been born to parents who had sinful natures (they have a tendency to do wrong things). Since our origin is essential to us...
Is it essential? Not according to the Bible, it says sin didn't exist until the fall. It wasn't considered essential enough to build that into Adam and Eve.
God cannot bring about our existence without bringing about a state of affairs where our sinful parents exist and conceive us.
He can't? He managed just fine when he created Adam and Eve. What's changed?
If you want to say that God can create us through other means we wind up with contradictions resulting (stemming from violations of the law of necessity of identity and the transitive relations).
Okay, God can create an alternative, sinless version of us then. My argument does not rely on the existence of you or I or anyone else who came into existence in part due to evil.
This answer is simply another version of your objection above. You're making an unjustified assertion that God can get to a state of affairs without following the path that leads there.
I am making that assertion, yes. It is justified by the premise of God's omnipotence. If a state of affair is logically possible, then God can zap it into actuality with a mere word without going through intermediate steps.
What people are meant to exist in this state of affairs? It couldn't be you or I (or anyone else in our world) since none of us could exist if evil did not exist.
You tell me, I don't particularly care about the specifics of your religion, according to you who does God want in this state of affairs?

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
Location: Cluj, Romania
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 215 times
Contact:

Re: The Problem of Evil does not justify disbelief in God's existence.

Post #23

Post by alexxcJRO »

Mattman wrote: Tue Feb 08, 2022 11:58 am
alexxcJRO wrote: Tue Feb 08, 2022 2:01 am
P1. G exists.
P2. An omniscient being knows of a way to stop B.
P3. An omnipotent being who knows a way to stop B has the power to do so.
P4. A being who knows of a way to stop B, has the power to do so, and who wants to do so, would do it.
P5. If there exists G then B would not exist.
P6. Because G exists then B does not exist.
P7. B exists.(Logical contradiction)
C: Therefore G does not exist.
I'll point out that your syllogism fails because you haven't established that God wants to stop B. I don't think he would. If it wouldn't be the case that you would trust in God, I don't see why he would be particularly interested in the state of your beliefs.

Even so, God may have morally sufficient reasons for allowing you to disbelief. You would need to show that he doesn't. In other words, P4 doesn't follow because God may want to stop B but wants something else more (such as your ability to have free will, the impact you have in the world as you are now, etc).
I got my definition from the bible.
G = God: on omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being-perfectly good being who wants me to believe in him and a personal relationship with me based on trust, love.
Yahweh-Jesus wants our belief and our love according to the bible, wants to have a relationship with humans based on love.

Q: What about the other arguments?
You haven't said nothing.
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

cms

Re: The Problem of Evil does not justify disbelief in God's existence.

Post #24

Post by cms »

Poi, In all of your examples 1-4 there is still a god ( a superior, authority, ruler, a source of morality), whether you decide for yourself what is morally right and wrong, whether it's a collective decision, or whether it comes from a non-human source.

Mattman
Student
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2022 2:07 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: The Problem of Evil does not justify disbelief in God's existence.

Post #25

Post by Mattman »

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #22]

Our origin is essential to us. If Adam and Eve had never sinned, then you and I would never have existed. Perhaps another population would have existed, and perhaps they would have also sinned but in different ways. The point is that our origin would have never come about. If God had brought about a different world then that different world would be populated by different people (not us).

God might have brought about the existence of a different population, but he couldn't bring about our existence without the steps that lead to our existence.

Mattman
Student
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2022 2:07 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: The Problem of Evil does not justify disbelief in God's existence.

Post #26

Post by Mattman »

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #23]

The Bible does teach that God wants you to put your faith in him. It also teaches that absent your faith in him, your mental assent to his existence is irrelevant.

You had a very long post and I have a lot of people replying to me. I picked your first argument and responded to that.

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
Location: Cluj, Romania
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 215 times
Contact:

Re: The Problem of Evil does not justify disbelief in God's existence.

Post #27

Post by alexxcJRO »

Mattman wrote: Tue Feb 08, 2022 4:13 pm [Replying to alexxcJRO in post #23]

The Bible does teach that God wants you to put your faith in him. It also teaches that absent your faith in him, your mental assent to his existence is irrelevant.

You had a very long post and I have a lot of people replying to me. I picked your first argument and responded to that.
Q: Sir if Yahweh-Jesus wants me to believe-have faith and have relationship with me then whence cometh my genuine disbelief in him?
Either he does not want me to believe and have a relationship with me and does not intervene at all, hence indifference(deist god) therefore Yahweh-Jesus is non-existent or he wants me to believe and have a relationship with me and intervenes but its not omnipotent, omniscient but weak therefore Yahweh-Jesus is non-existent.

You also said:
“In other words, P4 doesn't follow because God may want to stop B but wants something else more (such as your ability to have free will, the impact you have in the world as you are now, etc).”

