The Problem of Evil

[Rhinoqulous]

I've looked around the morality boards, and to my surprise, the problem of evil has not come up. So in my limited wisdom, I challenge our resident theists to try to explain the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good God in the face of Evil in the world.

If anyone is not familiar with the Problem of Evil, it's basically that there is a contradiction between the traditional concept of God and the existence of Evil in the world. If God has the means, knowledge, and moral fortitude to prevent evil in the world, it seems God is the type of being who would stop or limit evil, yet she/he/it doesn't. Here is a simple (and fairly easily refuted) example of using the problem of evil to "dis-prove" the existence of God (which I lifted from here (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/)).

1- There exist states of affairs in which animals die agonizing deaths in forest fires, or where children undergo lingering suffering and eventual death due to cancer, and that (a) are intrinsically bad or undesirable, and (b) are such that any omnipotent person has the power to prevent them without thereby either allowing an equal or greater evil, or preventing an equal or greater good.
2- For any state of affairs (that is actual), the existence of that state of affairs is not prevented by anyone.
3- For any state of affairs, and any person, if the state of affairs is intrinsically bad, and the person has the power to prevent that state of affairs without thereby either allowing an equal or greater evil, or preventing an equal or greater good, but does not do so, then that person is not both omniscient and morally perfect.

Therefore, from (1), (2), and (3):

4- There is no omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect person.
5- If God exists, then he is an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect person.

Therefore:

6- God does not exist.

If you are so inclined, the author also provided a link to this argument in logical form which you can view here (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/validity.html).

This is a very simple argument about the problem of evil, one that I don't think our theists (especially Thomas) should have problems refuting, but I think it's a good starting point for discussion (and will give me a base for later crushing any theist arguments :P).

Waiting with bells on for responses,
Rhinoq

[Philboid Studge]

Ooh, ooh can I play theist? Can I?

Let's start with the proposition that "the state of affairs is intrinsically bad." It is certainly beyond the scope of mere mortals to decide that there is something 'bad' about forest fires -- as they serve a number of obvious purposes. Why doesn't God at least keep animals from feeling pain, you ask? It's all part of a majestic lesson: they experience agonizing death throes to remind us of the agony that Jesus endured for humanity. Ditto the kid who wastes away from a terminal illness. If he keeps the faith, his reward will be everlasting life -- not too bad a deal, right? In both cases, the apparent 'evil' is all part of a broader plan to achieve a greater good -- not at all of which is necessarily discernible by His creations. Didn't you get the memo? The Lord works in frigging wondrous ways.

[calpurnpiso]

I've looked around the morality boards, and to my surprise, the problem of evil has not come up. So in my limited wisdom, I challenge our resident theists to try to explain the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good God in the face of Evil in the world.

If anyone is not familiar with the Problem of Evil, it's basically that there is a contradiction between the traditional concept of God and the existence of Evil in the world. If God has the means, knowledge, and moral fortitude to prevent evil in the world, it seems God is the type of being who would stop or limit evil, yet she/he/it doesn't. Here is a simple (and fairly easily refuted) example of using the problem of evil to "dis-prove" the existence of God (which I lifted from here (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/)).

1- There exist states of affairs in which animals die agonizing deaths in forest fires, or where children undergo lingering suffering and eventual death due to cancer, and that (a) are intrinsically bad or undesirable, and (b) are such that any omnipotent person has the power to prevent them without thereby either allowing an equal or greater evil, or preventing an equal or greater good.
2- For any state of affairs (that is actual), the existence of that state of affairs is not prevented by anyone.
3- For any state of affairs, and any person, if the state of affairs is intrinsically bad, and the person has the power to prevent that state of affairs without thereby either allowing an equal or greater evil, or preventing an equal or greater good, but does not do so, then that person is not both omniscient and morally perfect.

Therefore, from (1), (2), and (3):

4- There is no omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect person.
5- If God exists, then he is an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect person.

Therefore:

6- God does not exist.

If you are so inclined, the author also provided a link to this argument in logical form which you can view here (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/validity.html).

This is a very simple argument about the problem of evil, one that I don't think our theists (especially Thomas) should have problems refuting, but I think it's a good starting point for discussion (and will give me a base for later crushing any theist arguments :P).

Waiting with bells on for responses,
Rhinoq
EXACTLY. Thus, anyone that do not understand this are either children, mentally retarded folks, people under the effects of psychoactive drugs or those whose brains are under a form of neurological disorder that IMPEDES this organ from differentiating between myth and reality, eroding its reasoning abilities and logic center...ergo... since those under religious absurd belief system have their faith deeply rooted in these neurological phenomenae, it is fair to conclude Christian are simple..Mentally ill.! Those poor demented folks which are ruining the planet ought to be committed.......:)

[RedRob]

Hhhmmm, no theists yet? They must be preparing something really good that will blow our minds, naa probably what PS just typed while pretending. Good job PS.:lol:

[TheSnake]

God doesn't create evil. Evil is only caused by evil people who hate God. Because God doesn't want mindless puppets, some people choose to be Evil and follow Satan. Thats why there are forest fires. Some Evil atheist/satan worshipper pyromaniacs starts those fires. Even if some fires seem to be started by lightning, it's allways the act of Evil. This must be so, because the Bible says so. God wouldn't start forest fires and if he does it's only the wicked that get burned.

[envision]

Ok I'll take a stab at it (despite my lack of credentials) I would say that there is one statement within the logics problem that is flawed thus negating the validity of the argument. My problem lies with this portion:

"without hereby either allowing an equal or greater evil, or preventing an equal or greater good"

If God intervened every time any evil was going to take place he would void the possiblity of any evil occuring at all. Now Good can exist without evil but it cannot exist without the possiblity of evil, and if God voided the possiblity of evil he would also void any Good thus preventing an equal or greater good.

[Crackerus Dadderus]

I think the point is excessive evil - not all evil.

[Jennifer]

Here is what I think they will say.

Every reference to evil in the bible is in relationship to man's heart or man's deeds...only men can do evil. Stopping evil would interfere with free will and so God will not do it.

[Jennifer]

And then they will thank you for leading them back to the light.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Isaiah 45:7

KJV: "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

If God created EVERYTHING, then he had to create evil and the Devil as well (did he not know the Devil was going to become a fallen Angel?).

If God knows EVERYTHING, then he would have to know what was going to happen to anyone or anything he created before he created them. (The Free-Will argument is BS, either he knows everything or he doesn't.)

So, basically, God creates some people he knows he will have to eternally torment.

What a great guy!

[Jennifer]

Well, however it ends. I'm pretty sure I'm right about them thanking Rhinoqulous for bringing them back to the light.

[thomas]

1- There exist states of affairs in which animals die agonizing deaths in forest fires, or where children undergo lingering suffering and eventual death due to cancer, and that (a) are intrinsically bad or undesirable, and (b) are such that any omnipotent person has the power to prevent them without thereby either allowing an equal or greater evil, or preventing an equal or greater good.
OK, here we go. I think you need to show why it is necessarily true that the described state of affairs meet the criteria of (b). That is, isn't it possible that while to us those examples may seem intrinsically bad or undesirable, that in fact to an omniscient, omnipotent being they are allowed in order to prevent a greater evil or allow a greater good ?

but I think it's a good starting point for discussion (and will give me a base for later crushing any theist arguments :P).
Rhinoq, I'd be surprised if somebody like you with a philosophical education couldn't crush the philosophical arguments of some engineer.

[Jennifer]

Wow thomas. I guess a theist strap on is no match for the real thing.

[thomas]

Isaiah 45:7

KJV: "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

If God created EVERYTHING, then he had to create evil and the Devil as well (did he not know the Devil was going to become a fallen Angel?).

If God knows EVERYTHING, then he would have to know what was going to happen to anyone or anything he created before he created them. (The Free-Will argument is BS, either he knows everything or he doesn't.)

So, basically, God creates some people he knows he will have to eternally torment.

What a great guy!
I wrote about this verse on another thread recently. Basically I don't think the KJV has a good translation here. The Hebrew word ra used in this verse means bad things, evil, calamity, discord in various places. I think that in this verse to use the word evil in an English translation makes no sense. Look at the context. light and darkness, peace and ...... ? Many translations will use discord or emnity or calamity here, and I think that makes more sense.

Also, I don't think God created evil, but He did create the capacity for evil.

There is a thread running on free-will somwhere on the board. Come on over and test your BS claim in argument. See you there.

[thomas]

Hhhmmm, no theists yet? They must be preparing something really good that will blow our minds, naa probably what PS just typed while pretending. Good job PS.:lol:
50 minutes ? 50 stinking minutes before it's assumed that no Christian is going to answer ?

[Eva]

.....and we thought this forums were flooded with angry bible wielding theists...

[ghoulslime]

Wow thomas. I guess a theist strap on is no match for the real thing.
:lol::lol::lol:

[ghoulslime]

Hhhmmm, no theists yet? They must be preparing something really good that will blow our minds, naa probably what PS just typed while pretending. Good job PS.:lol:
50 minutes ? 50 stinking minutes before it's assumed that no Christian is going to answer ?
Don't worry, Thomas! I knew you would be here! I had faith! You go, Thomas! Split those hairs! Blow some smoke! Come on! :D

[Crackerus Dadderus]

Also, I don't think God created evil, but He did create the capacity for evil.
Wouldn't that mean that he didn't create anything, only the capacity for anything?

[thomas]

No, I don't think so. He created the world and the sun and the stars, and all the rest and said they were Good. He created us and said that we were good, and made in His image, and yet we have the capacity for evil. So from that perspective the capacity for evil must be at worst morally neutral. That makes some sense to me. If Ford make a car and I take it out and kill some people with it I think Ford created at worst a morally neutral car ( maybe even a good one ) that had the capacity for evil. And I took that and used it to turn its capacity for evil into actual evil.

[TheSnake]

OK, here we go. I think you need to show why it is necessarily true that the described state of affairs meet the criteria of (b).
Consider a cute bunnyrabbit burning alive in a forest fire. God could easily help the poor creature or atleast let it die without pain. Your argument is that, since God is good, by not preventing needless agony, he somehow prevents an even greater evil. Can you always show that this is the case? If not, can't we equally assume that God is Evil and any apparently good things are there just to cause greater evil later?

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Thomas,

You addressed me earlier in this thread and here is my response....

