The problem of evil

[William]

Q: Is the statement "Then there is "The problem of evil"" one of fact or conjecture? [science or opinion] In realty, does such a problem actually exist?

The problem of evil refers to the challenge of reconciling belief in an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God, with the existence of evil and suffering in the world. eta:{SOURCE}

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to brunumb in post #220]

In short, it comes from Aquinas' first way. Aquinas accepted the first principle that change is a potential being actualized by something actual. the argument then from per se chains not being infinite terminates the chain at something purely actual. The purely actual being would then be eternal, and would then be perfect.

I have read this a few times and I have to say that it makes no sense. I may be obtuse, English may not be your first language, you may have misstyped a work here or there, but it reads like a word -salad.

Could you or someone explain just what is being argued here? I got the end, but frankly it looks like "gooble gooble gooble thus God is perfect". I don't even see that that an infinite or eternal being would be perfect. It could be eternally stupid or infinitely vile. At best it seems an argument based on outmoded philosophical ideals, at worst faith - claims with nothing valid to support them.

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #216]
(I presume the Genesis scenario is gone as what God created was Good and only the Fall..which we won't get into here... led it earthly life being all not good).

I wanted to briefly comment on this even though it is not exactly the topic. Many of the church fathers said we should not read Genesis as historical. The events could have taken place, but the way they are told as stories use metaphors and allegories, they anthropomorphize God. With that being said, there are different ways to use the word good, as there are different ways to use the word love or bat.

God saw the world as good in the sense that it fits into his plan of maximal goodness and not in the sense he saw his creation as perfect, as that would be impossible. God cannot do the logically impossible. In the Summa Theological, Aquinas says that omnipotence means being able to do all logically possible things.

Summa Theologica: First Part, Question 25, Article 3

Therefore, everything that does not imply a contradiction in terms, is numbered amongst those possible things, in respect of which God is called omnipotent: whereas whatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have the aspect of possibility.

A link to the free Summa, linked to the quoted page. - https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1025.htm#article3

I had a look at that link but was hardly impressed by a lot of opinions presented as fact. Validate a god first and then maybe make some claims about it. However, while I think dismissing Genesis as made up Mythology is a step in the right direction, it does mean tht the whole idea of Sin is up for grabs, and especially why a Messiah needed to die in order to provide a loophole in God's plan incorporating Sin. This was really the very best that God could come up with in this plum -pudding plan of His? Look, chum, be open - minded a bit and at least see, apart from what You happen to believe and have Faith in, that anyone open to doubt and question can't be expected to see your presented apologetic as in the least bit convincing. It just will not convince the doubter and questioner.

It probably did not make sense to you because it is based around a lot of concepts you might not be familiar with. I do not wish to go through the whole argument here, but Ed Feser present it well with much evidence in Five Proofs of the Existence of God, in the chapter the Aristotelean argument.

Besides, as someone else already pointed out, this debate is not about if God exist as a perfect being, but if God exists as a perfect being can he be the cause of this world, which his full of suffering? I have offered my reasons as to why a perfect being could only create a world with suffering.

If you want to debate if God exist and what the nature of God ought to be, that would be a different thread.

I see. If I am too stupid or uneducated to comprehend the jargon, you win. Well, I shall look into it and see whether I can find an explanation, but already (as I suggested) the whole God is eternal and therefore Perfect claim doesn't hold up.


Ok. I take it back. What you posted was direct from Aquinas and was difficult to understand out of the context. Now, what you were attempting to do, I think is use Aquinas to show that God is perfect and therefore what is imperfect on earth does not make God imperfect.

Or, so I gather, God is not to blame for what is imperfect on earth.

This fails, but first Aquinas fails more or less for the reasons I gave - faithbased assumptions are made to start off. Bartleby (page 1 of googlesearch) says this:
"Aquinas argued that every event as we observe it has a cause and a casual chain cannot be infinite. Therefore, a first cause is necessary and this cause is God. Aquinas’ argument is unsuccessful because it assumes that God is a necessary being, fails to prove that the world is not an infinite chain of events, and undermines the basis of his argument by saying that God is infinite."

https://www.bartleby.com/essay/Weak-Arg ... KKXL4C8B6S

It gets more problematical when related to the problem of evil because even if we assumed God was perfect but his work (humans/Earth) was imperfect, whether or not God's fault or man's, it does not alter the argument that a god who was good, never mind perfect, should not let things go on as they are.

