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?

[LiamOS]

If cause and effect are absolute, it follows that God should be capable of foreknowledge of everything, choices and such included.

Yes God is CAPABLE of forknowlege of every thought and event. Whether he choses to USE that capacity is another issue, a moral one. Being (cap)able of cooking is not necessarily synonymous with cooking.

Indeed. However, my point only requires this capability.

... God created us, it follows that every event which occurs is caused by God in a very direct way.

Creating something and causing that thing to perform certain tasks are not the same thing. To illustrate: Is the manufacturer of a car resonsible for the speeding ticket of someone that drives it? If circumstances mean there is control over a seperate event then responsibility is shifted from the originator to the instigator.

This is not an appropriate analogy due to the fact that you've introduced a random parameter(the man). By stating that the universe is governed by cause and effect, you're implicitly accepting that the choices and such of humans are likewise governed by cause and effect(To deny this bit would undermine your previous statement).
If I were to analogise the situation, I'd liken it as to a watchmaker creating a watch, placing in a battery and then tormenting its soul for ticking.

[Filthy Tugboat]

... why was the system set up to result in these consequences?

Why a universe of cause and effect?

Basically you are asking why did God set up a universe governed by the basic principle of cause and effect: for every action there is a corresponding reaction.

Because that is the only way intelligent beings can exis happily. The very fact that you are asking the question "why" is evidence of our nature to seek balance and reason. To put intelligent beings in a universe were cause was totally unrelated to effect, where an artist painting a canvas had no control over the end result, where no action had a corresponding RE-action, you have a chaotic universe and the only way for intelligent moral beings to be happy in such a universe is to remove their intelligence and morals.

If God wanted to create automats, who expect nothing from any action and can exist totally unpurturbed by an illogical sequence of events, he would have done so. In creating intelligent life he respected what that intelligence would require to remain sane: order whether that be physical or moral.

Thus a woman does not have a human baby 3 out of ten times and parents don't wait with baited breath if their union will result the mother giving birth to a human being or a canalope. When wheat is sewn in a field there is not a 40% chance wheat or small metal balls will grow and the sun rises every morning without fail.

It is not just the OP that is facinated with finding order and logic where they perceive disorder, these questions are what MAKE us human - to place humans in a universe were there was no underlining principle by which they might feel a measure of control is to place them in hell.

A benovelent God would not do such a thing.


#QUESTION: But doesn't such a causal based closed system create the potential for a cycle of misery?

The answer is obviously yes - any appraisal of the evening news will make that clear. A benovalent God will find a way to break the cycle and restore balance a heartless God will just enjoy the show. But a rescue plan exists separate from the necessity of the system.

Actually, this is not my question, I have no problem with the cause and effect system, what 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. Why does disease exist? According to you it was just chilling outside of Eden and humans were oblivious and unaffected by it but when they rebelled against God, a possibility God must have been well aware of, BOOM! Attack of the germs and since, those germs have likely claimed more lives than any other cause of death. Soon that will be overtaken due to the massive population of humans around today and our ability to stave off bacterial and viral infections, none the less for the vast majority of human history disease has been the major killer.

So my actual question is, why are the consequences what they are? What made God decide that pain and suffering should be the result of rejecting God?

Also, "Because that is the only way intelligent beings can exis happily."

Due to your terribly unfortunate condition of 'not being omniscient', how do you know this? Why do you think this is true?

[bjs]

While there is much to say about the issue of suffering, for the moment let me comment on the quote from Epicurus. It is one of the most famous examples of the deductive fallacy in logic.

The deductive fallacy is where we take true premises but reach a false conclusion (usually either by exaggerating the premises from most to all or by ignoring other possible conclusion).

A general example of the deductive fallacy is:

Premise 1: I see a small footprint.
Premise 2: A pigmy has small feet.
Conclusion: This footprint belongs to a pigmy

Both premises could be true, but that does not make the conclusion true. (The footprint could belong to a child, or just a person with small feet, etc.)

The quote from Epicurus falls under the same fallacy. It is often good to prevent suffering, but it is not always good to prevent all suffering.