I have recently joined this group and have spent some time checking it out here and there. There have been a number of times I've considered responding to you but it seems like it would be such a waste of my time. I'm not trying to belittle you here, but I've debated people like you before so many times that I'm tired of it. You really just don't know enough and I'm not sure that I feel inclined to spend time trying to educate you and, even if I did, I'm not sure you base your faith on reason, so all my efforts may be pointless.

I know this all might sound somewhat arrogant, but I have studied all this stuff in detail for a long time now. I was a philosophy and religion major in college, I've studied all the major religions and read most of their holy books and taken notes (I've read the Bible most of all along with all the books not included), I know all the arguments for and against a God, I've studied logic and history and physics and evolutionary psychology, I've spent most of my life on the subjects being debated here, and I've formed all my opinions based on logic and reason from all that I've learned.

You seem to be just starting out on your quest to understand things, but all these debates are really, really old to me. If you want me to debate you, you are going to have to at least let me know where you stand so I want waste my time making assumptions. I'm willing to give it a shot, if you intend to accept reason and logic as the arbiter of truth, otherwise I don't see the point and I don't know why you are here.

If you are willing to proceed on that basis, then I would like to know what brand of "Christian" you are, since it always seems that when I point out anything illogical about Christian doctrine, the person I'm debating says; "Well, I don't believe that!" For example, some Christians believe only in the literal word of the Bible. Many of those only support the KJV, which is what I was using above. You avoided what that version says by saying that you think that interpretation is wrong. Well, which version do you want to go with? I've got a stack of Bibles in my collection that I can refer to. Are you a Baptist or a Catholic or what? What version of any of these are you or do you just kind-of believe in general and have your own individual interpretation? If so, what is that?

It is too time-consuming for me to debate you if I don't know what your position is. If you want to know where I stand, I go with science and logic and reason.

As far as free will vs. determinism or pre-determinism goes, I would have to say that if there is a God, then everything is predetermined. Either he was aware of what the result of his actions were or he wasn't. If he wasn't, he didn't KNOW everything, which disqualifies his position as God. It is as simple and logical as that.

[thomas]

Advocatus Diaboli. Probably best if you keep your education to yourself and go and find somebody you deem suitable to debate. After all no point in throwing pearls to swine, eh ?

[Advocatus Diaboli]

It appears so as far as you are concerned.

Look, I wasn't trying to be mean or pretentious, I was just trying to let you know where I stood. I wish you well in your quest.

[thomas]

Consider a cute bunnyrabbit burning alive in a forest fire. God could easily help the poor creature or atleast let it die without pain. Your argument is that, since God is good, by not preventing needless agony, he somehow prevents an even greater evil. Can you always show that this is the case? If not, can't we equally assume that God is Evil and any apparently good things are there just to cause greater evil later?
No, my point is not that I can always show that this is the case. It's that from the perspective of an omniscient, omnipotent God, that may be the case. Rhinoq's argument rests on being able to show this can not be correct.

[TheSnake]

... Your argument is that, since God is good...
No, my point is not that I can always show that this is the case...
I'm sorry, I didn't mean that that was your point, rather, your argument implies that any situation that appears bad always leads to greater good. In that case, we can swap good and evil and the same argument works just as well.
How do you know that god is not evil?

You won't be able to argue that is more reasonable to think that god is good, since he seems to be doing good, because you've already argued that you can't know gods motives by observation.

[thomas]

I'm sorry, I didn't mean that that was your point, rather, your argument implies that any situation that appears bad always leads to greater good. In that case, we can swap good and evil and the same argument works just as well.
How do you know that god is not evil?

You won't be able to argue that is more reasonable to think that god is good, since he seems to be doing good, because you've already argued that you can't know gods motives by observation.
No, my argument is that premise (1) of Rhinoq's argument doesn't hold water because it is possible that clause (b) doesn't hold.

Also, in the context of Rhinoq's argument God is good by definition.

[TheSnake]

No, my argument is that premise (1) of Rhinoq's argument doesn't hold water because it is possible that clause (b) doesn't hold.
Also, in the context of Rhinoq's argument God is good by definition.
And your argument, which counters Rhinoq's argument, implies what I said. And you're right, by Rhinoq's definition, evil god is not a god. The question still remains: How can you tell that an omnipotent and omniscient being is good and not evil (nor neutral)?

[Crackerus Dadderus]

So he created the capacity for evil, knew evil would be realized, but didn't create evil?

If god is everything why can he not be equal parts good and evil?
Why must god only be good?

[TheSnake]

Why must god only be good?
Because the book says so? I'd be happy if (certain types of) religionists would start thinking that their god is not necessarily good, if that would make them stop pushing their religion, though instead it probably would just make them more obnoxious.

[Crackerus Dadderus]

thomas,
Actually what I'm getting at is it would make more sense that in order to have good, wouldn't you need to opposite to know it was good? I wouldn't have such a problem with people's vision of god if they said he created both so we could experience good.

[ocmpoma]

"That is, isn't it possible that while to us those examples may seem intrinsically bad or undesirable, that in fact to an omniscient, omnipotent being they are allowed in order to prevent a greater evil or allow a greater good ?"
Sure, it's possible - but there is a huge problem with this point of view. The problem is 'omnipotent'.

Let's stick with the Ford analogy. Ford makes a car which kills someone (rather, the driver 'uses' the car to kill someone). From a limited perspective, Ford has done 'evil'. From a larger perspective, Ford has accepted a lesser evil (occasional death and dismemberment) for a greater good (getting to the grocery store right down the road while seated and air conditioned, listening to NKOTB).
But.
Ford is not omnipotent (Not even close - anyone ever owned a Ford?). God, in this case, is. An omnipotent God would not have to promote a greater good and let a couple of minor evils like cancer slide. God is omnipotent - it could easily promote all the good, all the time (and it could also ignore the "no good without evil" problem - it's omnipotent, remember?). There is no reason at all for an omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity to go the route of 'for the greater good'.

[TheSnake]

ocmpoma: I think it's hard to argue that. Maybe for some unseen reason (though not unseed by the omniscient god), the state of affairs is such that some lesser evil is simply required for greater good, that things can't logically be any other way, despite gods omnipotence. Kind of like the 'can god create a stone bigger than he can lift' situation.

[Rhinoqulous]

1- There exist states of affairs in which animals die agonizing deaths in forest fires, or where children undergo lingering suffering and eventual death due to cancer, and that (a) are intrinsically bad or undesirable, and (b) are such that any omnipotent person has the power to prevent them without thereby either allowing an equal or greater evil, or preventing an equal or greater good.
OK, here we go. I think you need to show why it is necessarily true that the described state of affairs meet the criteria of (b). That is, isn't it possible that while to us those examples may seem intrinsically bad or undesirable, that in fact to an omniscient, omnipotent being they are allowed in order to prevent a greater evil or allow a greater good ?
OCM hit the nail on the head on this one. God is OMNIPOTENT, which means there are no limitations to God's will. If God couldn't prevent an evil from happening without allowing a greater evil or preventing a greater good, God wouldn't be omnipotent. This is one way to refute the argument, by denying the omnipotence of God. God may know of evil, and have the moral fortitude to want to prevent it, but is unable to do so. I doubt many Christians would want to go this route, though.

but I think it's a good starting point for discussion (and will give me a base for later crushing any theist arguments :P).
Rhinoq, I'd be surprised if somebody like you with a philosophical education couldn't crush the philosophical arguments of some engineer.
Oh come on Thomas, I'm just having a bit of fun. You can hold your own just fine in any arguments we've had.

Rhinoq

[Rhinoqulous]

ocmpoma: I think it's hard to argue that. Maybe for some unseen reason (though not unseed by the omniscient god), the state of affairs is such that some lesser evil is simply required for greater good, that things can't logically be any other way, despite gods omnipotence. Kind of like the 'can god create a stone bigger than he can lift' situation.
If this is so you'd have to show that preventing an evil without preventing a greater good and/or allowing a greater evil is a logical impossibility (the concepts when combined form a contradiction). I don't think this is an example of a logical impossibility (like a square-circle), but I haven’t explored that line of thought.

Rhinoq

[TheSnake]

I don't think this is an example of a logical impossibility (like a square-circle), but I haven’t explored that line of thought.
I think it's hard to argue either way. But it is consistent with the omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent god idea and I think that's the explanation a theist would go to.

[ocmpoma]

An omnipotent being is omnipotent, and thus is not bound by any constraints - even logical ones. Ignoring the fact (for the moment) that omnipotence is self-contradictory, there is no reason (not even logical impossibilities) that God would be unable to enforce a greater good and eliminate a lesser evil. There is no 'necessity' as far as omnipotence is concerned.

[TheSnake]

ocmpoma: If you give up logic as a constraint to omnipotence, then you've given up the basis for having a debate. Or a rational debate anyway. ;) Not even all theists do that.

[Rhinoqulous]

An omnipotent being is omnipotent, and thus is not bound by any constraints - even logical ones. Ignoring the fact (for the moment) that omnipotence is self-contradictory, there is no reason (not even logical impossibilities) that God would be unable to enforce a greater good and eliminate a lesser evil. There is no 'necessity' as far as omnipotence is concerned.
Most Christian and Jewish theologians that I've read accept that God cannot do what is Logically Impossible. If you allow God to do ANYTHING, you lose any ability to make any statements about God at all (which is bad for the theists).

I don't think preventing an evil without allowing a greater evil and/or preventing greater good is logically impossible. I don't see the inherent contradiction. I am surprised no one has brought free will into this thread yet. A lot of what is going on in the Free Will vs. Omniscience thread can be applied here.

Rhinoq

[Bighead]

Most Christian and Jewish theologians that I've read accept that God cannot do what is Logically Impossible. If you allow God to do ANYTHING, you lose any ability to make any statements about God at all (which is bad for the theists).
Rhinoq
If they accept that god cannot do what is logically impossible, then why have god in the first place? If it's logically possible in the first place, there would be no need for divine intervention...isn't the whole point of god to explain that which we don't understand with our own logic?

[envision]

I don't think preventing an evil without allowing a greater evil and/or preventing greater good is logically impossible. I don't see the inherent contradiction. I am surprised no one has brought free will into this thread yet.
Rhinoq
Good and evil exists as two dependent upon one another. For example the Joy of receiving a gift comes with the possiblity of not receiving a gift at all. There is no good that possibly exists with out an alternative of less good or "evil". Another more apt analogy would be this:

A father is teaching his son to ride a bike, he takes the training wheels off and let his son go. His son falls of the bike and scrapes his knee. The next day despite the fact his son scraped his knee his Dad pushes him on the bike and lets go again. This time the son manages to keep the bike going. The kids joy of success far outweighs the pain of his scraped knee and his father knew that .