Your argument from perfection seems irrelevant here and what is relevant is the idea that God for some reason has to remain hidden. Why? According to the Bible he intervened where necessary, and there seems no obvious reason why God cannot make Himself known, or at least improve things, even if he remained hidden while doing it. The better hypothesis is surely that there actually is no god and that would explain everything, including why the Bible, religion and people are a mess and morality looks anything but god -given.

The usual excuses or claims, (morals written on our hearts) are now better explained by biology; morals are based on biological and sociological evolution. As is often the case, the evidence is all against the god -claim and apologetics, including Aquinas, are less showing that the evidence supports a god -claim than trying to excuse and explain away evidence that is rather against the god - claim.

Finally, you reference an atheist philosopher whom you claimed supported your case. You didn't say why, or how, and appeals to authority (even atheist authority) get you nowhere. As we usually say in these cases; make your point here; don't send me off to some philosopher's website to find your evidence for you.

Final word, it seems after all the irrelevant byways and faith - claims, we are looking at 'God knows what he is doing' as the final resort apologetic, because none of it makes sense unless there is no god there.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #230]

God wants us to overcome evil by our own freewill. If we simply do good because God is in the sky and we see him, then we are not actively overcoming the evil. As the story goes, Satan was in the presence of God, yet he fell away. He had not been exposed to evils so they he could overcome them. So that we do not ever end up falling away, we must overcome evil, and this is only possible when not in the very presence of God. One because evil is the absence of God, and two because we need to turn the evil away without knowing for sure that God exist, again, otherwise not doing evil is not overcoming evil but we are not doing evil because we fear some consequence.

I see no problem with God making himself known here and there as in needed to ensure this world tends toward maximal goodness.

You might be able to logical induce things about the world, but you could not know the effect of all actions unless you see all of time as God does, only then could you possibly know what is necessary to achieve a world that tends to maximal goodness.

This fails, but first Aquinas fails more or less for the reasons I gave - faithbased assumptions are made to start off. Bartleby (page 1 of googlesearch) says this:
"Aquinas argued that every event as we observe it has a cause and a casual chain cannot be infinite. Therefore, a first cause is necessary and this cause is God. Aquinas’ argument is unsuccessful because it assumes that God is a necessary being, fails to prove that the world is not an infinite chain of events, and undermines the basis of his argument by saying that God is infinite."

This is a very incorrect understanding of Aquinas. Firstly, because Aquinas has no issue with an infinite chain of causal events, and secondly because Aquinas doesn't assume God is a necessary being. The kind of chain that Aquinas says cannot be infinite is a per se chain. The difference is like this. A causal chain goes back in time, like the ball is caught by an outfielder because the batter hit the ball, and the batter was able to hit the ball because the pitcher pitched the ball. This can keep going back forever. No big deal. That whole chain either came into being or it is eternal. A per se chain is not like this. It doesn't extend back in time. It is about why the thing is right here and now how it is. How it has the power to be how it is. Here is an example. If I said mirror A reflects a cat, and you asked how, then I said because mirror A reflects mirror B, you would be like, what? How does that answer how mirrior A is reflecting a cat here and now. And it would not matter if I said mirror B reflected mirror C and on infinitely. The whole chain of mirrors cannot be reflecting a cat if there is no cat to reflect.

Aquinas accepts Aristotles' Metaphysics for what change is, which is a potential being actualized by something actual. This cannot extend infinitely back otherwise we do not explain how there is existence in the first place. How the thing exists here and now. This means that there must be something that is purely actual. It has no potential. He goes into why a potential cannot actualize a potential. I don't want to lay out the whole argument here because it took Ed Feser like 65 pages to really flesh it all out. So if we accept that Aristotle is correct about what change is, then as a consequence of that first principle it leads us to a purely actual being, which would be eternal. It must exist if we accept Aristotle's first principle of what change is. The alternative is to reject what change is, but I accept it. I see no better explanation of what change is.

You said you didn't understand how eternality entails perfection. This has been well established for a long time. If something is eternal, then if it had any room to get better than it is then it would have already achieved it. More accurately, it will always be the way it is. It would be perfect. It is like if something is eternal then it cannot change.

whether or not God's fault or man's, it does not alter the argument that a god who was good, never mind perfect, should not let things go on as they are.

You haven't give me a reason to believe this is the case. I have given reasons why the world ought to be how it is. It is tending toward maximal goodness. We just see the part of the whole picture that is in a necessary distressed state.

I only mentioned that Graham Oppy doesn't think the argument for evil is proof God doesn't exist. He sees there are ways around it.

