Log in

View Full Version : Problem of evil


Entheogenic
2005-03-07, 05:33
I want to know if anyone is familiar with this argument, and if so who came up with it first. I have been unable to find an example of it being used, and if that is the case then I made it up, which is cool http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) Anyway, here it goes:



My argument is basically a response to a common apologist refutation of the argument by evil. I'm not going to make any assumptions, so I'll lay out all the relevant ideas first.

The argument by evil is an argument against the existence of God--note the capital G, it doesn't work so well against lowercase g. The basic idea is that if God is really omnipotent (all powerful), omniscient (all knowing), and omnibenevolent (all good), evil should not exist. The fact that it does indicates that God either does not know about it, cannot stop it, or does not want to stop it, all of which violate one of the three defining premises of God.

The usual apologist response to this is to counter with the free will argument. This argument states that, when he created man, God supplied us with free will--the ability to choose good or evil for ourselves--and it is from this free will that all evil on earth stems, not God's will. In essence, it is saying that God could stop the evil, but that would violate the free will that he gave us. Now, here's my argument.

I first came up with this a few years back while involved in a lengthy email list debate with a fundamentalist apologist. We got to this point in the argument, and I realized I didn't have a decent metaphysical response to this issue. I thought about it for a while, and came up with the following:

First, we need to define free will. The obvious choice for a definition is "the ability to choose any action for oneself." However, this doesn't quite cut it--one obviously can't choose to do or not do an action that is physically impossible. Therefore, the definition of free will needs to be tweaked slightly to read "the ability to choose any POSSIBLE choice or action for oneself." Now, God created man--assuming for the sake of argument the existence of a creator god--and the universe to conform to certain constraints and physical laws. I can't pass my hand through the wall next to me simply by willing it, and if I jump out my second story window, I will fall--no matter how much I may want to fly. This is not viewed as a violation of free will because the only logical definition of free will is the one discussed above--the ability to choose from all possible actions. In other words, we do not view it as a violation of our free will to be unable to fly, become invisible, teleport, or perform any of the other infinite number of actions that are impossible to us. So, then, why would God not have created us with an inability to do evil, in the same way he created us with an inability to perform all the actions enumerated above (and more)? If God had "hard wired" us, so to speak, with an inability to perform evil, doing only good would just be part of our nature, in the same way that walking rather than flying is part of our nature. If God were truly omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient, he would have created us in this way.



I'm anxious to hear if anyone knows of another source for this argument--I could have either subconciously stolen it or come up with it independently--as well as any comments or criticisms you might have.

Entheogenic

dagnabitt
2005-03-07, 06:09
"Natural Evil", such as floods and earthquakes, famines, etc....

The problem of evil demonstrates that If god exists he is indifferent to us at best. The free will argument is a poor rebuttal as is, even if it does apply for someone, so called acts" of god cannot be dispelled along the same line.

The problem of evil also shows that the conception of the judeo-christian deity as some anthropomorphic father figure is a stupid and illogical belief.

I mention the problem of evil in the "Satanist but have to go to church" thread, where I added some opinions about it.

dagnabitt
2005-03-07, 06:13
And your rebuttal to the free will argument is a good one IMHO.

It makes no sense for god as defined as so (omni...) to want, desire, need anything. If god exists, reality is exactly the way God wants it.

The problem of evil gives us evidence for why we cannot base a dogmatic religion on the idea of a perfect god. Morality (commandments) makes no sense with regards to a perfect being.

[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 03-07-2005).]

Entheogenic
2005-03-07, 06:19
quote:Originally posted by dagnabitt:

"Natural Evil", such as floods and earthquakes, famines, etc....

The problem of evil demonstrates that If god exists he is indifferent to us at best. The free will argument is a poor rebuttal as is, even if it does apply for someone, so called acts" of god cannot be dispelled along the same line.

The problem of evil also shows that the conception of the judeo-christian deity as some anthropomorphic father figure is a stupid and illogical belief.

I mention the problem of evil in the "Satanist but have to go to church" thread, where I added some opinions about it.



The usual response to the natural evil argument is to state that earthquakes and whatnot are punishment for the evil we commit of our own free will. In fact, I originally came up with this argument debating with someone who was maintaining that 9/11 happened as a punishment for evil, secular America.



Entheogenic

dagnabitt
2005-03-07, 06:34
Yeah, thats redundant though. You have to admit god exists in imperfect form (ie allowing events to occure that are "punishable" or "against God's will" in the first place) before you can say he is in fact punishing people.