[ghoulslime]

Advocatus Diaboli. Probably best if you keep your education to yourself and go and find somebody you deem suitable to debate. After all no point in throwing pearls to swine, eh ?
Was that an oink, Thomas?

[ghoulslime]

http://ravingatheist.com/forum/img/uploads/salvation_big.jpg

[Rhinoqulous]

I don't think preventing an evil without allowing a greater evil and/or preventing greater good is logically impossible. I don't see the inherent contradiction. I am surprised no one has brought free will into this thread yet.
Rhinoq
Good and evil exists as two dependent upon one another. For example the Joy of receiving a gift comes with the possiblity of not receiving a gift at all. There is no good that possibly exists with out an alternative of less good or "evil". Another more apt analogy would be this:

A father is teaching his son to ride a bike, he takes the training wheels off and let his son go. His son falls of the bike and scrapes his knee. The next day despite the fact his son scraped his knee his Dad pushes him on the bike and lets go again. This time the son manages to keep the bike going. The kids joy of success far outweighs the pain of his scraped knee and his father knew that .
If every day the father watched his child climb on the roof, and proceed to fall and hurt him/herself, and did nothing about it, the analogy would fit. It's not that God is guiding us, and we get some cuts and bruises here and there. A child dying of a horrific disease is not a little bruise. The holocaust was not a boo-boo. Would the father be justified if he stood back and watched a pedophile rape his son, just so the son learned a lesson (I TOLD you not to talk to strangers!)?

Rhinoq

[thomas]

Was that an oink, Thomas?
No it was a pearl being thrown ;)

[ocmpoma]

Snake, Rhino -
I, of course, see the implications of throwing logic out the window. But many theists, I think, don't. First you have Bighead's statement - what good is an almost-all-powerful deity, if it can't work magic? Secondly, the whole 'rock too heavy' problem is an example of the logically impossible - and most monotheists that discuss this issue do not say 'well, it's logically impossible, so I agree that God can't do that and is limited in this way'. Thirdly, omnipotence is omnipotence, not almost-omnipotence or logic-only-omnipotence. Lastly, as Rhino says, there is no logical reason why an omnipotent (or l-o-omnipotent) being needs evil.

envision -
Things are not defined by their opposites. If you look up 'good' in the dictionary, you will not see "the opposite of evil". We might not have a concept of evil without a concept of good, but evil is not required for good, just as darkness is not required for light.
Imagine someone who had no concept of 'evil' - only perhaps 'very good', 'good', 'less good', and 'no good'. While you might argue that his 'no good' concept was the same as a concept of 'evil', such is not the case, as his interpretation of what 'no good' means and how to interact with things that are 'no good' might differ vastly from common interpretations of 'evil'.

[TheSnake]

ocmpoma: Good point that shows god can't be all the things Rhinoq said is his first post AND trancend logic. I'll have to remember that if I ever debate a theist who believes in such god. As for what good is an almost-all-powerful god, you forget that it's heaven and hell that matter.

[ghoulslime]

I don't think preventing an evil without allowing a greater evil and/or preventing greater good is logically impossible. I don't see the inherent contradiction. I am surprised no one has brought free will into this thread yet.
Rhinoq
Good and evil exists as two dependent upon one another. For example the Joy of receiving a gift comes with the possiblity of not receiving a gift at all. There is no good that possibly exists with out an alternative of less good or "evil". Another more apt analogy would be this:

A father is teaching his son to ride a bike, he takes the training wheels off and let his son go. His son falls of the bike and scrapes his knee. The next day despite the fact his son scraped his knee his Dad pushes him on the bike and lets go again. This time the son manages to keep the bike going. The kids joy of success far outweighs the pain of his scraped knee and his father knew that .
And some day, that kid will ride his bike in front of a truck and get smashed on the road like a fucking pizza, then his joy will be jack shit. And his father will rue the day he taught the kid to ride the bike, and he will become an alcoholic and eventually put a bullet in his brain.

And if some 6 year old kid is horribly disfigured by a fire, or crippled by polio, or has his legs cut off, the kid’s horror far outweighs the consolation brought by silly stories about loving gods.

Save your warm and fuzzy tales for Sunday School.

The very concept of evil is subjective. What is evil to a rat is good to a cat.

If a hypothetical omniscient and omnipotent god creates a world, he/she/it creates it knowing all that the world is and all that the world will ever be. If a god creates a world wherein any sentient creature must suffer evil, then the god is, at least in part, evil.

Saying that a perfect god “allows” evil for a greater good, is a nothing more than inadequate apologetics for an imperfect theory. If a god created everything, knowing everything, then the original plan according to Judeo-Christian belief is that the god intended to make creatures suffer, and in the case of humans, make them suffer and then send some of them to hell to be tortured eternally, for not being something other than what he created them to be. If there is an all-powerful god who always existed, and who created all things, then he created evil as well. He is the author of evil. He is responsible for everything!

The world is a cruel and vicious place. This is not the invention of humans. This is not the result of human choice or “sin”. This is not the result of a good god or an evil god. There is nobody in control. There is no good and no evil. There is only a battle between organisms to survive. Looking on the bright side doesn't change the fact that we are slowly being consumed by other organisms.

Yippee! Let's all go ride our goddamn bikes!

[thomas]

"That is, isn't it possible that while to us those examples may seem intrinsically bad or undesirable, that in fact to an omniscient, omnipotent being they are allowed in order to prevent a greater evil or allow a greater good ?"
Sure, it's possible -
Well, if it's possible then Rhinoq's argument doesn't hold. And therefore he hasn't shown that God does not exist. Is there a better argument that doesn't have this problem ?

but there is a huge problem with this point of view. The problem is 'omnipotent'.

Let's stick with the Ford analogy. Ford makes a car which kills someone (rather, the driver 'uses' the car to kill someone). From a limited perspective, Ford has done 'evil'. From a larger perspective, Ford has accepted a lesser evil (occasional death and dismemberment) for a greater good (getting to the grocery store right down the road while seated and air conditioned, listening to NKOTB).
But.
Ford is not omnipotent (Not even close - anyone ever owned a Ford?). God, in this case, is. An omnipotent God would not have to promote a greater good and let a couple of minor evils like cancer slide. God is omnipotent - it could easily promote all the good, all the time (and it could also ignore the "no good without evil" problem - it's omnipotent, remember?). There is no reason at all for an omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity to go the route of 'for the greater good'.
Well here is another problem with Rhinoq's argument. He hasn't shown that it is morally good to prevent evil, he just assumes it is in predicate (3). That is, why does it necessarily follow that somebody behaves in a morally bad way if they don't intervene ? If I watched an armed bank robbery and could have done something to intervene but I don't is that morally bad, or just morally neutral ?

So, coming back to the omnipotent God, why does it necessarily have to act to disallow evil, even if it could ?

[thomas]

Most Christian and Jewish theologians that I've read accept that God cannot do what is Logically Impossible. If you allow God to do ANYTHING, you lose any ability to make any statements about God at all (which is bad for the theists).
Agreed on the way that at least Christian theologians I've read would talk about the omnipotence of God. Aquinas is the guiding light here.

I don't think preventing an evil without allowing a greater evil and/or preventing greater good is logically impossible. I don't see the inherent contradiction.
Ow, so many negatives in one sentence is hurting my brain.

But the onus is on you to defend your initial argument by showing that preventing an evil without preventing a greater good must always be the morally correct course of action for an omniscient, ominpotent being.

I am surprised no one has brought free will into this thread yet. A lot of what is going on in the Free Will vs. Omniscience thread can be applied here.
I'm too frightened to bring it up again :)...and anyway I think your argument has other weaknesses.

[TheSnake]

If I watched an armed bank robbery and could have done something to intervene but I don't is that morally bad, or just morally neutral ?
So, coming back to the omnipotent God, why does it necessarily have to act to disallow evil, even if it could ?
If you could act to prevent a robbery and wouldn't, it wouldn't be neutral. Consider a different case: A man drowning. You have a rope. Do you throw it to him to save him? Or would you consider it morally neutral just to sit idle and watch him drown?
In anycase, wouldn't a perfectly good god wish to maximize goodness?

[thomas]

If you could act to prevent a robbery and wouldn't, it wouldn't be neutral. Consider a different case: A man drowning. You have a rope. Do you throw it to him to save him? Or would you consider it morally neutral just to sit idle and watch him drown?
I think neutral. At least it's not clear that it is morally bad.
In anycase, wouldn't a perfectly good god wish to maximize goodness?
Maybe, but is it necessary ?

[TheSnake]

Or would you consider it morally neutral just to sit idle and watch him drown?
I think neutral. At least it's not clear that it is morally bad.
As far as I'm concerned, it's the same as if you'd drowned the man yourself.
Maybe, but is it necessary ?
I'd say it is. If he's morally perfect, he'd want maximum goodness, unless he has some other higher priorities. This is because if goodness can be improved, not doing it is not neutral, even if it were only slightly bad. And even slight amount of unnecessary bad behaviour is not good enough for perfect.

[ghoulslime]

Or would you consider it morally neutral just to sit idle and watch him drown?
I think neutral. At least it's not clear that it is morally bad.
As far as I'm concerned, it's the same as if you'd drowned the man yourself.
That's the way I see it. If I let another creature come to harm through my inaction, I am guilty of evil by my failure to do good.

[Tenspace]

I think neutral. At least it's not clear that it is morally bad.
As far as I'm concerned, it's the same as if you'd drowned the man yourself.
That's the way I see it. If I let another creature come to harm through my inaction, I am guilty of evil by my failure to do good.
Good points.

Would any of you rescue another person from the jaws of a shark (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/26/dicus/)? What would you do in this guy's shoes?

Tenspace

[ocmpoma]

Sure, it's possible -
Well, if it's possible then Rhinoq's argument doesn't hold.
Sorry - what I meant was, it's possible that we can't see why an omnibenevolent being would allow 'evil'.
Although I don't really see the point to this:[Rhinoq] hasn't shown that it is morally good to prevent evil, he just assumes it is in predicate (3). That is, why does it necessarily follow that somebody behaves in a morally bad way if they don't intervene ? If I watched an armed bank robbery and could have done something to intervene but I don't is that morally bad, or just morally neutral ?
Of course it's morally good to prevent evil if one is able. Haven't you seen Spider Man?

