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}

[William]

It is the nature of God to bring about maximal goodness in the world, which follows from God being the good. Only God is good because to be the good is to be perfect.

Doesn't that assume facts not in evidence? Where is any of that demonstrated to be true?

It does not matter in relation to the thread subject, as it must be assumed that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient GOD is perfect by definition, for the problem of evil to even be assumed a legitimate problem.

[TRANSPONDER]

It is the nature of God to bring about maximal goodness in the world, which follows from God being the good. Only God is good because to be the good is to be perfect.

Doesn't that assume facts not in evidence? Where is any of that demonstrated to be true?

It does not matter in relation to the thread subject, as it must be assumed that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient GOD is perfect by definition, for the problem of evil to even be assumed a legitimate problem.

Yes indeed, and that is why the problem of evil is a valid and legitimate apologetic to use in respect of those who believe in a hands on god and use argument for morality as an apologetic or it - it is related to a claim that such a god exists and the point of the problem of evil is to show that the evidence (of the world we live in) does not make sense in relation to such a claim.

The conclusion is that the Bibleclaim that such a god exists is not credible, and no claim to a hands -on god is credible, unless one supposes it to be evil, which of course no non -believer does; we are on our own trying to survive on a world that wants to kill us and trying to the best we can when evolution only had us swinging from branches eating fruit.

Sortagod (which is what we mainly argue about) isn't affected by the Personal god - claim, but we do seem to be on the same page with regard to Biblegod.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #216]

Thus the problem again stares us in the face; if God can interfere and intervene, why doesn't he? The answer also stares us in the face "God can only intervene in ways that could as easily NOT be the work of God since, for some reason, He cannot allow himself to be demonstrated by convincing evidence'. This is usually linked to free will to believe as a condition of being saved but that has its' own problems (how can what you believe rather than what you do, be the parameter for deserving heaven?).

All this makes no sense and as they say, slice it where you like, it always makes no sense and is the reason why the problem of evil is a doozey of a deconverter and denialist - levels of Faith are needed to dismiss it. Though as I said, you had a very good try.

From a Classical Theist view point, God is timeless, one eternal act. God's essence is his being. Anything that God does, he does from one eternal act. If he answers your prayers, it is because from eternity he answered your prayer in one eternal act, and did so because it fits into his plan for maximal goodness. God could not have set up the word to be absent of suffering unless God did not cause freewill beings to exist, and because it fits the plan for maximal goodness that freewill beings exist, they do.

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.

So let's say, why doesn't God just reveal himself in the sky 24-7 that all knows he is real? This would defeat the purpose of allowing freewill beings to overcome evil. If I held a gun to your head and said, be good and do such and such, you are very likely to obey, not because you are necessarily good but because you fear a bullet to the brain.

[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.

[AquinasForGod]

[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

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #216]

Thus the problem again stares us in the face; if God can interfere and intervene, why doesn't he? The answer also stares us in the face "God can only intervene in ways that could as easily NOT be the work of God since, for some reason, He cannot allow himself to be demonstrated by convincing evidence'. This is usually linked to free will to believe as a condition of being saved but that has its' own problems (how can what you believe rather than what you do, be the parameter for deserving heaven?).

All this makes no sense and as they say, slice it where you like, it always makes no sense and is the reason why the problem of evil is a doozey of a deconverter and denialist - levels of Faith are needed to dismiss it. Though as I said, you had a very good try.

From a Classical Theist view point, God is timeless, one eternal act. God's essence is his being. Anything that God does, he does from one eternal act. If he answers your prayers, it is because from eternity he answered your prayer in one eternal act, and did so because it fits into his plan for maximal goodness. God could not have set up the word to be absent of suffering unless God did not cause freewill beings to exist, and because it fits the plan for maximal goodness that freewill beings exist, they do.

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.

So let's say, why doesn't God just reveal himself in the sky 24-7 that all knows he is real? This would defeat the purpose of allowing freewill beings to overcome evil. If I held a gun to your head and said, be good and do such and such, you are very likely to obey, not because you are necessarily good but because you fear a bullet to the brain.

This is a good apologetic out of a bad bunch, but it does not really address the question of natural disasters. Even if it addresses the question of whether a good god could stand by and let evils happen to those who really don't deserve them. To say this is all part of a divine plan like currants in a pre -planned pudding does not address the question of why a god could not do better than that. Why have promises about prayer that do not happen? Why have a Bible filled with stuff that looks like it was written by people who did not know what they were talking about?

The only answer, friend, is faithbased denial. Freewill does not answer as God overrode Paul's, and Christians expect God to show his hand, though not in a way that couldn't be coincidence or an unexplained medical remission.
In other words, it works as well and makes more sense if there is no god, and that is why the problem of evil is a top converter, along with the Bible not being credible. Oh yes, by the way, how do you know that God is not tensed? That is surely just an assumption on your part. You have an apologetic that you think works out, but you cannot know (1) whether it's correct.

It hardly needs for me to address the analogy of the gun to the head. Legal punishments do not totally prevent evil (it does help a lot) and Hellthreat hardly helps at all. Especially if people think they can do evil deeds because Deus vult, or they can confess and do an exhibition repentance, or just donate to the church. Secular ethics has actually been leading the way and the churches have had to follow. It is actually more intellectually honest to want to do the good because it benefits humanity and one's valid place is as a human being, not as a member of a particular country, a particular political party or a particular religion.

