The argument from evil

[bernee51]

The argument from evil - AE - (Theodore Drange)

First let us define an expression that will be used in the argument:

Situation L = the situation of the amount of suffering and prema ture death experienced by humans in the world at the present time being significantly less than what it actually is at present. (In other words, if the actual amount, at present, is, say, a total of n units of suffering and premature death, then in situation L that amount would be, at present, significantly less than n units.)

Then AE, making reference to situation L, can be expressed as follows:

(A) If God were to exist, then he would possess all of the following four properties (among others):

o (1) being able to bring about situation L, all things considered;

o (2) wanting to bring about situation L, i.e., having it among his desires;

o (3) not wanting anything else that conflicts with his desire to bring about situation L as strongly as it;

o (4) being rational (which implies always acting in accord with his own highest purposes).

(B) If a being who has all four properties listed above were to exist, then situation L would have to obtain.

(C) But situation L does not obtain. The amount of suffering and unfairness in the world at the present time is not significantly less than what it actually is at present.

(D) Therefore [from (B) & (C)], there does not exist a being who has all four properties listed in premise (A).

(E) Hence [from (A) & (D)], God does not exist.

A similar argument can be put regarding the level of non-belief

regards

Bernie

[otseng]

This is assuming that pain, suffering, and premature death are necessarily bad.

I would argue that in this present world, pain is a necessary part of life in order for it to function properly. So, to take out pain would make life actually worse.

With suffering, mostly it is a subjective interpretion of pain. What might be suffering to one person is not suffering for another. Adam might consider it suffering to not watch TV each day, I would not consider it suffering at all. So, how can one actually remove suffering if it is subjective?

Why is premature death bad? Does one have any "right" to expect a long life? One can live a long time and actually live a bad life. As well, one can live a short life and live a very productive life.

[Corvus]

This is assuming that pain, suffering, and premature death are necessarily bad.

I would argue that in this present world, pain is a necessary part of life in order for it to function properly. So, to take out pain would make life actually worse.

With suffering, mostly it is a subjective interpretion of pain. What might be suffering to one person is not suffering for another. Adam might consider it suffering to not watch TV each day, I would not consider it suffering at all. So, how can one actually remove suffering if it is subjective?

Why is premature death bad? Does one have any "right" to expect a long life? One can live a long time and actually live a bad life. As well, one can live a short life and live a very productive life.

But isn't that assuming things can only function the way they are now? From God's perspective, the universe is unnatural. God is the only thing that is natural. The universe had to be created with all its laws and properties. Why them did a universe have to be created in which one has to do something as vital to God's plan as going to the lavatory every day of the week?

In this way, if all things were possible under God, genetic diseases could be an impossibility. No person would be born with conditions that cause their skin to break into painful rashes under direct sunlight. None will be born disfigured or subject to incurable diseases, Etc, etc. I can accept some pain is necessary in order that pleasure may be thrown up on its background in stark relief, and I can understand how things like poverty and hunger could be tests for the rest of humanity to solve, as painful for the test subjects as that would be, but when people are born suffering through no fault of their own and live 5 years of pain before dying and being brought to God's bosom before coming to the age of accountability, I hardly think that's necessary. They should not have been born in the first place.

I also add my responsibility theory; though we have no right to expect a long life, we have no right to expect an existence, or any say in the matter, so we are at the mercy of God, and it is ultimately his responsibility, as with any parent, to care for us.

So, how can one actually remove suffering if it is subjective?

Surely people do not suffer in heaven?

This argument from evil seems like a bloated version of the riddle of Epicurus.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

This Theodore Drange chap could learn some brevity. But then, most philosophers are long-winded.

[ST88]

I'm sorry, but I have to say that this Drange opinion is rather silly. It contains a simplistic view of the Christian God and betrays a lack of understanding of the religion from which he came (God, not Drange).

(A) If God were to exist, then he would possess all of the following four properties (among others):

o (1) being able to bring about situation L, all things considered;

o (2) wanting to bring about situation L, i.e., having it among his desires;

o (3) not wanting anything else that conflicts with his desire to bring about situation L as strongly as it;

o (4) being rational (which implies always acting in accord with his own highest purposes).

First of all, the supposition (A) is incorrect. This is a romantic version of what many people would like to think they would be like if they were God. "If I were God, I'd end needless suffering." The God in the Bible is nothing like this. Christians are told that they will suffer, that they should suffer, that they should exult in their suffering. Turn the other cheek. Render unto Caesar.

We have to ask ourselves, does God really want to end suffering in the world? God is just, God is merciful. But God is a Liberal? I don't think so.

Therefore (E) does not follow.

ed: clarification

[otseng]

But isn't that assuming things can only function the way they are now?

For another way to function would mean having an entirely new set of natural laws in which this world operates. I think that would be out of scope of this discussion since we don't know God/man/things would operate in that environment.

Why them did a universe have to be created in which one has to do something as vital to God's plan as going to the lavatory every day of the week?

To get rid of waste products?

I can accept some pain is necessary in order that pleasure may be thrown up on its background in stark relief.

Pain is more than that. It's a warning signal of danger. Without the warning signal, much harm can be done. For example, we put our finger near a flame and we sense pain from the heat. If we didn't feel pain, then we could actually damage our finger from the flame.

but when people are born suffering through no fault of their own and live 5 years of pain before dying and being brought to God's bosom before coming to the age of accountability, I hardly think that's necessary.

I wouldn't think that's necessary either. But, where should God draw the line on stepping into the world to end suffering? A child born with multiple sclerosis? A child born out of wedlock? A child with Down syndrome? Low IQ? Low level of physical attractiveness?

Surely people do not suffer in heaven?

In all likelihood, people in heaven do not suffer.