[envision]

If every day the father watched his child climb on the roof, and proceed to fall and hurt him/herself, and did nothing about it, the analogy would fit. It's not that God is guiding us, and we get some cuts and bruises here and there. A child dying of a horrific disease is not a little bruise. The holocaust was not a boo-boo. Would the father be justified if he stood back and watched a pedophile rape his son, just so the son learned a lesson (I TOLD you not to talk to strangers!)?

Rhinoq
Rhino you presented a logics argument in your first post which relied upon the the statement :

(b) are such that any omnipotent person has the power to prevent them without thereby either allowing an equal or greater evil, or preventing an equal or greater good.

the analogies are pointing out that an equal or greater good is and would be prevented if evil is prevented. The scale of the matter in no way changes the argument. It is comparative to betting.

The more you increase the wager the more it is possible you will win, however at the same time it increases the amount you could possibly lose.

[ghoulslime]

As far as I'm concerned, it's the same as if you'd drowned the man yourself.
That's the way I see it. If I let another creature come to harm through my inaction, I am guilty of evil by my failure to do good.
Good points.

Would any of you rescue another person from the jaws of a shark (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/26/dicus/)? What would you do in this guy's shoes?

Tenspace
Well, I can't say for sure, but I would put my jaws on another person's fish.

What would I do in this guy's shoes? Well, if they were GOOD shoes I'd put on some disco music and dance like I was gay! :D

[TheSnake]

The more you increase the wager the more it is possible you will win, however at the same time it increases the amount you could possibly lose.
But the omniscient god knows the outcome, so it's like playing roulette and knowing which number the ball lands on. There's no risk, you win everytime you want to.

[Philboid Studge]

Sure, it's possible -
Well, if it's possible then Rhinoq's argument doesn't hold.
Sorry - what I meant was, it's possible that we can't see why an omnibenevolent being would allow 'evil'.
Although I don't really see the point to this:[Rhinoq] hasn't shown that it is morally good to prevent evil, he just assumes it is in predicate (3). That is, why does it necessarily follow that somebody behaves in a morally bad way if they don't intervene ? If I watched an armed bank robbery and could have done something to intervene but I don't is that morally bad, or just morally neutral ?
Of course it's morally good to prevent evil if one is able. Haven't you seen Spider Man?
Batman, on the other hand, has no such qualms:

'I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you.' -- Bruce Wayne (Batman Begins)

[Rhinoqulous]

I go away for a few days and the thread dies. Let's see if I can put a spark back into it.

There seems to be a problem with whether NOT stopping morally bad acts is morally bad in itself, so I came up with a little example.

Say Thomas looks out his window and sees his neighbor torturing a small child to death. Thomas can easily intervene to stop the child dying, by calling the police, running out and stopping the neighbor physically, or anything in between. Does Thomas have to stop the child from dying? Well, if Thomas believes in an absolute morality, yes. If an absolute morality exists, certain moral actions become morally obligatory, where in not doing a morally good act one is doing a moral evil. So, upon Thomas seeing the child being tortured to death, which under the absolute morality is a moral evil, and Thomas does nothing but sit back and watch, Thomas is himself performing a moral evil by not performing the moral obligatory act of saving the child. The same is with God. With an absolute morality (which is a moral standard that applies equally to all moral agents), certain actions are morally obligated, and God is omnibenevolent, which means God would always perform that which is morally obligatory (being the perfect moral agent she/he/it is). God obviously doesn't do this (read any newspaper for evidence), so at least God is either not omnipotent (not able to prevent evil), not omniscient (unaware of evil), or not omnibenevolent (doesn't give a rats-ass about human suffering).

Rhinoq

[Lurker]

Say Thomas looks out his window and sees his neighbor torturing a small child to death. Thomas can easily intervene to stop the child dying, by calling the police, running out and stopping the neighbor physically, or anything in between. Does Thomas have to stop the child from dying? Well, if Thomas believes in an absolute morality, yes. If an absolute morality exists, certain moral actions become morally obligatory, where in not doing a morally good act one is doing a moral evil. So, upon Thomas seeing the child being tortured to death, which under the absolute morality is a moral evil, and Thomas does nothing but sit back and watch, Thomas is himself performing a moral evil by not performing the moral obligatory act of saving the child. The same is with God. With an absolute morality (which is a moral standard that applies equally to all moral agents), certain actions are morally obligated, and God is omnibenevolent, which means God would always perform that which is morally obligatory (being the perfect moral agent she/he/it is). God obviously doesn't do this (read any newspaper for evidence), so at least God is either not omnipotent (not able to prevent evil), not omniscient (unaware of evil), or not omnibenevolent (doesn't give a rats-ass about human suffering).
What if thomas knows the death of the child will bring about greater good - or to put it another way prevent a greater evil? Does that count for something?

[TheSnake]

What if the absolute moral said that torturing is bad, but interfering with torture is also bad? (Ok, doesn't work too well, from christian perspective.)

I think I'd still go with it being impossible to reduce evil from what it is, without reducing good. That can't be refuted save from being omniscient. Add Satan in Hell and maybe God's killing good people to get warriors to do battle against Evil in the afterlife. Unfortunately it leads to the problem of not being able to tell a good god from an evil one. I think that might be a serious problem anyway.

[Rhinoqulous]

What greater good (or greater evil prevented) could result from a small, innocent child being savagely beaten to death? With an absolute morality, some acts are inherently evil, regardless of any greater good or evil, and should be stopped (there is a moral obligation to stop these acts). To think otherwise is to go the route of The Ends Justify the Means, which is drifting away from the absolute morality you (Lurker) and Thomas want so much.

Rhinoq

[Bighead]

What if the movie Dogma is right, and god is stuck on the planet in human form, unable to act as god without giving himself away, thereby destroying faith by providing truth...what if he's stuck as an old man in some hospital just sitting and waiting to die...he's been there for about 50 years or so and hasn't been able to intervene

http://ravingatheist.com/forum/img/uploads/old%20god%20with%20bedpan.jpg

[thomas]

I go away for a few days and the thread dies. Let's see if I can put a spark back into it.

There seems to be a problem with whether NOT stopping morally bad acts is morally bad in itself, so I came up with a little example.

Say Thomas looks out his window and sees his neighbor torturing a small child to death. Thomas can easily intervene to stop the child dying, by calling the police, running out and stopping the neighbor physically, or anything in between. Does Thomas have to stop the child from dying? Well, if Thomas believes in an absolute morality, yes. If an absolute morality exists, certain moral actions become morally obligatory, where in not doing a morally good act one is doing a moral evil.
I think you need to do more to prove this claim. Here is a counter example. There is a child starving from malnourishment in Africa who is about to die from hunger in the next three days. I could get on a plane, take food and save that child, which would be a morally good thing to do. If I don't do that you are saying that I'd be morally evil by sitting in my chair at home and watching television. I don't see how it necessarily follows that not stopping morally bad acts is morally bad in istelf.

By the way. Thanks for providing an example of morally bad behaviour (beating a defenceless child) that we can all agree is morally bad. Almost absolutely morally bad.....;)

[Lurker]

What greater good (or greater evil prevented) could result from a small, innocent child being savagely beaten to death? With an absolute morality, some acts are inherently evil, regardless of any greater good or evil, and should be stopped (there is a moral obligation to stop these acts). To think otherwise is to go the route of The Ends Justify the Means, which is drifting away from the absolute morality you (Lurker) and Thomas want so much.
I've argued elsewhere that "the end justify the means" can be a valid/honorable behavior. Example: Are you justifed in getting a car (the end) by paying money for it (the means)? I think so. Are you justified in getting a car by stealing? Clearly no.

I think all this boils down to god’s decision to grant us free will. That’s where it all starts. Perhaps you'd rather have no free will and pure utopia goodness. That doesn't sound like a bad idea really although I can see why god wouldn't want a bunch of preprogrammed robots doing his bidding anymore than you’d want to be preprogrammed to love him.

Do you think god could allow people to have free will while preventing them from doing harm to others? I don’t see how it’s possible, but maybe you have some idea.

As to absolute morality, I see it as a continuum from pure good to pure evil much like the real numbers between 0 and 10. Action A might be located at 0.3 and Action B might be located at 1.3 on the scale. On their own, both are considered more good than evil, but when compared with each other Action B is more evil than Action A.

[Lurker]

One more thought....

Perhaps doing nothing is ranked a perfect 5 on the scale (neither good or evil) by itself but can be either more good or more evil when compared to another action. Haven't totally thought this through so I might bail on this theory later.

[EDIT]
OK this theory pretty much sucks. I could delete this post but I'm willing to be a man and just enter a retraction.

[Rhinoqulous]

I think you need to do more to prove this claim. Here is a counter example. There is a child starving from malnourishment in Africa who is about to die from hunger in the next three days. I could get on a plane, take food and save that child, which would be a morally good thing to do. If I don't do that you are saying that I'd be morally evil by sitting in my chair at home and watching television. I don't see how it necessarily follows that not stopping morally bad acts is morally bad in itself.

By the way. Thanks for providing an example of morally bad behavior (beating a defenseless child) that we can all agree is morally bad. Almost absolutely morally bad.....;)
I think we have to take into account ones ability to stop evil, and ones knowledge of evil taking place. In my example, you have both the means (calling the police) and knowledge (you can see it happening), and thus I would say you have a moral obligation. In your example, you may not have the means (traveling to a small village in Africa) or knowledge (how would you know this child is about to starve to death) to prevent the evil, and thus you don't have a moral obligation (or at least less of an obligation). God supposedly has the means and knowledge in every situation (being both omniscient and omnipotent), so the puzzle is how she/he/it allows evil to happen while remaining perfectly good. If you were to come home to find out your wife/child were murdered by a madman, and a neighbor who could have prevented it didn't because he was watching Pimp My Ride (props to Spencer), I doubt you would consider the neighbors actions as morally neutral. Anyways, I thought as Christians, you and Lurker had "duties" towards moral behavior. ;)

In the next few days, I may or may not be able to respond here. I took a few days off to work sound on a film project, and now I'm backed up to my eyeballs at work. I also have to send my computer back so they can soak it in cheetah blood or whatever they do to fix these damn expensive PowerBooks. So if I don't answer your questions on moral obligation to the fullest, go to the library and read a book. :P

Rhinoq

[ocmpoma]

"What if thomas knows the death of the child will bring about greater good - or to put it another way prevent a greater evil? Does that count for something?"
No, because God is omnipotent. Again, there is no reason why an omnipotent being couldn't prevent both evils, and preserve free will - it's omnipotent, after all.
And yes, thomas, if preventing starvation is absolutely morally good, then as an absolutist you have a moral obligation to do so. And as for torturing the small child to death being absolutely morally wrong, the neighbor didn't seem to think so.

