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?

[dianaiad]

.

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".

Actually, 'the problem of evil" is the title of a specific philosophical problem, and was not coined by theists. It is used mostly as an argument against the existence of deity...or rather, a specific deity with specific qualities, those of omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence....with, as far as I can tell, the proviso that said deity, being omniscient and omnipotent, must know everything, logical or not, (and therefore have predestined everything) and is constrained to act; that is, if He CAN do everything, therefore He MUST do everything.

Please aquitt theists for 'the problem of evil,' because we don't have a problem with it. We can reconcile the issue just fine. As far as I can tell, it is the atheists who have difficulties, and it is the atheists who actually named the argument 'the problem of evil."

[Angel]

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?

Since Epicurus assumed the existence of God and standards of evil that apply to everyone, then I'll try to answer with some hypothetical reasoning, as well. God is willing to prevent evil but just not in the way or at the time that people expected Him to (Revelation 21:3-4).

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."

How you feel does not determine if suffering is right or wrong. When you say "unnecessary", you're completely leaving out alternative options like God allowing suffering for a the 'greater good' which I believe is contingent on suffering. So far, I don't see any wrong here on God or anyone else.

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 agree with you and others and say that God could've created a world with both free-will and no evil by manipulating the outcome, in that ALL would end up choosing good. But I would say that God didn't have to create that type of world and He can still remain good in the process just as long as He's not the one causing the evil. We're doing wrongs ourselves and to each other, at times.

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.

Wouldn't foreknowledge apply here? Is it unnecessary if others can learn from it even if the other person can't learn from it?



I could go on, but I'd rather focus on responses as they come. Thoughts?

[ST_JB]

Hi Ragna,

I was really looking for this particular post of yours because I lost track of this one. The reason I was looking for this is, I find it very interesting and challenging.

Can you defend that suffering is "good" for the whole, then?

Before I proceed, you must understand that this question falls into what I call Theological aspect of the subject. By asking this, I would assume that you are ready and amenable to indulge into such kind of discussion.

Yes. Suffering, in general, according to Christian teachings, is good for the whole.

I know the teachings. I'm interested in the rational support.

If you know the teachings, why asked for the rational support unless you consider the teachings irrational. Are you proposing that the teaching is irrational?

You are wrong.

Evil becomes a problem only when there is a need for a God. Otherwise, evil will not be evil. If there is No God, the absence of good in any material things are mere consequences of natural occurrences (sickness and death) or a corollary of ones' action/decision (personal choices).

If life was formed by mere chance or random acts of nature or natural selection, then sufferings, sickness and wrongdoings (immoral acts) are not really evil in the true sense of the word but a mere consequences of natural occurrences.

We're supposing that God exists and that he's omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. The problem of evil challenges these attributes, and you want to keep the assumption of these attributes by proposing another assumption that evil is good for the whole. Unless it's reasonable, it's not a valid explanation.

Okay. Supposing that God exists with all of His attributes, in Catholic teachings, there is what we call "Communion of Saints" that comprises The Church Triumphant (in Heaven), The Church Suffering(Purgatory) and The Church Militant (Earthly life). The souls, in order to gain merits of salvation, they needed grace. Sufferings, in theological sense, is not a curse from God, rather, it is viewed as a means of remission of temporal punishment.

Sufferings (by the Church Militant), is a way of communion with God. It may sounds absurd to you, but in theological teachings (Catholic), if it is offered to God, the soul receives grace necessary for his/her salvation, and if it is offered to another person, the soul of that person (or simply the person) gains grace, as well. Sufferings, may shortened the soul's stay in purgatory or of temporal punishment.

I'm rumbling on this. If it is not clear, please do ask more questions.

I won't argue your theistic definition of evil...

Please do argue with me.. I want to know your thoughts about it.

because your presupposition that only your God allows for objective morality is incorrect. I personally don't believe in objective morals, but I'll give you two equally rational options for objective morality which can compete with your God.

-Platonic form of good.
-Pantheon of gods.

And that God is a rational source for morals is highly debatable. Euthyphro's dilemma still exists.

There is misconception here.

Yes, I claimed that only God allows for objective morality but that doesn't mean that if objective morals is seen or being practiced by non-Christians, means it didn't come from God. This simply means that He is, indeed God.

Even if I don't believe that the rain is formed through condensation, that doesn't change the fact that all fish are

If life on Earth were the only life, would it be a valid objection?
If the afterlife weren't "compensating" life on Earth's evil, would it be a valid objection?

I'm not sure what you are trying say here. Sorry.

My point is that if the problem of evil can only be solved by non-rational assumptions about other previously made assumptions, then that's less logical than simply accepting the consequences of the initial assumptions: that God is not omniscient, not omnibenevolent or not omnipotent. It's quite common for many theists to give up omnibenevolence here recently.

To Zzyzx, morals are subjective. He decides for himself what he regards as moral. The obvious concern is that we must hope Zzyzx does not decide child molestation, murder, human sacrifice, cannibalism, and/or genocide are moral. If he has no basis for his morals, they would be completely arbitrary and would result in whatever fits his needs.

You find that disturbing? The most numerous religion in the world has been doing the same for two millennia, and now you worry about a single person?

Many have decided to take as a reference or guide a book which doesn't condemn slavery, promotes killing of homosexuals, adulterers etc. On the basis that they believe it's divine.