[Corvus]

But isn't that assuming things can only function the way they are now?

For another way to function would mean having an entirely new set of natural laws in which this world operates. I think that would be out of scope of this discussion since we don't know God/man/things would operate in that environment.

But it is worth mentioning that there could be a world so efficient, "waste products" would not be necessary. Or a world where heat and cold do not harm cells, so pain would not need to be a deterrant. The salamnder has the unique ability of being able to regenerate lost limbs, yet once we lose one of ours, we lose it for God. I do not believe this is an equal playing field. We are better than salamanders.

but when people are born suffering through no fault of their own and live 5 years of pain before dying and being brought to God's bosom before coming to the age of accountability, I hardly think that's necessary.

I wouldn't think that's necessary either. But, where should God draw the line on stepping into the world to end suffering? A child born with multiple sclerosis? A child born out of wedlock? A child with Down syndrome? Low IQ? Low level of physical attractiveness?

If God can draw a line on when one can be judged, then he can draw a line as to where needless suffering should stop. Since you can see that there is needless suffering going on, so can he. Now, I understand, as ST88 suggests, that it is the Christian duty to tolerate suffering for God, what I do not understand is why people are made to suffer unequally in ways not directly caused by other humans (I make allowances for the fact that we humans can end a great deal of suffering by making some sacrifices of our own pleasure or comfort yet choose not to), as in the case of incurable diseases one is born with, making every day a living hell. Afflictions such as a low level of physcial attractiveness do not impede one's ability to pursue happiness (though this would not be a problem if every single person looked nearly identical). God can easily apply some sort slide-scale-of-pain-threshold.

[bernee51]

First of all, the supposition (A) is incorrect. This is a romantic version of what many people would like to think they would be like if they were God.

I take it you ar saying that this view of god is an anthropocentric view.

You (by default) must believe then that god intends all the suffering that occurs. Forget the 'evil' - what about earthquakes, floods, famines etc./ These are god's intention?

We have to ask ourselves, does God really want to end suffering in the world? God is just, God is merciful.

just? merciful? but suffer baby suffer. Sounds logical.

But God is a Liberal? I don't think so.

so Liberal is a perjorative?

Therefore (E) does not follow.

only by your belief not logical argument

ergo (IMHO) E still stands (until you come up with a logical argument to the contrary)

regards

Bernie

[otseng]

If God can draw a line on when one can be judged, then he can draw a line as to where needless suffering should stop.

Exactly the point I was leading to.

The crucial point to intervene is not in the temporary problems we see on the earth, but in the eternal destiny of souls. This is the line where God chose to intervene in earthly affairs and provided a solution to the most important problem.

As in the case of incurable diseases one is born with, making every day a living hell. Afflictions such as a low level of physcial attractiveness do not impede one's ability to pursue happiness.

Cannot someone with an incurable disease pursue happiness as well?

[ST88]

First of all, the supposition (A) is incorrect. This is a romantic version of what many people would like to think they would be like if they were God.

I take it you ar saying that this view of god is an anthropocentric view.

You (by default) must believe then that god intends all the suffering that occurs. Forget the 'evil' - what about earthquakes, floods, famines etc./ These are god's intention?

Absolutely. There's nothing in scripture that says natural disasters -- acts of God, if you like -- such as these are necessarily unwanted by God.

We have to ask ourselves, does God really want to end suffering in the world? God is just, God is merciful.

just? merciful? but suffer baby suffer. Sounds logical.

But God is a Liberal? I don't think so.

so Liberal is a perjorative?

No, Liberal is a human trait. From my understaning, Liberals want to end suffering through government intervention. God makes no such promise. On the contrary, he says that the wicked do not always suffer and the righteous do not always flourish.

Therefore (E) does not follow.

only by your belief not logical argument

ergo (IMHO) E still stands (until you come up with a logical argument to the contrary)

Whereas
God is the cause of all actions and events
and
Man suffers
therefore
God is the cause of man's suffering

"God is the cause of all actions and events", discounting facts, requires just as much assumptive power as (A). And I should point out that E should not be assumed even if I don't provide an argument to the contrary, because this particular hypothesis must be supportable by objective facts. I have yet to see any objective facts that God would want to cause less suffering among humanity.

I can, however, provide evidence that this assumption is false.

Matthew 5:44-45
But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you
in order that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

2 Thessalonians 1:6
This is a plain indication of God's righteous judgment so that you may be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which indeed you are suffering.

James 1:2-3
Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials,
knowing that the tesing of your faith produces endurance.

Now, you could argue that God does not like it when men bash each other about the head and shoulders to cause suffering to his fellow man, but God chooses not to do anything about this in this earthly domain. All punishments will be handed out later.

[Corvus]

If God can draw a line on when one can be judged, then he can draw a line as to where needless suffering should stop.

Exactly the point I was leading to.

The crucial point to intervene is not in the temporary problems we see on the earth, but in the eternal destiny of souls. This is the line where God chose to intervene in earthly affairs and provided a solution to the most important problem.

I would like to know the name of this most important problem. The need for eternal law?

As in the case of incurable diseases one is born with, making every day a living hell. Afflictions such as a low level of physcial attractiveness do not impede one's ability to pursue happiness.

Cannot someone with an incurable disease pursue happiness as well?

Depends on the disease. I'm tempted to create a system that can be used to classify whether something is needless or not, but I don't think I should, since I don't know the reasoning of God and it is not important to the scope of the discussion. I simply like creating systems. Let's just say there are various severities of pain that is not a direct result of human folly, discounting the Original Sin.

Think about this; my brother was born with a heart so small that upon being delivered, he died within 24 hours. I cannot say if this is fair or not, but surely you can admit this is inefficient.