[Lurker]

No, because God is omnipotent. Again, there is no reason why an omnipotent being couldn't prevent both evils, and preserve free will - it's omnipotent, after all.
The god making a rock too heavy to lift trick or god making a square circle trick are reminders that omnipotent doesn't mean everything is possible. Tell me how free will can co-exist with no evil.

[ocmpoma]

"The god making a rock too heavy to lift trick or god making a square circle trick are reminders that omnipotent doesn't mean everything is possible. Tell me how free will can co-exist with no evil."

No, they are reminders that omnipotence is a self-contradictory concept. Omnipotence means all-powerful; that is, able to do anything at all - even if such actions defy logic, common sense, and omnipotence itself. If an omniptent being exists (which was a condition of this whole discussion), it must be able to do literally anything and everything.

An omnipotent being could make it so that every being with free will could freely choose to do evil, but just never did. And it could make it so without wrinkling an omnipotent brow.

[Lurker]

No, they are reminders that omnipotence is a self-contradictory concept. Omnipotence means all-powerful; that is, able to do anything at all - even if such actions defy logic, common sense, and omnipotence itself. If an omniptent being exists (which was a condition of this whole discussion), it must be able to do literally anything and everything.
So an omnipotent being should be able to make 1+1=2 and 1+1=75? Make facts subjective and objective at the same time? Don't know where you get this definition but it's an interesting one.

An omnipotent being could make it so that every being with free will could freely choose to do evil, but just never did. And it could make it so without wrinkling an omnipotent brow.
A choice that's never made. Hmmm...perhaps that can be done.

[ocmpoma]

"So an omnipotent being should be able to make 1+1=2 and 1+1=75? Make facts subjective and objective at the same time? Don't know where you get this definition but it's an interesting one."
Interesting, eh?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=omnipotence
Good enough? Note the "unlimited" part. And if you're still unsure, check the infinte reference, where it notes that it has "no boundaries or limits".
Now, what dictionary are you using where it defines omniptoence as "power which is unlimited except where it alters reality or defies logic"? I'd like to contact the lexicographer.

[Lurker]

Since we're stuck with logic it's hard to comprehend an omnipotent being making a rock too heavy to lift. If it's possible then I can't wait to see that trick someday.

[ocmpoma]

Forget the rock - an omnipotent being would be able to create another being more powerful than itself. As I said, omnipotence is self-contradictory. But we are accepting God as omnipotent for the sake of Rhino's argument, which leads me back to my point:

An omnipotent God would not need to allow a 'lesser' evil in order to avoid a 'greater' one - it could easily prevent both.

[HeWhoAsks]

So an omnipotent being should be able to make 1+1=2 and 1+1=75? Make facts subjective and objective at the same time? Don't know where you get this definition but it's an interesting one.
OK, you want it step by step, I guess.

The very first definition in the first dictionary I went to* {see footnote below] says, for "omnipotent,"

"almighty, or infinite in power."

It also defines "almighty" as "having unlimited power."

Now, here's a question: does "unlimited power" mean that some things are not possible or all things are possible?

If unlimited power means that some things are not possible, then why do we also have the term/idea "limited power?" It's "limited power" that must mean that some things are not possible, and "unlimited power" must mean that all things are possible.

Now, if there is a thing that a being cannot do, which term should we use? Well, "limited power," not "unlimited power."

So, when lurker says
So an omnipotent being should be able to make 1+1=2 and 1+1=75? Make facts subjective and objective at the same time?
and if a being cannot make 1 + 1 =2 and 1 + 1 = 75, that would be a limitation on the being's power and the term "limited power," would apply, not omnipotence.

I hope someone appreciates the excruciating detail of this post.



*Lurker, did you really check various sources for definitions of "omnipotence," and their consistent lack of absoluteness/infinitude/unlimitedness led you to the rhetorical "where did you get this definition?" And I just happened to luck out by having a dictionary that expressed the absoluteness/infinitude/unlimitedness of the term "omnipotence?" Or what?

[HeWhoAsks]

Since we're stuck with logic it's hard to comprehend an omnipotent being making a rock too heavy to lift. If it's possible then I can't wait to see that trick someday.
That's exactly the point! The idea of omnipotence demands that an omnipotent being could make a rock too heavy too lift, which is a logical contradiction. That shows how illogical the idea of omnipotence is, so it should play no role in a rational discussion.

[Lurker]

OK then if god can literally do anything then perhaps he's done it. He's made a universe where you can sin (and do sin) and he does not. A place where his killing is morally good and your killing is sinful. If god is omnipotent then what's the problem with evil - not his evil because he made is so that his actions are never evil?

On the other hand, if god has limited power then how can you blame him for evil? Seems god wins either way.

[Another brick in the wall]

You're missing the point. Can we not agree that when thousands of people are drowned by a tidal wave this is evil? Can we agree that the people were in no way responsible for this evil? Couldn't god have arranged so no one would be killed in natural disasters?

[Lurker]

You're missing the point. Can we not agree that when thousands of people are drowned by a tidal wave this is evil? Can we agree that the people were in no way responsible for this evil? Couldn't god have arranged so no one would be killed in natural disasters?
As OC said, if god can do anything then he can create a place where illogic is logical. Where our killing is wrong and his killing is righteous and just. Where evil is our problem not his. Where his moral standard is the only standard and where his actions are always good.

Can an omnipotent god do this?

[Another brick in the wall]

I guess, but I don't see the point in worshipping such a god. Seems more like a sadistic monster to me.

[ocmpoma]

Now, now, children - keep in mind that the atheists here have allowed an omnipotent god for the sake of this discussion only. The problem still lies with the theists - if God is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, why is there suffering?

I'm anticipating a reply from lurker along the lines of an omnipotent god being able to make suffering not wrong even though it is - but this falls short because it doesn't take into account omnibenevolence.

[Metman07]

I asked this in the "Is Heaven Possible?" thread, but I got no responses. All this talk of allowing one evil to prevent a greater evil is moot because according to Christianity and several other faiths, there is realm where suffering, evil etc. are non-existant. It is a place where people live in bliss for all eternity. So according to Christians' own dogmas, it is possible for there to be a world devoid of hurricanes, drought, poverty, starvation and wars etc. Why then did this god create this universe?
Of course the typical response is to test humans etc. But why does this ominpotent, omiscient, omnibenevolent being feel the need to create less than perfect beings for the purposes of testing them to determine which will burn in hell and which will live in heaven forever? It sounds like cruel and sadistic joke to me. Especially the Christian God. There are literally billions of people that he created that are doomed to an eternity in the flames of hell. This God created most of these people with little to no chance of "accepting Christ." At least in some other faiths, people of other religions can get to heaven if they are "good people" (according to that religion of course).

[Metman07]

Another problem with this "God allows one evil to prevent a greater evil etc." argument is that it is completely unprovable. All we know is that evil, injustice etc. all exist. But the theists have no way of showing that the occurance of many of these evils prevented a greater one.

[Lurker]

The problem still lies with the theists - if God is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, why is there suffering?
I’m using your definition of omnipotence here….He made it that way because he has a reason for allowing suffering AND he’s omnipotent which means he has the power to make himself omnibenevolent even when suffering occurs and even if you think he’s not omnibenevolent. He has the power to do anything, remember?

I'm anticipating a reply from lurker along the lines of an omnipotent god being able to make suffering not wrong even though it is - but this falls short because it doesn't take into account omnibenevolence.
You anticipated well, but again logic or reason has nothing to do with any of this – at least according to how you have defined it. He can make a circle look like a square and he can make omnibenevolent behavior look like evil behavior. It looks like suffering but it’s really goodness. It tastes like beef but it’s really chicken.

[envision]

Another problem with this "God allows one evil to prevent a greater evil etc." argument is that it is completely unprovable. All we know is that evil, injustice etc. all exist. But the theists have no way of showing that the occurance of many of these evils prevented a greater one.
It is not completely unprovable, In fact you can find plenty of people willing and ready to share such evidence. Just as one example say someone's friend is murdered and the funeral is held in a church where a preacher preaches now say 4 people that heard the preacher came to believe in God and went to heaven it is arguable a greater good came from the evil.

In more relevant terms though imagine that the world had no suffering and no pain. Think of the things we would in turn lose. The world would be an immensely shallow place. Courage, hope, and other such noble attributes could never possibly exist in the form that we currently know them. So even if we all hate suffering and pain it must be recognized that these things do in turn have the ability to create good.

[envision]

The problem still lies with the theists - if God is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, why is there suffering?
To make the proper analyisis we must draw what we think we know to be true of God.

God is:
-perfect
-omnibenevolent
-omniscient ( I will eleborate on why i chose this instead of omnipotent)

Now if God is all perfect he can not contradict himself otherwise he would not be perfect. So It is not possible for God to be perfect and still allow 1+1=2 and also allow 1+1=75

If saying omnipotent means that he can allow 1+1=2 and also 1+1=75 then no he is not omnipotent rather he is omniscient. So in this since he confines himself to follow his own rules and by this you could say he is not omnipotent because he limits his own power to still be perfect.

So I suppose the next question would be how can he be perfect and omnibenevolent if he allows evil? I'll get to this one later but for now I gotta go sleep :D

[TheSnake]

Any statement can be logically inferred from a contradiction. So if omnipotence is illogical, then any discussion is pointless. I think we can assume that omnipotence is constrained by what's logically possible.

Envision: What does it mean that god is perfect? I've seen that used to mean what ever the person using it wants it to mean.

About beating children, God could easily allow free will of the child beater, by letting him try to hit the child if he wants to, but prevent harm to the child by, say, creating a magical halo around the child to prevent the punch from actually hitting the child. As pointed out in the free will thread, there's already a conflict of free will here, it's simply a matter of resolving it in the favour of the least evil, ie. the child not getting hurt.

[Lurker]

Any statement can be logically inferred from a contradiction. So if omnipotence is illogical, then any discussion is pointless. I think we can assume that omnipotence is constrained by what's logically possible.
I think I agree.

