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?

[Ragna]

Well, there are millions of potential brothers and sisters each of us could have. The materials are there, the potential exists and we can use it. But this story not about giving life to every possible human combination of DNA just because we can.

Life can be a good, a neutral and a miserable experience. But I don't imagine why it's necessary. Who doesn't live it, can't care nor has any implication in it. And I'm not talking about abortions. I'm talking about all potential human beings who have never been born in the past, are not being born right now and won't be ever born. Take a random male, a random female and check the potential of persons who could have lived, but didn't. It's immense. And voice for those are unheard.

[dianaiad]

I have a few questions for you, if you don't mind.

...blithely end the lives of the very most helpless and innocent of human beings, whose only 'crime' is that they exist

Has "God" ever done such a thing, in your view?

No, because when He ends a mortal life, He is simply moving that life from one state of living to another; in fact, He is not ending a life, at all.

We, however, not having the certain knowledge of a life after death, or what that life would be like, may as well be ending a life permanently.

It is the difference between the fireman and the murderer of an analogy I have already posted here: two men, each throwing a woman out of a fourth story window; the ACT is the same, and the RESULT is the same (the woman's life is saved by an airbag on the street below) but one of the men is saving a life, and the other is deliberately attempting to end one. The would be murderer does not know that the building is on fire and that the woman's life would be saved by his action...he thinks he is killing her. The fireman, on the other hand, is fully aware of the fire--and the airbag. He KNOWS what he is doing.

The difference is important. It is, in fact, definitive.

If you think that "He" did, was it because he was powerless to let these babies/children live?
Is "God" exempt from common and BASIC human moral concepts because he owns us and made us? Is there a remotely valid reason for this special pleading when it comes to moral issues?

"special pleading?" Should we, then, try that fireman for murder because the guy next door, in performing the same act (shoving a woman out the window) thought he was committing one?

'Special pleading" isn't a fallacy that applies, here.

Wouldn't we expect the "source of all love and morality and joy" to at least not kill children and babies AND order them killed?
Wouldn't that be sort of the minimum that you would expect from "love itself"?
If not, why in the WORLD do Christians keep telling us "God is love" when humans use the word "love", as well as "compassion" and "empathy" to mean entirely different things?

Again with an analogy..is the father who makes his son go to the orthodontist to have his braces adjusted showing hatred for his son (hey, that sort of thing HURTS) or love (he wants the best outcome, even if some pain is involved in the process)?

.........or the father who forces his child to have chemotherapy?

.................or the drill sergeant who runs the recruits around the field four more times than they think they can handle?

The point is, if we mere humans can envision times when we must inflict pain in order to gain a greater good, then how can we deny that as a possibility for God?

Has "God" designed or allowed (for thousands of years) biological pathways which naturally terminate the pregnancies of countless women? If so, why?

To ensure only the healthiest make it? I dunno; I'm one of those evolutionist type Christians.

What about all of those naturally aborted fetuses?

What about them? Are you, too, one of those who think that it is permissible to kill the survivors for the crime of success? I never could figure out that particular argument....sorta like saying it's OK to shoot the winners of the Boston Marathon because everybody else loses. Makes no sense.

Do they get to become "universe creators" according to your speculation?

Dunno.

Did they miss out on "the great and necessary experience of living and suffering" by being killed before being born?

Dunno. Which in my view is a VERY good reason not to kill off the winners.

Do you have coherent answers to these questions?

I think that they are coherent. You may think, or at least claim, otherwise. You might be one of those that think that the only coherent answers are those with which you agree. (shrug)

Diana

[klatu]

The problem of evil would exist even without religion. As a species we are of limited moral potential, yet aspirational, on a planet subject to the whims of geology.

But from the 'religious' standpoint, the 'problem' exists because the expectations of the incarnation for the end of evil, have not been realized under any faith conception which exists in history and tradition. But to project that failure on to God is a dishonest attempt to avoid ones own responsibility and complicity.