To take a human example, I went to the dentist recently. The dentist caused me considerable pain. Does this make the dentist malevolent? Of course not! If the only information we had was about me sitting in that dentist chair then it would certainly make the dentist malevolent, but when we have more information we know that the dentist was doing something for my good.

From our current condition it is impossible to say how much suffering God should allow.

[JehovahsWitness]

Indeed. However, my point only requires this capability.

It is illogical once we accept that capacity and action are seperate and independent to suggest that that separation is irrelevant. If God has chosen not to use his capacity to control or see every thought and action he can hardly be judged for seeing and controling every thought and action. This is like divorcing your wife for adultery because she could - and proposing it is irrelevant if she actually did ot not, claiming the divorce only {quote} "requires her capacity"

This is not an appropriate analogy due to the fact that you've introduced a random parameter(the man).

Far from it is is most appropriate. In the analogy there are three elements the manufacturer (God), the car (self generated power and actions/decisions) and the driver (man). The point was to illustrate where responsibility lies when one accords power and decision to a second party - man. Man is not the car (responsibility, power and decision) man was the driver of the car. God handed the power, responsibility and freedom of decision of how to use them to the "driver" (humans). At that point man himself was free to use the powerful instrument - the car - as he so wished but would thereafter hold full responsibility for what he did, whether he rushed food to the starving or killed a baby driving and drinking.

By stating that the universe is governed by cause and effect, you're implicitly accepting that the choices and such of humans are likewise governed by cause and effect.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Man is effected by the choices he makes and the effect of those choices will radiate automatically from him.

If I were to analogise the situation, I'd liken it as to a watchmaker creating a watch, placing in a battery and then tormenting its soul for ticking.

You have chosen the analogy of a machine. Man however isn't a machine and the POINT of responsibility is based on that fact. Of course it would be unjust to torment a clock for doing what a clock was created to do. It cannot BUT tick and thus the watchmaker is responsible for its ticking. The reality of the matter however is your weak and wildly inappropriate analogy falls far short of adequately illustrating the issues under discussion.

Humans were created with an ability to self generate choice. This would if anything be a watch that could chose of its own initiaitive to tick, play a tune, create another watch, cure cancer, travel the world, fly to mars or explode and take someones eye out. Yes, this would be a mighty powerful machine - and here is the point, if it could self generate thought and motive it would no longer be called a machine and the goal posts automatically shift to take this into account.

[Filthy Tugboat]

While there is much to say about the issue of suffering, for the moment let me comment on the quote from Epicurus. It is one of the most famous examples of the deductive fallacy in logic.

The deductive fallacy is where we take true premises but reach a false conclusion (usually either by exaggerating the premises from most to all or by ignoring other possible conclusion).

A general example of the deductive fallacy is:

Premise 1: I see a small footprint.
Premise 2: A pigmy has small feet.
Conclusion: This footprint belongs to a pigmy

Both premises could be true, but that does not make the conclusion true. (The footprint could belong to a child, or just a person with small feet, etc.)

The quote from Epicurus falls under the same fallacy. It is often good to prevent suffering, but it is not always good to prevent all suffering.

To take a human example, I went to the dentist recently. The dentist caused me considerable pain. Does this make the dentist malevolent? Of course not! If the only information we had was about me sitting in that dentist chair then it would certainly make the dentist malevolent, but when we have more information we know that the dentist was doing something for my good.

From our current condition it is impossible to say how much suffering God should allow.

The problem here is that your analogy is based in a universe where suffering exists.

From what I understand, God actually created the concept of suffering by every possible meaning of the word. Was that necessary?

[LiamOS]

It is illogical once we accept that capacity and action are seperate and independent to suggest that that separation is irrelevant.

I'm merely stating that capacity is what matters in this case. Whether God takes a peek or not has no bearing on whether he can. That he can has implication for the universe.