Free will argument problems:

1. Problem of past interventions
Your objection that Yahweh-Jesus does not intervene to preserve our free will does not work for Yahweh-Jesus has intervene in the past(hardened Pharaoh’s heart, appeared to multiple people)

2. Problem of imperfect free will
We don’t have perfect free will. There are many things we cannot do.
Q: Why some things are allowed and some not? Based on what?
If some things are not allowed why not restrict evil too. We can still have free will but its even more imperfect, limited.
If for example I cannot go and kill infants-children, rape infants-children I can still go and choose all kinds of things to do that do not involve evil.
I could still play football for example with my brothers, could still go and hang with them on holidays, could still travel through out nature and the cosmos revel in the beauty and complexity of it all. I could still do trillions of things.
So the choosing where free will stops seem arbitrary and capricious, illogical in consistency.

3. Problem of Heaven
If humans in Heaven have free will and do no evil then evil its not hampering free will. Therefore the objection of free will is meaningless.
If humans in Heaven don’t have free will therefore free will is not that important. Therefore the objection of free will is meaningless.



4. Problem of hell
4.1 Hell is a place of forever punishment and a forever physical and/or psychological torment.
Therefore we have forever punishment for finite crimes. This is unjust and therefore disproves an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being-perfectly good being and Christianity is false.
4.2 Hell is just separation from Yahweh-Jesus. Yahweh-Jesus does not punish anyone.
Because humans have free will therefore its possible for them to repent while in Hell.
Its logically impossible for billions of humans to not choose to repent while having an infinite opportunities to do so while in Hell. Therefore Christianity is false.


Let’s not ignore the rest shall we:

Let's show the monotheistic personal god does not exist for example.

Notation:
G = God: on omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being-perfectly good being who wants me to believe in him and a personal relationship with me based on trust, love.
B = My sincere belief that G does not exist.
P = People born with psychopathy.
E = Instances where gratuitous evils, gratuitous suffering happen -> the innocent-non-moral agents(non-human animals and/or infants and severely mentally impaired) suffer indiscriminately because of non-moral/natural evils(cancer, genetic diseases, earthquakes, hurricanes, asteroids, natural forest fires).
C = Instances where Christians/Islamists/Israelites are confused what G wants(existence of mutual exclusive claims), how to achieve salvation, unconditional election vs conditional election, many denominations, schisms and evident quarrel, hell as a forever punishment or just separation from G, Jesus just a prophet/exalted prophet/son of G/G himself/Trinity, Christians committing genocides in the bible in the name of G, Christians holy wars(crusades), mass killing of women-“witches”-Christian inquisition, Islam holly war, Islamists killing in the name of G and saying Allahu Akbar: G is great, gay intolerance and other kinds of intolerances “because of what god said”.

Definitions:
Omnipotent being = a being that can do anything
(Matthew 19:26, Job 42:1-2, Luke 1:37, Jeremiah 32:27)

Omniscient being = a being that knows everything, has perfect knowledge
(Psalm 147:5, Psalm 139:4, Hebrews 4:13, 1 John 3:20, Job 37:16)

Omnibenevolent-perfectly good being = a being that will do only good as oppose to evil all the time, a being that is morally perfect, perfectly just, benevolent towards all, cares and loves all equally.
(Deuteronomy 32:4, 2 Samuel 22:31, Matthew 5:48, Psalm 100:5, Psalm 145:17, 1 John 4:16, 1 John 1:5, Heb. 6:18, Romans 5:8, 1 John 4:8)
(1 John 4:15, John 3:16-17, Matthew 22:36-38, Exodus 20)

Observations:
Psychopaths can’t feel and experience love, trust, bond(psychopaths don't process oxytocin like neurotypicals do), have a problem with their affective empathy.
(https://modlab.yale.edu/news/my-life-psychopath-cut, https://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/16/heal ... index.html)
For the most part these E happened there were not Homo Sapiens Sapiens on the planet.


Argument from genuine disbelief/non-belief


Logical deduction by reduction ad absurdum:

P1. G exists.
P2. An omniscient being knows of a way to stop B.
P3. An omnipotent being who knows a way to stop B has the power to do so.
P4. A being who knows of a way to stop B, has the power to do so, and who wants to do so, would do it.
P5. If there exists G then B would not exist.
P6. Because G exists then B does not exist.
P7. B exists.(Logical contradiction)
C: Therefore G does not exist.

Problem of gratuitous evils, gratuitous suffering

Logical deduction by reduction ad absurdum:

P1. G exists.
P2. An omniscient being knows of a way to stop E.
P3. An omnipotent being who knows a way to stop E has the power to do so.
P4. A being who knows of a way to stop E, has the power to do so, and who wants to do so, would do it.
P5. If there exists G then E would not exist.
P6. Because G exists then E does not exist.
P7. E exists.(Logical contradiction)
C: Therefore G does not exist.

Problem of psychopathy

Logical deduction by reduction ad absurdum:
P1. G exists.
P2. An omniscient being knows of a way to stop P.
P3. An omnipotent being who knows a way to stop P has the power to do so.
P4. A being who knows of a way to stop P, has the power to do so, and who wants to do so, would do it.
P5. If there exists G then P would not exist.
P6. Because G exists then P does not exist.
P7. P exists.(Logical contradiction)
C: Therefore G does not exist.