About beating children, God could easily allow free will of the child beater, by letting him try to hit the child if he wants to, but prevent harm to the child by, say, creating a magical halo around the child to prevent the punch from actually hitting the child. As pointed out in the free will thread, there's already a conflict of free will here, it's simply a matter of resolving it in the favour of the least evil, ie. the child not getting hurt.
I've thought about that one too. I guess it's possible, but then your character/integrity goes all to hell while nobody gets hurt physically. Biblically speaking, god is more concerned with your character because that is who you really are (your soul). If you are bent on killing people all day long, but prevented from doing harm then from god's perspective you're guilty of murder. You'd love nothing more than to actually murder someone if given the chance - only you're never given the chance. Seems like free will is being constrained.

[TheSnake]

Biblically speaking, god is more concerned with your character because that is who you really are (your soul). If you are bent on killing people all day long, but prevented from doing harm then from god's perspective you're guilty of murder.
If that's what God thinks, then it's all the more reason for him to prevent a murderer from murdering. The murderer has already exercised his free will to be a murderer in character and that's the free will that God's interested in.


You'd love nothing more than to actually murder someone if given the chance - only you're never given the chance. Seems like free will is being constrained.
There's still the conflict of wills. I'd presume a murder victim doesn't want to be murdered. Whos will prevails? The murderers or the victims?

[Lurker]

If that's what God thinks, then it's all the more reason for him to prevent a murderer from murdering. The murderer has already exercised his free will to be a murderer in character and that's the free will that God's interested in.
From a character/soul standpoint, it might be better to murder once and learn to never do it again thus improving your character then to want to murder all the time and never be allowed to do it. After all, if the soul is the thing of value, then what's the harm in allowing a physical body to die?

There's still the conflict of wills. I'd presume a murder victim doesn't want to be murdered. Whos will prevails? The murderers or the victims?
Good point. I guess the issue is god restricting free will and not one human restricting another human will.

[TheSnake]

From a character/soul standpoint, it might be better to murder once and learn to never do it again thus improving your character then to want to murder all the time and never be allowed to do it.
If that worked (and if there were souls) it might be so. The problem is that murderers often don't repent and why couldn't they equally repent murderous thoughs? Surely a potential murderer can be made to see the wrongness he'll be doing without allowing him to kill. Also now we get to the problem that death isn't really a big concern since it's the soul that matters, so why does God consider murder to be evil in the first place?

Good point. I guess the issue is god restricting free will and not one human restricting another human will.
Why would there be a difference? Would it be ok for a believer to supress the free will of other people to submit them to God? Why couldn't God just do that himself?

[Lurker]

If that worked (and if there were souls) it might be so. The problem is that murderers often don't repent and why couldn't they equally repent murderous thoughs? Surely a potential murderer can be made to see the wrongness he'll be doing without allowing him to kill. Also now we get to the problem that death isn't really a big concern since it's the soul that matters, so why does God consider murder to be evil in the first place?
The way I see it is people don't change unless they have a reason - and usually the reason involves some pain/discomfort. Could be emotional or physical. If physical harm was never allowed then you'd have 2 people banging on each other knowing full well that no harm will occur. I don't see how someone would feel the need to change their behavior. No guilt, no harm, no foul, no change. You might feel guilty about wasting your time doing something that has no effect, but I don't think you'd feel a sense of guilt over wanting to rip they guy's throat out.

God considers murder to be evil because it violates his standards and it's not good for your character/soul to continue doing this. As the saying goes: Sow an act...reap a habit; Sow a habit...reap a character; Sow a character...reap a destiny.

Why would there be a difference? Would it be ok for a believer to supress the free will of other people to submit them to God? Why couldn't God just do that himself?
We were talking about god allowing free will or not. Anyway, suppressing another persons free will can be either good or bad depending on the situation. I think there are times when god suppresses/overrides free will. It's more the exception than the rule.

[TheSnake]

The way I see it is people don't change unless they have a reason - and usually the reason involves some pain/discomfort. ... You might feel guilty about wasting your time doing something that has no effect, but I don't think you'd feel a sense of guilt over wanting to rip they guy's throat out.
Pain and discomfort for the person who should change maybe. It's not necessary to make others suffer. Do you think it would make you feel guilty to actually kill someone, if you didn't feel guilty thinking about it? Still, since God can read peoples minds, he could make the world such that pain or guilt would be inflicted for simply thinking about things that should make you feel guilty, especially if they're things that would hurt others.

God considers murder to be evil because it violates his standards and it's not good for your character/soul to continue doing this.
Why so, if only souls matter? Why does god have such a standard? And killing someone who just goes to a better place (heaven) seems more like a favour.

We were talking about god allowing free will or not. Anyway, suppressing another persons free will can be either good or bad depending on the situation. I think there are times when god suppresses/overrides free will. It's more the exception than the rule.
How is God supressing free will any different from God allowing others to do it for him?
Why can't God supress free will, when harm is about to come to others? You could still hurt yourself.

[HeWhoAsks]

The problem still lies with the theists - if God is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, why is there suffering?
I’m using your definition of omnipotence here….He made it that way because he has a reason for allowing suffering AND he’s omnipotent which means he has the power to make himself omnibenevolent even when suffering occurs and even if you think he’s not omnibenevolent. He has the power to do anything, remember?

I'm anticipating a reply from lurker along the lines of an omnipotent god being able to make suffering not wrong even though it is - but this falls short because it doesn't take into account omnibenevolence.
You anticipated well, but again logic or reason has nothing to do with any of this – at least according to how you have defined it. He can make a circle look like a square and he can make omnibenevolent behavior look like evil behavior. It looks like suffering but it’s really goodness. It tastes like beef but it’s really chicken.
That's a funny line, Thomas, about beef tasting like chicken. :lol:

Seriously, though, here's the thing: An omnipotent, omniscient, omni-omni god must contain contradictions because those concepts are contradictory. That's fine, let's say that god is omni-omni and can make the beef taste like chicken. This means, though, that all conversation is off, because absolutely *any* set of circumstances can be considered consistent with anything we imagine about god. There are no limits on god and there are no limits on what we can say about god. Any contradiction can be accomodated, because god is omni-everything.

But I hope everyone can image the absurdity of this state of affairs, and, of course, the lack of evidence for assuming that god is omni-omni.

[moxnix46]

Heres a little concept. Do with it as you wish. Lets say in this concept, there is a god of sorts, but not a god as taught. This is a god of energy, composed of us. Energy cannot die, it has always been here and will continue. When we die, we return to the big energy(grid). We have a choice, we can return here and take on physical form once again, or we can remain in the collective grid of all. The grid contains the collective intelligence of all. We are all here by choice. It is here we can feel, touch, enjoy. This is our vacation land. We also have the choice of evil while we are here. We can on a personal level tap into the inteligence of the grid. There are a differant ways of doing this, one is meditation. To find knowledge and truth one must go inward. This explains the many wisemen that have walked among us down through history. They were tapping into the grid and teaching while they were here. All creation of physical objects came from the grid. We all have free will to be good or evil while we are here on vacation. The question is, why be good rather than evil? The grid is collective, it can be half good and half evil, all good, or all evil. By being evil as a whole we tip the grid that direction. The old saying "don't shit in your own backyard" applies here. Simple really, how many wish to return to a rotten vacation land? If the world turns rotten as a whole, even the grid will be evil so theres no going home to a good place. Lesson's taught by all wisemen have been the same. Love for mankind is the better way.

[ocmpoma]

[God] has the power to make himself omnibenevolent even when suffering occurs and even if you think he’s not omnibenevolent. He has the power to do anything, remember?
As I said, that fails to take into account omnibenevolence. If suffering is not good, than an omnibenevolent being would not desire suffering. It is accurate to say that an omnipotent being can make suffering not suffering, or make evil good, or do whatever it wants, but:
The god postulated by Rhino is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. It's omnibenevolence would prevent it from using its omnipotence to make evil behavior good, since that would be both allowing suffering and contradicting its own morality. I predicted that type of reply, and specifically stated that it ignores omnibenevolence.

[Lurker]

As I said, that fails to take into account omnibenevolence. If suffering is not good, than an omnibenevolent being would not desire suffering. It is accurate to say that an omnipotent being can make suffering not suffering, or make evil good, or do whatever it wants, but:
The god postulated by Rhino is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. It's omnibenevolence would prevent it from using its omnipotence to make evil behavior good, since that would be both allowing suffering and contradicting its own morality. I predicted that type of reply, and specifically stated that it ignores omnibenevolence.
I agree with you but I'm using your definition which allows god to do anything regardless of logic. By the same reasoning you used above he can't make a rock too heavy to lift because it's the same idea - pitting god's character against himself.

Using your definition god could make suffering both good an evil and deem that omnibenevolent behavior. He could declare himself innocent no matter what he did and you guilty no matter what you did and deem that omnibenevolent behavior. He could desire suffering yet call it evil and deem that omnibenevolent behavior. He could do anything because logic doesn't play into your definition. Now that I think about it, he could make a rock too heavy to lift and deem that omnipotent behavior.

What all this says to me is the dictionary's definition of omnipotence should say something like "1. Infinite power without contradiction - see Heavy Rock Trick" Lest you say "infinite" can't be limited I respond by saying it can - the infinite set of positive numbers is limited so not to contain negative numbers. Limited infinity, yet another paradox.

[Lurker]

Pain and discomfort for the person who should change maybe. It's not necessary to make others suffer. Do you think it would make you feel guilty to actually kill someone, if you didn't feel guilty thinking about it? Still, since God can read peoples minds, he could make the world such that pain or guilt would be inflicted for simply thinking about things that should make you feel guilty, especially if they're things that would hurt others.
Actually killing someone might bring about a ton of guilt and thus changed behavior, or no guilt at all. Never killing someone might bring about some guilt and some change, but in most cases I don't think it's enought to cause change.

I think god does make you feel guilty. That's basic biblical theology. Don't know why the sense of guilt isn't overwhelming enought to prevent us from doing harm, however life experience tells me you can't force a person to change if they don't want to change. Use all the physical/emotional tactics you can and they won't budge. The key I think is wanting to change. Sometimes it takes a little guilt, sometimes all the guilt in the world won't cause a change. That's why it's called free will. ;)

[Metman07]

Another problem with this "God allows one evil to prevent a greater evil etc." argument is that it is completely unprovable. All we know is that evil, injustice etc. all exist. But the theists have no way of showing that the occurance of many of these evils prevented a greater one.
It is not completely unprovable, In fact you can find plenty of people willing and ready to share such evidence. Just as one example say someone's friend is murdered and the funeral is held in a church where a preacher preaches now say 4 people that heard the preacher came to believe in God and went to heaven it is arguable a greater good came from the evil.