If God has chosen not to use his capacity to control or see every thought and action he can hardly be judged for seeing and controling every thought and action. This is like divorcing your wife for adultery because she could - and proposing it is irrelevant if she actually did ot not, claiming the divorce only {quote} "requires her capacity"

You're misunderstanding my point. My point is that because he can if he wishes, the universe is causal. Given that he created the universe, free agency is an inane concept as all actions will have him as the ultimate perpetrator.

Of course I introduced "man" the original point was centered on man; man IS the issue and the point I was making. In the illustration the point was about responsibility, power and decision. Man is not the car (responsibility, power and decision) man was the driver of the car. God handed the power, responsibility and freedom of decision of how to use them to the "driver" (humans).

My point is that in a causal universe, the underlined statement makes no sense.
If it's possible for God to know the future, it follows that nobody will do anything other than what they're going to do(By definition). If God created everything, it follows that God causes each and every 'choice' a human makes.

By stating that the universe is governed by cause and effect, you're implicitly accepting that the choices and such of humans are likewise governed by cause and effect.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Man is effected by the choices he makes and the effect of those choices will radiate automatically from him.

Again you seem to have completely missed what I'm saying. Man is not affected by the choices he makes because he can't be said to make anything of a 'choice'. God created the universe in such a way that the man will perform a particular action, and the train of responsibility can be traced back to said God.

You have chosen the analogy of a machine. Man however isn't a machine [...]

In a completely causal universe, man is but a machine. Do you deny this?

Of course it would be unjust to torment a clock for doing what a clock was created to do. It cannot BUT tick and thus the watchmaker is responsible for its ticking.

Here we go.

My point is that when God has created us in a universe where he could know what we will do, we cannot but do that which God made us do.

Humans were created with an ability to self generate choice.

Self-causation violates causality.

[Filthy Tugboat]

Indeed. However, my point only requires this capability.

It is illogical once we accept that capacity and action are seperate and independent to suggest that that separation is irrelevant. If God has chosen not to use his capacity to control or see every thought and action he can hardly be judged for seeing and controling every thought and action. This is like divorcing your wife for adultery because she could - and proposing it is irrelevant if she actually did ot not, claiming the divorce only {quote} "requires her capacity"

Yes but the choice not to use that capacity is often called, "Negligence." And in this case, it could be called, "Negligence leading to the death suffering and destruction of billions of people." We could expand that to include animals but I suppose this is enough.

This is not an appropriate analogy due to the fact that you've introduced a random parameter(the man).

Far from it is is most appropriate. In the analogy there are three elements the manufacturer (God), he car (self generated power and actions) and the driver (man). The point was to illustrate where responsibility lies when one accords power and decision to a second party - man. Man is not the car (responsibility, power and decision) man was the driver of the car. God handed the power, responsibility and freedom of decision of how to use them to the "driver" (humans). At that point man himself was free to use the powerful instrument - the car - as he so wished but would thereafter hold full responsibility for what he did, whether he rushed food to the starving or killed a baby driving and drinking.

Yes but as members of the Abrahamic faiths so readily tell everyone, we are like children to God who is a parent, often more specifically a father. Subsequently his idea to give us power and responsibility lead to pain death and suffering, a parent should not be permitted to act with such negligence, like letting a child drive a car, even while being in a position to prevent such an event.

If I were to analogise the situation, I'd liken it as to a watchmaker creating a watch, placing in a battery and then tormenting its soul for ticking.

You have chosen the analogy of a machine. Man however isn't a machine and the POINT of responsibility is based on that fact. Of course it would be unjust to torment a clock for doing what a clock was created to do. It cannot BUT tick and thus the watchmaker is responsible for its ticking. The reality of the matter however is this is a weak and wildly inappropriate analogy falls far short of adequetly illustrating the issues under discussion.

Not really as you yourself agreed that the universe was based on cause and effect, even without God knowing the future when he created them that doesn't change the fact that humans are incapable of changing anything. Cause and effect does not lend room to randomness or any outside source, everything from the beginning to the end will happen one way and that way was set in stone from the beginning or the 'first cause'. So this is why Aki's analogy was correct, by creating a universe of implicit cause and effect God has effectively created a machine(the universe) and then he apparently came in and punished clocks(people) for ticking(disobeying).