Problem of confusion
Logical deduction by reduction ad absurdum:
P1. G exists.
P2. An omniscient being knows of a way to stop C.
P3. An omnipotent being who knows a way to stop C has the power to do so.
P4. A being who knows of a way to stop C, has the power to do so, and who wants to do so, would do it.
P5. If there exists G then C would not exist.
P6. Because G exists then C does not exist.
P7. C exists.(Logical contradiction)
C: Therefore G does not exist.

Also we have:
G saying:
-kills gays just for being gays,
-kill a fortuneteller just for practicing fortunetelling,
-kill the sons for the sins of the fathers,
-“Go, now but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses”( infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses being non-moral agents, inocents)
-“I will stir up the Medes against Babylon… They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children.”
-“when a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property”
-“If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her”
Last edited by alexxcJRO on Wed Feb 09, 2022 9:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: The Problem of Evil does not justify disbelief in God's existence.

Post #28

Post by Bust Nak »

Mattman wrote: Tue Feb 08, 2022 4:11 pm Our origin is essential to us... God might have brought about the existence of a different population, but he couldn't bring about our existence without the steps that lead to our existence.
Point noted. Essential to our existence in particular, but so what if you and I would never have existed? What does that have to do with my point that the state of maximum goodness, zero evil is a logical possibility and hence can be actualised without immediate steps via omnipotence? You seemed to be willing to entertain that idea by saying that "perhaps another population would have existed." Yeah, that was my point. Another population such as a sinless population fulfilling their deepest longings of being with God, in a state of supreme, definitive happiness, having never sinned. That is logically possible isn't it?

Instead of that world, we have this *wave hands around*, hence the problem of evil.

Mattman
Student
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2022 2:07 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: The Problem of Evil does not justify disbelief in God's existence.

Post #29

Post by Mattman »

alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Feb 09, 2022 1:27 am
Mattman wrote: Tue Feb 08, 2022 4:13 pm [Replying to alexxcJRO in post #23]

The Bible does teach that God wants you to put your faith in him. It also teaches that absent your faith in him, your mental assent to his existence is irrelevant.

You had a very long post and I have a lot of people replying to me. I picked your first argument and responded to that.
Q: Sir if Yahweh-Jesus wants me to believe-have faith and have relationship with me then whence cometh my genuine disbelief in him?
Either he does not want me to believe and have a relationship with me and does not intervene at all, hence indifference(deist god) therefore Yahweh-Jesus is non-existent or he wants me to believe and have a relationship with me and intervenes but its not omnipotent, omniscient but weak therefore Yahweh-Jesus is non-existent.

Unfortunately, your posts are too long for this format. I can only respond to one point at at time.

You suggest that God is not omnipotent because he cannot cause you to freely put your faith in him. Omnipotence does not require that God can do logically contradictory things, and forcing a free will choice is logically contradictory.

Mattman
Student
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2022 2:07 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: The Problem of Evil does not justify disbelief in God's existence.

Post #30

Post by Mattman »

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #28]
Point noted. Essential to our existence in particular, but so what if you and I would never have existed? What does that have to do with my point that the state of maximum goodness, zero evil is a logical possibility and hence can be actualised without immediate steps via omnipotence? You seemed to be willing to entertain that idea by saying that "perhaps another population would have existed." Yeah, that was my point. Another population such as a sinless population fulfilling their deepest longings of being with God, in a state of supreme, definitive happiness, having never sinned. That is logically possible isn't it?

Instead of that world, we have this *wave hands around*, hence the problem of evil.
It seems as though we can derive a contradiction from what you are suggesting, implying that your suggestion is logically contradictory and therefore impossible.

You suggest, for example, that God should bring about a state of maximum goodness and zero evil via his omnipotence. Now I'm not sure what you mean by maximum goodness, but let's say a multitude of people who freely choose to put their faith in God and none who don't. Such a result, however, relies on the free will choices of the multitude of people. Saying that God can bring this about via his omnipotence is tantamount to saying that God can force free will choices (a contradiction). Since the suggestion implies a contradiction, the suggestion is impossible and thus no challenge to God's omnipotence.

That's the first issue, but there's a second. The original issue is, "Is God justified in creating *this* world?" It seems we can show that he is justified on the basis of the people who live here. He creates the world so that you and I (and everyone else) can exist since this is the only way we can exist.

You then seem to raise a new and separate question, "Why didn't God create a *better* world?" The first question refers to this world, the second refers to a different world and suggests that God should have created a different world from our own. Here, however, we run into a problem. For any world we may consider, there will always be better worlds possible. There could always be one more person who has a joyous existence with God. If it is true that God cannot create any world so long as a better world is possible, then it will be the case that God can't create any world at all. Surely, however, this circles back to our question above. If God is justified in creating this world, then it can't be the case that God isn't justified in creating any world. It follows, therefore, that the possibility of a different/better world is no challenge to God's justification in creating this world. Summarizing the reasoning:

1) If God is never justified in creating a world when a better world is possible, then God is not justified in creating any world at all.
2) If God is justified in creating our world, then it is not the case that God is not justified in creating any world at all.
3) God is justified in creating our world.
4) Therefore, it is not the case that God is not justified in creating any world at all.
5) Therefore, it is not the case that God is never justified in creating a world when a better world is possible.

Post Reply