In more relevant terms though imagine that the world had no suffering and no pain. Think of the things we would in turn lose. The world would be an immensely shallow place. Courage, hope, and other such noble attributes could never possibly exist in the form that we currently know them. So even if we all hate suffering and pain it must be recognized that these things do in turn have the ability to create good.
The fact that sometimes good things result out of bad things proves nothing. It does nothing to prove the existence of a god and it says nothing about this yet to be proven being's benevolence (or lack thereof). Exactly what good came out of the Holocaust? Or the genocide in Rwanda? What good came out of the ethnic cleansing of millions of innocent people? You can speculate all you want about what greater evils these particular evils may have prevented, but that's all you can do....speculate. You cannot however prove your speculations. Also why does God need to allow the murder of an innocent person in order to reveal himself? Why should one particular good person be sacrificed for the benefit of others? Being omnipotent, your god should be able to show those 4 people you used in your example "the light" in a different way. He could have sent them some kind of sign; he could have "spoken to their hearts" (this phrase seems to be very popular in the Bible Thumping community).

If the world was entirely good, what need would we have to "create good"? Heaven is supposed to be a place where suffering and pain do not exist. So by your logic, people up in heaven lose the noble attributes of of courage, hope etc. That doesn't seem to be a problem for most Christians. So again, I ask -after being ignored twice (perhaps purposefully?)- why then did God create this flawed universe when we know he is capable of creating a realm devoid of sorrow, pain, suffering etc.?

[Lurker]

Metman:
Envision should respond on his/her own, but I'll take a crack at a few of your comments. First, none of what we are saying proves/disproves god - that's not the point even though Rhinoq started this off with a proof. I think we're trying to make sense out of evil in light of a god that claims to be good.

You say god should be able to send people "a sign". I think he does all the time, however you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Yeah it's a cliche, but an accurate description of what I think happens all too often. Free will is a nasty bugger.

How can god reveal his goodness unless there is evil to act good against? Can you know good without knowing evil?

[TheSnake]

... I think god does make you feel guilty ... however life experience tells me you can't force a person to change if they don't want to change. ... The key I think is wanting to change. Sometimes it takes a little guilt, sometimes all the guilt in the world won't cause a change. That's why it's called free will. ;)
So God should let murderers do all the murdering they like, because every once in a while one of them will feel guilt created by God and repent and yet another soul will be saved. But God can't make them feel too guilty, otherwise they couldn't freely choose to kill? I'm afraid I have to say, that none of that adds up. Especially since there's still the problem of Heaven being a perfect place. Why couldn't Earth be like that?

Doesn't really belong to this thread, but why would God care about free will, or 'saving' our souls or anything that we do? None of this stuff adds up. I've tried to openmindedly look into Christianity, but all I see is wishful thinking and bad reasoning. If I couldn't think of more plausible explanations, I'd buy Cal's idea of religion as a disease.

[Lurker]

So God should let murderers do all the murdering they like, because every once in a while one of them will feel guilt created by God and repent and yet another soul will be saved. But God can't make them feel too guilty, otherwise they couldn't freely choose to kill? I'm afraid I have to say, that none of that adds up. Especially since there's still the problem of Heaven being a perfect place. Why couldn't Earth be like that?
I didn't say god can't make them feel too guilty. He makes them feel guilty and the person's free will chooses to react or not.

The way I see it is making earth perfect means eliminating free will. I don't have a satisfying answer other than to say god respected you enough to give you the chance to make your own decisions and he only wants to hang around those who want to be with him.

Doesn't really belong to this thread, but why would God care about free will, or 'saving' our souls or anything that we do? None of this stuff adds up. I've tried to openmindedly look into Christianity, but all I see is wishful thinking and bad reasoning. If I couldn't think of more plausible explanations, I'd buy Cal's idea of religion as a disease.
You don't love god now so having no choice but to love him sounds like more of a raw deal. That's why I think god cares about free will. He cares about saving our souls because we can't save ourselves. Can a drowning man save himself?

[Gina]

Hi

My name is Gina

Allow me to share a few thoughts about suffering:

- IMO, suffering is not a bad thing. Through our suffering, we are being uplifted and "purged" of bad things, so to speak. A simple example - when someone gets blind drunk and takes a pile of drugs one night, inevitably they face a horrible comedown and a massive hangover the next day. In scientific terms, you suffer because you have poisoned your body with harmful substances. Therefore, you have noone to blame for your misery. When you vomit/have hot sweats etc this is your body trying to eliminate the offending substances. therefore, in this case, suffering is good, because it means bad things are leaving your body.

Perhaps God/s don't see suffering in the way we see it . After all, a god will surely not think with the reasoning we humans use.
I'm a practitioner of Falun Dafa (aka Falun Gong), a Chinese cultivation practice way from the Buddha School, and the guiding principles are "Zhen-Shan-Ren" (Truthfulness-Compassion-Tolerance).

I believe that as humans we create our own suffering. There is an old saying: "Good deeds are met with good rewards, and evil deeds are met with evil returns." I also believe in reincarnation, and that whatever you have done in previous life/lives will affect this life. I believe in karma,too, which is thought by some to be an actual form of energy/substance which attatches itself to your spirit/soul, and can therefore be carried with you from one life to the next.

Imagine you murder someone in this life. The karma, or "dark energy", you would gain would be huge. Now imagine that the only way to get rid of this is to purgie it out of you (like the example above I gave about drinking and taking drugs.) Now wouldn't this mean you would have to suffer a great deal? Maybe the gods/God could completely destroy you, but being benevolent, they will naturally look for another more compassionate way to deal with you. Perhaps after murdering, you get sent to jail, where you suffer (for obvious reasons) but this might not get rid of all the karma. So maybe when you get out of jail you become really ill and suffer some more, purging more of the karm from your being. But still there may be a huge amount of karma left to pay for the suffering you caused to the life that you took. Maybe in your next life you will be born into a poor household and get bullied in school...basically, you could have a really bad time throughout that lifetime. In the gods eyes, then, aren't they helping you repay the suffering you caused the person you murdered? Naturally though, at the time, you will probably be thinking how unfair and awful your life is, simply because you don't realise that you have actually brought it all on yourself!

Also, In the cultivation practice of Falun Dafa, we do 5 meditative exercises - 4 standing and 1 sitting. The sitting in the double lotus position (both legs crossed ontop of each other) for me, is the hardest, as after aboout 25 minutes my legs usually begin to ache really bad and I feel a burning sensation around my hips too. Then after a longer period I often start to shudder and my I feel like something is trying to get out of my body and I will start to cough and my chest heaves. All this is incredibly uncomfortable, but the longer I can tolerate and endure this suffering, the better I feel afterwards. Normally when I put my legs down they start to vibrate and feel numb and I start shivering with coldness through my body, even though it is a warm, sunny day. Eventually when it stops I feel incredibly light and joyful, and I find myself smiling a lot. it is really like something bad has been taken from my very being.,

this is just a small example of how suffering can be seen as a good thing.

You may find all this completely irrelevant, but I just thought i'd share it.

:/

[Metman07]

Metman:
Envision should respond on his/her own, but I'll take a crack at a few of your comments. First, none of what we are saying proves/disproves god - that's not the point even though Rhinoq started this off with a proof. I think we're trying to make sense out of evil in light of a god that claims to be good.

You say god should be able to send people "a sign". I think he does all the time, however you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Yeah it's a cliche, but an accurate description of what I think happens all too often. Free will is a nasty bugger.

How can god reveal his goodness unless there is evil to act good against? Can you know good without knowing evil?
I mentioned proving/disproving God because I was simply pointing out that the fact that sometimes good things arise out of bad things says nothing about the benevolence of God, if it all he does exist.

How can you prove that things are signs? People can attribute meaning to things that have none. Now if God sent me some sort of very convincing sign of his existence, I would believe in him. But I have never experienced any such thing. I am sure that millions of people around the world will tell you the same thing. In fact, I personally know some theists will openly admit that they were never sent any signs. Some people say they believe in God because they have a relationship with him. I myself believed this once, but I came to realize that this was a delusion. There are people of various faiths who claim to "experience" their respective supernatural entities.

Why is there evil in this universe when, according to the Christian faith, there exists a place that is devoid of it?

[ocmpoma]

I agree with you but I'm using your definition which allows god to do anything regardless of logic. By the same reasoning you used above he can't make a rock too heavy to lift because it's the same idea - pitting god's character against himself.
Using your definition god could make suffering both good an evil and deem that omnibenevolent behavior. He could declare himself innocent no matter what he did and you guilty no matter what you did and deem that omnibenevolent behavior. He could desire suffering yet call it evil and deem that omnibenevolent behavior. He could do anything because logic doesn't play into your definition. Now that I think about it, he could make a rock too heavy to lift and deem that omnipotent behavior.
What all this says to me is the dictionary's definition of omnipotence should say something like "1. Infinite power without contradiction - see Heavy Rock Trick" Lest you say "infinite" can't be limited I respond by saying it can - the infinite set of positive numbers is limited so not to contain negative numbers. Limited infinity, yet another paradox.
An omnipotent god making a rock too heavy does not violate its character - it only violates logic. An omnipotent and omnibenevolent god using omnipotence to make malicious acts benevolent violates its omnibenevolence.
The fact that logic and possibility flies out the window when one discusses omnipotence is blatant proof of the lack of omnipotence. However, since Rhino postulated omnipotence in his argument, I'll run with it - and it still doesn't excuse an omnibenevolent god's actions.
Once again, you can throw a paradox about the omnipotent god making its malicious actions not violate its omnibenevolence, but this paradox in effect ignores the very fact of that god's omnibenevolence, which would prevent it from doing so, especially when such actions violate its own morality, which I pointed out earlier.
Summary: An omnipotent and omnibenevolent god could not use its omnipotence to make malicious actions benevolent, because this very act would violate its omnibenevolence.