So to take the first point last, claims about the nature of god are irrelevant when one doesn't believe in the god to begin with. Oh yes. Freewill. I recall that I touched on that before. but I'll do it again. The excuse no longer answers that God cannot reveal himself in a way that couldn't equally be coincidence or some unexplained natural effect, just as lightning was once thought to be God's doing, though where it struck made no sense, but it wasn't Done to say so. But this what was it....rather vague reference to freewill hardly answers. The freewill (God's plum pudding -plan or not) doesn't make sense because surely averting natural disasters and growing limbs when prayed for would not alter God's plan if part of it. And God revealed Himself in the past (or so it is claimed) but He doesn't now. Well (as John says) He doesn't need to show himself now, we should just believe the appearance claims of a dubious old book.

The point being that free will either as a block to God appearing or the thing needed for requisite Faith without evidence, appears just an excuse without any real substance, intended to excuse why God is not plainly to be seen.

I'm afraid excuses won't wash with those having doubts, especially if the excuses themselves are dubious.

(1) unless (as I believe) you think that God is downloading the correct facts into your head.

[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.

[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.

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.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #226]

Most of what you said I already addressed in my first post to this thread, such as why natural disasters exist. It seems the only new thing to really answer here is if it is fitting for God to mostly remain hidden. Yes, it is. This was the point to my gun to the head analogy. If God appeared to everyone and everyone knew for sure God existed, their actions would not be good simply because they are good, just as someone with a gun to their head might do good but not necessarily because they are good.

But if God remains mostly hidden, then our actions when good, will most likely be good because we are being good. The analogy had nothing to do with hell.

And more on this topic. We only see the world through our senses and in our time and space. We do not see the whole of reality throughout all of time. We can hardly see anything as to why something is good for us. It is as if we only see two pieces of a puzzle and God sees the whole puzzle. God knows every possible outcome. God knows exactly what is necessary for maximal goodness. God's eternal act is for that purpose. Every time God seems to interact with the world it is because it brings about maximal goodness. That is the end result. Every time God remains hidden, it is because he knows that is what brings about maximal goodness.

This thread, the topic being about the problem of evil is not to convince atheists that God exists. Rather, it is to show how if God exists as a perfect being, the world being the way it is doesn't disprove God. As Graham Oppy pointed out in his talks on the subject. He is an atheist philosopher.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #226]

Most of what you said I already addressed in my first post to this thread, such as why natural disasters exist. It seems the only new thing to really answer here is if it is fitting for God to mostly remain hidden. Yes, it is. This was the point to my gun to the head analogy. If God appeared to everyone and everyone knew for sure God existed, their actions would not be good simply because they are good, just as someone with a gun to their head might do good but not necessarily because they are good.

But if God remains mostly hidden, then our actions when good, will most likely be good because we are being good. The analogy had nothing to do with hell.

And more on this topic. We only see the world through our senses and in our time and space. We do not see the whole of reality throughout all of time. We can hardly see anything as to why something is good for us. It is as if we only see two pieces of a puzzle and God sees the whole puzzle. God knows every possible outcome. God knows exactly what is necessary for maximal goodness. God's eternal act is for that purpose. Every time God seems to interact with the world it is because it brings about maximal goodness. That is the end result. Every time God remains hidden, it is because he knows that is what brings about maximal goodness.

This thread, the topic being about the problem of evil is not to convince atheists that God exists. Rather, it is to show how if God exists as a perfect being, the world being the way it is doesn't disprove God. As Graham Oppy pointed out in his talks on the subject. He is an atheist philosopher.

Ok. So perfection aside or not (it is a claim that has no evidence for it that I can see), the argument is that God has to remain hidden otherwise people would do good not for - let me say - secularist reasons, but because of God pointing a gun at their head.

And if Hellthreat is not this 'Gun'...what is it? There appear to be two problems with this; one is that that I can see no reason why God should consider it vital that people not do good to please Him, but for altruistic reasons (like secularists) if he is a moral being (let alone perfect) doing good for whatever reason, would be the priority. I should have thought that in his plum pudding plan, he would have worked out that making himself, his intention and his wishes known as well as guidance was the better plan, and it makes no sense that his plan requires that he remain 'hidden' unless Heaven was on offer and only Faith in Him without sure evidence was the parameter, which makes no sense and what makes better sense is that none of it makes sense, there is no God, no plan and we are on our own.

The 2nd prob. is that He does not remain hidden. He has made himself very much known but in a way that is so full of holes that nobody could believe it if they were willing to entertain doubt and question. And as I pointed out, he has (supposedly) made himself known but only in anecdote. For some reason intervention like is claimed in the old days is now strictly what he cannot do.

Again this makes no sense other than making no sense, is a lot of untenable faith claims, it is none of it true and we are on our own.

cue (perhaps) 'God knows best'. In fact I could already see this looming in your post. To counter this, When I walk through a wood and see no mallorns, tracery architecture, fairylights or the Lembas -bakery and coffee -shop, I don't need to have an overview of the whole world to know it is a wood, not Lothlorien. So I don't need to see all of time and space to see that the God -morality claim does not make sense, let alone the Bible