Effectively you have to admit god is limited, thereby contradicting yourself, in order to justify his intervention.



[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 03-07-2005).]

pinkponies
2005-03-07, 10:08
There is a classic question "can god make a boulder so large he himself cannot move it" the answer to the question either way means god is not omniponet and all powerful, because either way he cant do something. The standard religouse answer is its beyond our comprehension. The real answer is that god fucks up just like us, and that god has many of our flaws, wrath being one of them. Judeo-christian is a stupid term, the ONE jeish god and the THREE christian gods (father son and holy ghost, then theres mother and saints which are all minor gods realistically) behave in very differant ways. The jewish god gets really angry and smites people, and makes bets with satan about how jobe will react to torture, god is god, take it or leave it, thats what we have got, he gives us laws desighned to help us work better together, and probobly is incapable of enforcing them in the way you mean to ask. Beyond that, just like a father must eventually let his children solve their own problems fight their own fights and stop interveining, i think god has stoped performing miracles. And if we fuck up its our problem now. Hope that helps.

Eil
2005-03-07, 10:26
the problem of evil argument is interesting to me. on the one hand, the logic is compelling, and i believe, an important tool for erasing stagnant and dogmatic principles.

on the other hand, i can't help but feel that it is strangely disconcerting. sometimes it seems that people employ the argument as if they prefer to believe in evil rather than God.

[This message has been edited by Eil (edited 03-07-2005).]

MaxSteiner
2005-03-07, 18:04
From what Ive ever understood, the reason bad stuff happenns in this world, like disastors and the like, is that this is a balanced world. That doesnt refute God in anyway.

If the world was like some kind of disney flick, where we all held hands and sung songs and shit, then it wouldnt really be a good world, it would be a fake one with no point in carrying on.

Because the world is pretty cack really the good things are that much better.

Therefore Evil is required, because without its presence you dont have good, you just have the way things are.

Its a case of the old, "light the candel and ye produce shadow" gomen ne?

Said it before and Ill say it again, its all in the Zohar, as well as some interesting facts about Gods nose... and what his hair looks like etc.

Obviously Im gonna get some flack for some reason though.

[This message has been edited by MaxSteiner (edited 03-07-2005).]

Fai1safe
2005-03-07, 18:43
quote:Originally posted by pinkponies:

There is a classic question "can god make a boulder so large he himself cannot move it" the answer to the question either way means god is not omniponet and all powerful, because either way he cant do something. The standard religouse answer is its beyond our comprehension. The real answer is that god fucks up just like us, and that god has many of our flaws, wrath being one of them. Judeo-christian is a stupid term, the ONE jeish god and the THREE christian gods (father son and holy ghost, then theres mother and saints which are all minor gods realistically) behave in very differant ways. The jewish god gets really angry and smites people, and makes bets with satan about how jobe will react to torture, god is god, take it or leave it, thats what we have got, he gives us laws desighned to help us work better together, and probobly is incapable of enforcing them in the way you mean to ask. Beyond that, just like a father must eventually let his children solve their own problems fight their own fights and stop interveining, i think god has stoped performing miracles. And if we fuck up its our problem now. Hope that helps.



But your saying that what the bible says about being omni... is wrong... that means any of it could be wrong and your worshiping a 2000 year old carpenter.

Rust
2005-03-07, 19:22
This has been debated here before. I debated pretty much the exact same thing with DS, Tyrant, and xtreem, none if which could provide an answer.

This was over a month ago, so the threads (there where various) are now gone.

It had evolved from argument that we cannot have free will if an omniscient being exists, since he already knows what we're going to do. Their reply was, that god is omnipotent and therefore able to do the illogical. I then argued that if god is able to do the illogical, then he is able to remove from us the ability to do evil, and preserve free will at the same time (which is illogical), and therefore, that he allows evil to exist, means he is not benevolent (we were arguing specifically about the Christian god).

They never provided an answer.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-07-2005).]

Rust
2005-03-07, 19:27
quote:Originally posted by MaxSteiner:



Therefore Evil is required, because without its presence you dont have good, you just have the way things are.

Its a case of the old, "light the candel and ye produce shadow" gomen ne?



It isn't required since we're debating an omnipotent, and omniscient being.

If he is omnipotent, then arguably he can make it so good can exist, even in the abscence of evil. If he can't, then he isn't omnipotent.