Humans were created with an ability to self generate choice. This would if anything be a watch that could chose of its own inititaitive to tick, play a tune, create another watch, cure cancer, travel the world, fly to mars or explode and take someones eye out. Yes, this would be a mighty powerful machine - and here is the point, if it could self generate thought and motive it would no longer be called a machine and the goal posts automatically shift to take this into account.

Well hang on, I was under the impression that you said God created a universe of strict cause and effect. The 'choices' that were made in this universe would be apart of cause and effect and would be equally set in stone as every other part of the universe.

[Meow Mix]

While there is much to say about the issue of suffering, for the moment let me comment on the quote from Epicurus. It is one of the most famous examples of the deductive fallacy in logic.

The deductive fallacy is where we take true premises but reach a false conclusion (usually either by exaggerating the premises from most to all or by ignoring other possible conclusion).

A general example of the deductive fallacy is:

Premise 1: I see a small footprint.
Premise 2: A pigmy has small feet.
Conclusion: This footprint belongs to a pigmy

Both premises could be true, but that does not make the conclusion true. (The footprint could belong to a child, or just a person with small feet, etc.)

The quote from Epicurus falls under the same fallacy. It is often good to prevent suffering, but it is not always good to prevent all suffering.

To take a human example, I went to the dentist recently. The dentist caused me considerable pain. Does this make the dentist malevolent? Of course not! If the only information we had was about me sitting in that dentist chair then it would certainly make the dentist malevolent, but when we have more information we know that the dentist was doing something for my good.

From our current condition it is impossible to say how much suffering God should allow.

The dentist causes you pain because his power is limited. Would you agree that a being which could prevent your pain but causes or allows it anyway is malevolent?

It's possible for an omnipotent being like God to actualize a world free of physical suffering or with less physical suffering than this world -- the question becomes "Why didn't He?"

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

Since it's ostensibly possible for an omnipotent being to create a better world than this in terms of suffering, that demands explanation -- else we must conclude the creator is malevolent. (Assuming it exists, that it's omnipotent, that it's omniscient, and that it created the conditions and laws of the world)

[Meow Mix]

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?

[dianaiad]

First of all -- and I don't wish to be rude -- let me state that I'm not looking for copied/pasted answers. I put effort into my posts and I would like it if the same was given in return.

Now that I've thoroughly made myself sound like a stickler, let me address these points.

Your first paragraph has a few serious flaws:
1) Why do the rest of us have to suffer for Adam and Eve's choice? Why weren't we each given the choice to be "disconnected from God" or not? It certainly doesn't seem fair or just for us to suffer for the crimes of our ancestors, does it?

I agree with you on this. Oh, so does the specific Christian group I belong to. I understand that this might cause problems, but it's important to know that Christianity is not the monolithic 'everybody believes the same thing' that so many atheists and non-Christians expect when they debate 'Christianity.'

Mind you, there are a WHOLE bunch of Christians who don't think I am one, but that's their problem.

The final paragraph seems to me to be an excuse. An omnipotent being doesn't require means to an end: anything that it wants to occur will simply occur.

Why? Is there some rule that says that God has to do something a certain way in order to BE God? Is the fact that Deity is omnipotent a requirement that He EXERCISE it?

Sorry, I'm skeptical of your approach to the Problem of Evil. It doesn't seem to me as though you've answered it.

EDIT: Also, regarding the "pain while undergoing an operation" analogy. This analogy doesn't work, either. The reason pain exists during an operation is because doctors and physicians are finite, fallible beings -- they don't have the necessary power to heal a wound without pain.

God, an omnipotent being, could heal wounds without the pain of an operation. Furthermore, God could make it such that the wound never happens in the first place. That analogy is extremely flawed, though I often see it repeated in Problem of Evil discussions.

For me, the "problem of evil" isn't. That is, the premises are false, according to my understanding of Who God is....and who WE are. I can absolutely see the argument in terms of how you define God, or how you demand God to be in order to apply the argument against Him, but....

What happens when you present this argument to someone who has a different notion of Who God is?