As we observe again with the Japanese Tsunami, when faith and fate look the same, the problem is with faith. The expectations of the incarnation are indivisible from the will of God. But the understanding of that 'will' has been handed down as a theological interpretation, not directly revealed. Thus if the theology is false, we are not in covenant to the will of God. As evil, both human and natural continue, one must conclude that the all too human theological conception we call religion has nothing to do with God! And so long as humanity holds to the theological illusion, it remains separated from that will and it's benefits, remaining in the realms of fate and the evil.

http://www.energon.org.uk

[Filthy Tugboat]

The problem of evil would exist even without religion.

How so? The problem of evil is based on a few premises, and it is essentially a false deductive argument. The premises that make this specifically directed at religion is the existence of a God and that God's proposed benevolence. If a God were not claimed to be benevolent then the problem wouldn't exist because that God could just be malevolent and suddenly evil's existence is explained.

But to project that failure on to God is a dishonest attempt to avoid ones own responsibility and complicity.

This isn't really what the problem of evil addresses though, the problem of evil addresses the creation and existence of evil in a universe supposedly created by an omnibenevolent God. The "blame" you suggest that should not be put on God and rather put on us is really irrational given we were produced in a deterministic universe with flaws that lead us to what is supposedly "immoral" behavior and subsequently, our faulty design is God's fault again. Assuming the premises of the argument, the fact that evil exists is God's fault as he created the universe and all of it's properties.

But the understanding of that 'will' has been handed down as a theological interpretation, not directly revealed. Thus if the theology is false, we are not in covenant to the will of God. As evil, both human and natural continue, one must conclude that the all too human theological conception we call religion has nothing to do with God! And so long as humanity holds to the theological illusion, it remains separated from that will and it's benefits, remaining in the realms of fate and the evil.

This appears to be conjecture and I don't see why I should trust any of it to be true.

Also, this is false, you said, "if the theology is false, we are not in a covenant with God."

Then you jumped to this point without any additional reasoning, "One must conclude that the all too human theological conception we call religion has nothing to do with God!"

Now, the concept that "we were made in God's image" suggests that if God does exist the "all too human" aspects would probably be a representation of God. In all honesty though, there is no certainty when one commits to believing in the supernatural, all reason and logic get tossed out the window and all anyone has left is faith that they're opinions of the supernatural are right and they are not being deceived or deluded.

[klatu]

Try to imagine first what would resolve the problem of evil if that were possible? Lets set a side geological 'evil' for the moment and concern ourselves with the evil that men do against each other. For that evil to exist, human nature must self evidently be lacking not only a defined 'moral foundation' to inform reason of what is right, but a limitation to the integrity of moral conduct as a practical 'spiritual' ideal. This absence should be obvious. Any secular state that sends men to war is ample demonstration of this moral limitation. And we can observe first hand a model of deception and self-deception, of theo-scholastic ignorance pretending to knowledge, when in two days, wannabe prophet Harold Camping goes down in 'flames' as his end of world predictions lead to his well earned humiliation.

However 'respectable' we may appear from within any cultural construct is just relativism. There is no objective moral measure. Objective as in not of human intellectual origin.

It is my guess that the purpose of the Incarnation, of 'religion itself, was to offer humanity this free will choice, a new 'path' of faith to realize this greater moral reality called 'righteousness', the sole conception of God. This would require the direct intervention into the natural world at an individual level. Even a correction to human nature! Thus offering the potential for the absolute proof missing from history. What exists is a theological counterfeit.

We have been conditioned by history and religion to a conception of God which to any practical effect does nothing. Maybe that is what a 'second coming' is all about. As humanity is more able to recognize it's limitations, confronting both endless conflict, massive injustice and corruption, potential environmental disaster, to offer a means of certain progress beyond the limitations of human nature. To make an offer for the 'last' time which judges not our cleverness but our ability to be honest with ourselves, to measure our core values and potential of goodness; while at the same time exposing the deep spiritual dishonesty and ignorance of God at the very heart of the human condition. http://www.energon.org.uk

[Zzyzx]

.
What, exactly, is "the problem of evil"? How is it different from "evil"?

[dianaiad]

.
What, exactly, is "the problem of evil"? How is it different from "evil"?