Who tells you that he has no basis and that only does it for his needs? To decide for oneself can include thoughtful meditation and rational thinking, not necessarily selfish or arbitrary. From secular attitudes like these came Humanism.[/quote]

[Justin108]

#QUESTION: Why is God punishing US for Adam's sin?

It would be more accurate to say we are suffering the "consequences" of their action rather than we are being punished.

The word "consequences" imply a lack of control. Since God designed everything, there are no consequences outside God's control. If we get the "consequences" of Adam's sin it's because God designed the universe this way

God is not punishing us for the actions of Adam and Eve, he punished them and their children would be effected by THEIR punsihment.

Are you saying it was impossible fro God to punish Adam and Eve without unintentionally punishing us in the process?

To illustrate: If a father is irresponisble and crashes the car, the whole family, including any children that weren't even alive when it happened, suffer. The family may go for years without a car, the children may have to walk to school, worse someone may have been injured and suffer permient pain

Yes and all of this is outside of our control due to our finite nature. God, however, is infinite so could could rightly have given every future child his own car, God could have prevented all injuries, etc.

The only way to avoid that is ... to not be born human. And the only way to avoid passing on the effects of their error is to not have children.

Or God could simply have designed a system wherein children do not inherit the sins of their father

Not good enough, we clearly inherit our characteristics through DNA. If you don't know how to respond, may I suggest you don't.

So sin is in our DNA? Are you saying that upon sinning, Adam's DNA somehow changed? Are you aware that our actions do not alter our DNA? I could murder an entire kindergarten and my DNA will stay exactly the same

[ttruscott]

Christian sects almost all believe we are conceived as sinners, albeit with different meanings and consequences.

Since they reject our pre-earth existence and PCE Christian Theology which insists we all became sinful by our free will decision to do that which we knew would make us sinful in GOD's eyes, and then are moved / sown into the world of men by either the Son of Man or the devil (Matt 13:36-39), they are at a loss to describe how we can have sin before we can do sins is explained, so they put all on the interpretation of one verse: Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned-- in which the phrase "because all sinned " is held to only be possible if it refers back to the death that came to all people from Adam's sin.

It clearly says death came to all because they all were sinners, the pce position...it doesn't say all were sinners in Adam SO death came to all which is the necessary interpretation to fix the hole in their theology of how we can be conceived /born as sinners.

And I believe that all the very good arguments about the injustice of making us sinners by inheriting Adam's sin and or guilt are due to this blasphemy being chosen to fix the mistake of rejecting our pre-earth existence and our self chosen sin, a mistake insisted upon even in the face of the many verses in Scripture against a child being guilty for his father's sins and GOD being perfectly righteous so HE could never create a person in another's sin.

[bluethread]

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?

Sorry, I am late to the game. Here lies the problem for me. Adonai is not omnibenevolent. This is a fairly modern doctrine adopted by egalitarian evangelicals, because, "come one, come all." sells better than "Many are called,but few are chosen.". Few have a problem with one of the myriad of life forms on this planet having supremacy. However, when one suggests that only a few of that particular life form are treated in a benevolent fashion, then that is a different story. Such is the the double standard presented by the egalitarian evangelicals.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

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?

God is neither willing nor impotent when it comes to preventing evil. According to the OT God Himself directly CREATES EVIL, although some Christian Bibles choose to interpret Isaiah 45:7 differently from the original Hebrew.

Isaiah 45:
[7] I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. [kjv]


Hebrew Interlinear Bible (OT)
Isa 45:7
"I Yahweh and·there-is-no further one-forming light and·one-creating darkness one-makingdo well-being and·one-creating evil I Yahweh one-makingdo all-of these"

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInte ... /isa45.pdf

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 153 by ttruscott]

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned.

Perhaps Paul underwent daily self flagellation and wore hair shirts to remind himself of what a useless degraded piece of horse panure he was. But there are those of us well adjusted enough to not feel any guilt over the fact of our existence whatsoever. Sorry if you feel bad about yourself, but that's your choice.

[bluethread]

It clearly says death came to all because they all were sinners, the pce position...it doesn't say all were sinners in Adam SO death came to all which is the necessary interpretation to fix the hole in their theology of how we can be conceived /born as sinners.

Sorry to have to disagree here, even though that PCE addresses the idea of inherent sin, it does not address the problem of the creation of the sinner. That is because PCE removes carnal creation from the discussion by establishing a pre-creation. The problem some have with inequality still exists, however. It just predates the carnal creation. The root problem is with egalitarianism. If all are absolutely equal, then why the different results. The answer, in my opinion, is that all are not absolutely equal. One can profess limited equality, as did the founders of these United States, i.e. of equal legal status. However, to proclaim one is created as a blank slate that writes upon itself, does not appear to me to be supported by the Scriptures or philosophically.

[bluethread]

God is neither willing nor impotent when it comes to preventing evil. According to the OT God Himself directly CREATES EVIL, although some Christian Bibles choose to interpret Isaiah 45:7 differently from the original Hebrew.

Isaiah 45:
[7] I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. [kjv]


Hebrew Interlinear Bible (OT)
Isa 45:7
"I Yahweh and·there-is-no further one-forming light and·one-creating darkness one-makingdo well-being and·one-creating evil I Yahweh one-makingdo all-of these"

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInte ... /isa45.pdf

Yes, the term is indeed ra'. Therefore, I concur that the ways of the nations are not out of Adonai's control. However, I do not accept the strict dichotomous nature of that option. Adonai is not willing to prevent SOME of the ways of the nations(evil). I submit that He permits and even directs the ways of the nations to glorify Himself through His people.