MaxSteiner
2005-03-07, 19:31
But what value does that hold?

Perhaps God made a world where it was all good, but once everyone was through sucking eachothers wangs he realised how gay it all was?

Not doing something doesnt stop you having the power too do it.

Youve got the power too buy an AppleMac, choosing not too buy one doesnt detract from your ability too make said choice.

Rust
2005-03-07, 19:38
quote:Originally posted by MaxSteiner:

But what value does that hold?

I'm not debating what is more "fun", "exciting", or "valuable".

quote:

Perhaps God made a world where it was all good, but once everyone was through sucking eachothers wangs he realised how gay it all was?



That still brings us back to the beginning. That means he deliberately allowed for evil to exist.

quote:

Not doing something doesnt stop you having the power too do it.

Youve got the power too buy an AppleMac, choosing not too buy one doesnt detract from your ability too make said choice.

What does this have to do with anything?

dagnabitt
2005-03-07, 20:35
Dont waste your time rust, you wont be able to get rid of him if you acknowledge he's there.

dagnabitt
2005-03-07, 22:35
quote:Originally posted by Rust:

This has been debated here before. I debated pretty much the exact same thing with DS, Tyrant, and xtreem, none if which could provide an answer.

This was over a month ago, so the threads (there where various) are now gone.

It had evolved from argument that we cannot have free will if an omniscient being exists, since he already knows what we're going to do. Their reply was, that god is omnipotent and therefore able to do the illogical. I then argued that if god is able to do the illogical, then he is able to remove from us the ability to do evil, and preserve free will at the same time (which is illogical), and therefore, that he allows evil to exist, means he is not benevolent (we were arguing specifically about the Christian god).

They never provided an answer.





The problem with the free will thing, is that even if you are willing to accept that "god" is under no commitment to be logical, this is no grounds to deduce a dogmatic religion. You cant deduce certain ethics from uncertain metaphysics.

You cant talk about God as a perfect being and then limit him through religion - its simply short sighted.

[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 03-07-2005).]

Nemisis
2005-03-08, 01:02
It is believed by many that there is a balance to the universe. It's a dualality of negative & positve, Light & dark, Good & evil.

There are also some who believe that good cannot exist without its mirror image of evil, and vice versa.

dagnabitt
2005-03-08, 01:39
If that is the case an "omni" god is impossible, at least insofar as omnibenevolance is concerned.

[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 03-08-2005).]

Entheogenic
2005-03-08, 01:43
quote:Originally posted by Rust:

I then argued that if god is able to do the illogical, then he is able to remove from us the ability to do evil, and preserve free will at the same time (which is illogical), and therefore, that he allows evil to exist, means he is not benevolent (we were arguing specifically about the Christian god).

They never provided an answer.



Great agument. I really like that. Thanks all for the comments so far.



Entheogenic

Hexadecimal
2005-03-08, 03:22
quote:Originally posted by Nemisis:

It is believed by many that there is a balance to the universe. It's a dualality of negative & positve, Light & dark, Good & evil.

There are also some who believe that good cannot exist without its mirror image of evil, and vice versa.

There are also those of us who think neither exist in any solidarity. The matter is subjective, in so far as good for one is evil for another. It boils down to psychological preferences, which hash themselves out in a battle between the superego, ego, and id. The dominant preference is often labeled good, with another as a 'sinful pleasure', and the weakest preference as downright evil. Simply put, humans are fucking retards.

Viraljimmy
2005-03-08, 13:03
Evil is a human concept, and

has no reality outside your

little minds. It is a result

of culture and sociological

forces.

Humans living in more natural

conditions have less need for

the idea of good and evil.

It was only with the rise of

government that a good god was

created as an example for what

subjects of the state should do.

(the devil made me write this)

Outlaw Skumfuck
2005-03-08, 15:23
Evil is a thing of the individual. Something that I may see as evil, you may see as good. There is no true good or evil, it is all just in your fucking mond.

Tesseract
2005-03-08, 21:37
Viraljimmy, you make a good point, but you're not a fucking poet. Write in prose like the rest of us and you might get more responses.

Hexadecimal
2005-03-08, 21:50
quote:Originally posted by Tesseract:

Viraljimmy, you make a good point, but you're not a fucking poet. Write in prose like the rest of us and you might get more responses.

Hah, that got a nice laugh from me.

Tesseract
2005-03-08, 22:09
It's writing like his that keeps me out of Spurious. Hurts my frickin' eyes...