That there is a difference is obvious from the clause: evil is one thing, and 'the problem of evil" is another. This becomes clear if you use a different noun as the object of the preposition; instead of 'evil,' use, oh....'roses," so that the phrase is 'the problem of roses."

As you can see, the noun 'roses' is not the same thing as 'the problem of roses." Not all roses are problems, after all.

So, while one might consider that evil is a problem to everyone, in that few like it, "the problem of evil' is not the same thing.

So...what is 'the problem of evil" that is different from "evil," generally?

"The problem of evil" is a traditional and well known philosophical and theistic 'puzzle' of sorts...one that is used quite frequently as an argument against the existence of deity. Of course, in order for the argument to work, deity must have (and be forced to use) the qualities of omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence. Once the description of deity changes, then the argument is knocked into a cocked hat, but that hasn't seemed to bother anybody still wanting to use it.

Or, to put it another way, "evil" can exist without deity. The "problem of evil" cannot, since it is an argument about deity.

That help?

[Zzyzx]

.

That help?

Nope, but thanks for the effort. It seems like a "word salad" to me.

If "evil" exists (as it does) it is a problem -- and that can rationally be considered "the problem of evil" without reference to anyone's favorite deity.

However, it seems as though some Theists wish to maintain that "the problem of evil" is somehow dependent upon their "god" -- and go on and on trying to make that association.

Is there "evil" in the world? Is it a problem? If so, there is a "problem of evil" without recourse to a proposed "god" or associated religious dogma -- UNLESS one can show that evil exists ONLY in association with their "god".

[Hobbes]

"The problem of evil" is a traditional and well known philosophical and theistic 'puzzle' of sorts...one that is used quite frequently as an argument against the existence of deity.

Exactly.

It's the title used for the well-known case against God. It's the skeptic saying, "there is a problem in the theist argument, and that is, the problem of evil (or, that evil exists)." It's never that I'm aware of, used as a theist argument saying evil creates problems for society. That would be so obvious as to be unworthy of arguing in favor of.

I thought everyone who was the least bit familiar with theological debate knew that. Live and learn I guess.

[fewwillfindit]

.

That help?

Nope, but thanks for the effort. It seems like a "word salad" to me.

If "evil" exists (as it does) it is a problem -- and that can rationally be considered "the problem of evil" without reference to anyone's favorite deity.

However, it seems as though some Theists wish to maintain that "the problem of evil" is somehow dependent upon their "god" -- and go on and on trying to make that association.

Is there "evil" in the world? Is it a problem? If so, there is a "problem of evil" without recourse to a proposed "god" or associated religious dogma -- UNLESS one can show that evil exists ONLY in association with their "god".

You are misunderstanding the argument here, Zzyzx. It is not Theists who advance this idea, but critics of Christianity who see a problem of evil. This means that they see that it is logically impossible for a god to possess the attributes of omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence if evil exists. Since evil exists, so goes the argument, then god must not possess one of these attributes. This is what critics call the Problem of Evil.

The problem here is that it has yet to be established that historically, Christianity has taught that the God of the Bible is omnibenevolent. I have already asked the author of the OP to address this here:

I fear this post has been overlooked due to the sheer volume of responses to this thread, so I will post it again.

____________________________________

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?

In any case, the Problem of Evil only applies when all of its premises are believed. If you don't believe in one of its premises --in this case, the premise that God is omnibenevolent --then the PoE doesn't apply to your belief.

My question is, are you asserting in the OP that historically, traditional orthodox Christianity, namely the historical majority which has traditionally believed in the Bible as primarily literal, has taught that the God of the Bible is omnibenevolent, or are the above attributes merely hypotheticals for the sake of debate?

If that is your assertion and not merely hypothetical, can you cite evidence, without relying on Platinga, Oord, postmodern/progressive philosophers and theologians, universalists or fringe cultists that it is indeed fact? Major orthodox creeds, catechisms, or confessions will suffice. Bear in mind that "loving," "good" and "benevolent" are distinct from omnibenevolent.

Thanks.

By the way, I would add the following to your definition of omnibenevolence: "Acting in a benevolent manner toward every person."