[Rhinoqulous]

"So an omnipotent being should be able to make 1+1=2 and 1+1=75? Make facts subjective and objective at the same time? Don't know where you get this definition but it's an interesting one."
Interesting, eh?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=omnipotence
Good enough? Note the "unlimited" part. And if you're still unsure, check the infinte reference, where it notes that it has "no boundaries or limits".
Now, what dictionary are you using where it defines omniptoence as "power which is unlimited except where it alters reality or defies logic"? I'd like to contact the lexicographer.
I've cautioned before about using a dictionary to understand philosophical concepts. A dictionary is not a source of scholarly work. But the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is.

One sense of ‘omnipotence’ is, literally, that of having the power to bring about any state of affairs whatsoever, including necessary and impossible states of affairs. Descartes seems to have had such a notion. Yet, Aquinas and Maimonides held the view that this sense of ‘omnipotence’ is incoherent. Their view can be defended as follows. It is not possible for an agent to bring about an impossible state of affairs (e.g., that there is a shapeless cube), since if it were, it would be possible for an impossible state of affairs to obtain, which is a contradiction. Nor is it possible for an agent to bring about a necessary state of affairs (e.g., that all cubes are shaped). It is possible for an agent, a, to bring about a necessary state of affairs, s, only if possibly, (1) a brings about s, and (2) if a had not acted, then s would have failed to obtain. Because a necessary state of affairs obtains whether or not anyone acts, (2) is false. As a consequence, it is impossible for an agent to bring about either a necessary or an impossible state of affairs. Obviously, an agent's having the power to bring about a state of affairs entails that, possibly, the agent brings about that state of affairs. Thus, the first sense of ‘omnipotence’ is incoherent. Henceforth, it will be assumed that it is not possible for an agent to have the power to bring about any state of affairs whatsoever.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, entry on omnipotence (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipotence/).

Rhinoq

[ocmpoma]

Ah, so the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy uses the logic-only-omnipotence, called by them "maximal power," which is not really omnipotence at all. The citation above is just another example of why omnipotence is self-contradictory, and cannot exist.

[Rhinoqulous]

Yes, omnipotence is self-contradictory and cannot exist, but for the sake of argument we're assuming it does exist in this thread, and that omnipotence is of the type described above.

Rhinoq

[ocmpoma]

Very well... that leaves the point back at: Why doesn't a being who can prevent evil, including both lesser and greater at the same time, not do so?

[Another brick in the wall]

Because he doesn't exist.

[Rhinoqulous]

Very well... that leaves the point back at: Why doesn't a being who can prevent evil, including both lesser and greater at the same time, not do so?
Which is the point that the theists have been dodging. They seem to have three answers:

1- You can't prevent an evil without preventing a greater good or causing a greater evil
- Why? Unless you show that this would be a logical impossibility, this doesn't hold water

2- God doesn't want to interfere with free will
- I think limiting suffering (such as the child being tortured to death) is a greater good than allowing a madman to remain free. But that's just me with my crazy ideas of stopping crazy people from hurting other people. You'd think this God thingy would agree.

3- God's ways are mysterious
- Bullshit. If there is an absolute morality, all moral agents (which would include God) must have access to the standards of morality, otherwise they couldn't be moral agents. If God's ways are mysterious, she/he/it is using a different moral standard than we are, and then we cannot be justified in calling this God "good".

Rhinoq

[ocmpoma]

I'll add to #2 that such a being can prevent evil without preventing free will, in several ways:
It can make it so that no one ever actually decides to do evil, even though there is nothing stopping them.
It can make it so that they decide to do evil, but something stops the act itself.
It can make it so that evil universally does not occur - for example, all living things are immune to suffering of any kind. Importing everyone immediately to Heaven would be one way of doing this; making every living thing immortal and immune to physical and emotional pain is another (although it could be argued that they are in fact the same thing).

[Rhinoqulous]

I've also heard from theists that God couldn't create humans as moral agents with the ability to be good without the possibility of doing evil, that moral agents of this nature are impossible. But God is a moral agent that ALWAYS will supposedly do good and never evil, so why couldn't God have created us the same way (we are supposed to be made in her/his/its image)?

Rhinoq

[ocmpoma]

Or better yet, why create us at all?

[Another brick in the wall]

Exactly! I'm am so tired of hearing the "god-doesn't-want-robots" speech. Why in the world does god want to be worshipped in the first place? As Kawtuktuk (maybe it was Ak?) so eloquently put it, "if god is so powerful, why does he care if we worship him or not?"

[Rhinoqulous]

My guess is God was bored. What's eternity without helpless little creatures to amuse itself with? I'm sure schaudenfreuden applies to God as well. :P

Rhinoq

[thomas]

Very well... that leaves the point back at: Why doesn't a being who can prevent evil, including both lesser and greater at the same time, not do so?
Which is the point that the theists have been dodging. They seem to have three answers:

1- You can't prevent an evil without preventing a greater good or causing a greater evil
- Why? Unless you show that this would be a logical impossibility, this doesn't hold water
I'd rather say this positively. Which is that by allowing an evil, a greater evil can be avoided or a greater good can be permitted. This seems obviously true.

2- God doesn't want to interfere with free will
- I think limiting suffering (such as the child being tortured to death) is a greater good than allowing a madman to remain free. But that's just me with my crazy ideas of stopping crazy people from hurting other people. You'd think this God thingy would agree.
But if there is a God then there is also, at least in the Christian view, an eternal life. So, as to the torture, I disagree with you, in that the capacity for free-will is a greater good than the avoidance of the ability for humans to harm each other. And as to the death, it's a path to something greater.

This God concept is obviously dangerous if the whole concept is not true. But in the context of your argument I think it makes a coherent position.

3- God's ways are mysterious
- Bullshit. If there is an absolute morality, all moral agents (which would include God) must have access to the standards of morality, otherwise they couldn't be moral agents. If God's ways are mysterious, she/he/it is using a different moral standard than we are, and then we cannot be justified in calling this God "good".
I agree that there is not a different moral standard for God. But the "god's ways are mysterious" angle does help the argument. I mean this in the sense that God's omniscience allows Him to make different judgement concerning the net moral outcome of an event, because He can see consequences perfectly.

[calpurnpiso]

Metman:
Envision should respond on his/her own, but I'll take a crack at a few of your comments. First, none of what we are saying proves/disproves god - that's not the point even though Rhinoq started this off with a proof. I think we're trying to make sense out of evil in light of a god that claims to be good.

You say god should be able to send people "a sign". I think he does all the time, however you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Yeah it's a cliche, but an accurate description of what I think happens all too often. Free will is a nasty bugger.

How can god reveal his goodness unless there is evil to act good against? Can you know good without knowing evil?
I mentioned proving/disproving God because I was simply pointing out that the fact that sometimes good things arise out of bad things says nothing about the benevolence of God, if it all he does exist.

How can you prove that things are signs? People can attribute meaning to things that have none. Now if God sent me some sort of very convincing sign of his existence, I would believe in him. But I have never experienced any such thing. I am sure that millions of people around the world will tell you the same thing. In fact, I personally know some theists will openly admit that they were never sent any signs. Some people say they believe in God because they have a relationship with him. I myself believed this once, but I came to realize that this was a delusion. There are people of various faiths who claim to "experience" their respective supernatural entities.

Why is there evil in this universe when, according to the Christian faith, there exists a place that is devoid of it?
Exactly. The only thing Christian are prooving without any doubt is that they have brains where the logic and reason providing neurons can not survive! Alas, it is like the lack of melanin in albinos. Since the brain makes us what we are creating the mind, and it is composed of genes, I think a religious brain of educated people lack the reason-gene! As any other genetic disorder it is passed from generations to generations!

The acceptance of a clearly irrational and absurd concept as if it was reality is symptomatic of mental illness, by definition. What causes mental illness is still unknown in many cases, making the vast majority of neurological disorders idiopathic.

Not matter how many ways it is spin if a god is ALL good, ALL knowing, All perfect and ALL creating by definition, the Christian god is simply an oxymoron, since he had created evil, doesn't know the future or is perfect since his creations are going to be such evil pain in the ass creatures! Obviously god is no god but a figment of the imagination of man. The happiest and mentally healthiest person is the one that by liberating himself from the clutches of the god-neurosis, keep his feet firmly planted on the ground of reason laughing at the foibles of his god-neurosis infected friends...:)

[ocmpoma]

"Which is that by allowing an evil, a greater evil can be avoided or a greater good can be permitted. This seems obviously true."
Congrats, thomas - you just dodged the omnipotence issue again! You also ignore the supplements to #2 I put forth, and #3 is still bullshit.

[thomas]

I'll add to #2 that such a being can prevent evil without preventing free will, in several ways:
It can make it so that no one ever actually decides to do evil, even though there is nothing stopping them.
It can make it so that they decide to do evil, but something stops the act itself.
It can make it so that evil universally does not occur - for example, all living things are immune to suffering of any kind. Importing everyone immediately to Heaven would be one way of doing this; making every living thing immortal and immune to physical and emotional pain is another (although it could be argued that they are in fact the same thing).
Yes, but you are now trying to argue that of all the worlds that God could have created this is not the best one possible. And I'd claim that it's possible that you don't have any real perspective on the truth of that statement relative to an omniscient/omnipotent God.

As to your proposed alternative worlds, your first two depend on the removal of choice and independent action from people (I know, I know you think omniscience does this anyway). The third one is something of a mystery to me and not one I have answers to. But my objections above to Rhinoq's arguments are the answer here to my mind. That is that it is possible that God (a) knows more than I do about the outcome of events and choices and (b) is acting for the greatest good. For Rhinoq's argument to hold you have to show that my statement is logically proven as incorrect.

And I don't think I avoided the omnipotence issue at all. I'm not saying that God can't act to remove these evils just that it is possible that by so acting He would create a greater evil. Can you prove this isn't true ?

[calpurnpiso]

There is no light without darkness, no heat without cold and no good without evil. The interesting thing is that good and evil are relative to the times and angle from which they are perceived. What was good for a Christian Crusader of the 12th Century (i,e killing a Jew and stealing his land for Deus Vult, god willst it, for he'll be sending the Jew to heaven acquiring the proper soul to enter heaven) is evil for many people of today, but it is still good is for many Wahhabbi infected folks like Bin Laden....evil for Suni Muslims. What was evil for a Christian Crusader of the 12th Century, like reading pagan medical books and using herbs to cure people WITHOUT praying, is viewed as good by the vast majority of people today...but still viewed as evil for the scientologists of today!..:)

[calpurnpiso]

Thomas wrote:

"And I'd claim that it's possible that you don't have any real perspective on the truth of