[brunumb]

[Replying to brunumb in post #220]

In short, it comes from Aquinas' first way. Aquinas accepted the first principle that change is a potential being actualized by something actual. the argument then from per se chains not being infinite terminates the chain at something purely actual. The purely actual being would then be eternal, and would then be perfect.

Why should an eternal being be perfect?

[brunumb]

God wants us to overcome evil by our own freewill. If we simply do good because God is in the sky and we see him, then we are not actively overcoming the evil.

If it is good to overcome evil, who cares what motivates us to do it? It is still our free will choice to act or not. Meanwhile God hides but we still get threats of eternal punishment if we don't abide by his will. How is that any different?

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to brunumb in post #220]

In short, it comes from Aquinas' first way. Aquinas accepted the first principle that change is a potential being actualized by something actual. the argument then from per se chains not being infinite terminates the chain at something purely actual. The purely actual being would then be eternal, and would then be perfect.

Why should an eternal being be perfect?

I kind of feel like that is asking why should an infinite line go on forever. Perfect means to be as good as it gets or to be complete. To be eternal is to be without time. If there were any rate of improvement for God, say if God could become more powerful, then being eternal, it would be infinitely powerful, thus complete, thus perfect.

There is another reason God is perfect. In classical theism God's essence is his existence. He is pure act without potential. Everything else would be imperfect because it has potential.

[AquinasForGod]

God wants us to overcome evil by our own freewill. If we simply do good because God is in the sky and we see him, then we are not actively overcoming the evil.

If it is good to overcome evil, who cares what motivates us to do it? It is still our free will choice to act or not. Meanwhile God hides but we still get threats of eternal punishment if we don't abide by his will. How is that any different?

Because you do not know God exists, which is why you are able to talk the way you are right now. It matters what motivates you because if you don't overcome evil, then you are might fall away in the future. BTW, very few go to eternal hell. Most go to purgatory. Also many believe in universalism, even Catholics. In fact there is a priest right now that teaches it.

[oldbadger]

If God intervenes, it is because God has intervened from one eternal act. I use tensed words because it is easier, but know that God is not tensed.

That reads like some kind of belief in predestination.
The trouble is this...... if a simple child cannot understand the message, then it is false.
Since a huge % of humanity has an IQ measurement under 100, any God certainly would want to make communication easier.

[William]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #228]

If you want to debate if God exists and what the nature of God ought to be, that would be a different thread.

True.

This thread assumes the premise of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient Source-GOD, with regard to the challenge of reconciling such a GOD, with the existence of evil and suffering in the world. [aka the so-called "Problem of Evil".]

Logically IF an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient Source-GOD exists/is real, THEN evil existing must be a temporary aspect of this particular collective human experience - something we are necessarily going through rather than something which will be unnecessarily permanent.

The "problem" is only so, in relation to those who need reasons to avoid personal contact with said Source-GOD on the grounds that to do so would sully their sense of ethics, and they would rather believe such a being - along with all other Gods - does not exist.

Thus, the "problem" exists only in the minds of those with the problem, and the problem itself is illusion/delusion.

[AquinasForGod]

If God intervenes, it is because God has intervened from one eternal act. I use tensed words because it is easier, but know that God is not tensed.

That reads like some kind of belief in predestination.
The trouble is this...... if a simple child cannot understand the message, then it is false.
Since a huge % of humanity has an IQ measurement under 100, any God certainly would want to make communication easier.

I do not think that follows. Special Relativity is not simple enough for a child to understand, yet it seems true.

[William]

God wants us to overcome evil by our own freewill. If we simply do good because God is in the sky and we see him, then we are not actively overcoming the evil.

If it is good to overcome evil, who cares what motivates us to do it? It is still our free will choice to act or not. Meanwhile God hides but we still get threats of eternal punishment if we don't abide by his will. How is that any different?

Because you do not know God exists, which is why you are able to talk the way you are right now. It matters what motivates you because if you don't overcome evil, then you are might fall away in the future. BTW, very few go to eternal hell. Most go to purgatory. Also many believe in universalism, even Catholics. In fact there is a priest right now that teaches it.

It appears to me that the system being used is along the lines of this:

From another thread:
William: [3] A "Person" is an eternal Spirit in human form and when the body dies, that Spirit immediately moves to the next phase and either knowingly or unknowingly creates for their self, their next experience, based upon a combination of mainly what they believe, what their overall attitude is and what they did in the previous phase. {SOURCE}