Some observations on the problem of evil

[rocketdodger]

I'm afraid I still don't understand what you mean by "beyond our current logic."

Ok, here is a metaphysical question -- "how did things come to be?"

What is your answer? There is none, because that question is completely beyond our current logic.

 

[Bri]

You think that I am measuring free will by our ability to alter events along our timeline. That is merely a part of free will (it just so happens to be the part that we observe).

You almost explained exactly what you meant, but stopped short. What is the other part of free will that you're talking about that we don't observe?

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Ok, here is a metaphysical question -- "how did things come to be?"

What is your answer? There is none, because that question is completely beyond our current logic.

OK, so what exactly does that have to do with what God can do or can't do? Can God do something that is "beyond our current logic" in your opinion? Can you give an example?

-Bri

 

[rocketdodger]

OK, so what exactly does that have to do with what God can do or can't do? Can God do something that is "beyond our current logic" in your opinion? Can you give an example?

-Bri

I do not believe in god. And I can't give you an example because anything beyond our current logic is impossible for us to imagine hehe.

BUT, there MUST be something beyond our current logic, as the question I posed illustrates. Our current system does not account for itself fully.

 

[rocketdodger]

You almost explained exactly what you meant, but stopped short. What is the other part of free will that you're talking about that we don't observe?

I don't exactly know. It could be a system of infinite dimensions, or a system of finite dimensions with something external that is beyond our conception.

Either way, for free will to exist, there must be some external influence upon every event in any dimension. Otherwise, it isn't free will.

The notion of free will is that there is somehow, somewhere, something that is able to act at least in part by its own choice. However, for every closed system, the behavior of every part of that system is completely defined by the current state of the system and the properties of those parts. This leaves no room for choice, even if some properties include randomness. The ONLY way choice can work its way in is by external influence on the system.

But, there is no way to externally influence anything in an n-dimensional space if you exist only within those n dimensions. You must exist also in at least one other dimension outside of that space, and for something to influence that dimension, at least one other, and so on and so forth. This ends with either an infinite number of dimensions or else something yet unknown that is outside the realm of current mathematics.

 

[chriswl]

No, you don't have to prove that it is impossible, but be clear that your belief that it is impossible is simply your opinion and not fact.

It's a fact for any reasonable concept of "greater good". As I said at the start, this is too obvious to require proof. Any attempt at proof would, however, be pointless as you would just claim that I hadn't exhausted all possible definitions of "greater good". I can't define "good" but I have to assume that I know what it is, otherwise it is meaningless to even talk about whether or not God is good.

 

[Bri]

It's a fact for any reasonable concept of "greater good". As I said at the start, this is too obvious to require proof. Any attempt at proof would, however, be pointless as you would just claim that I hadn't exhausted all possible definitions of "greater good". I can't define "good" but I have to assume that I know what it is, otherwise it is meaningless to even talk about whether or not God is good.

If you know what "good" is, then you also know what "greater good" is (it simply means "more good"). Surely you can understand how something can be "more good" than something else, right? It is good for a sick child to never experience pain. It is better for a sick child to be cured, even if they experience some pain. Therefore, an injection for a sick child results in a greater good than no injection, even though the child might see it differently when the doctor comes at him with a needle.

You state how obvious it is that it is literally impossible for everything that is not the result of human choice to be for the greater good. So obvious, in fact, that you hold that it doesn't require proof. Sounds an awful lot like a belief based on faith rather than fact to me. Just like a theist's belief in God.

-Bri

 

[chriswl]

If you know what "good" is, then you also know what "greater good" is (it simply means "more good"). Surely you can understand how something can be "more good" than something else, right? It is good for a sick child to never experience pain.

I'm relieved to hear you say that. If I had said it you would have immediately challenged me about how I "knew" this was so, but since you have volunteered it I'm guessing you wont do that so lets try and build on it. Can we say, at least to a first approximation, that goodness is to be found in the increase of pleasure and the reduction of suffering, in the aggregate and over the long term? I know there are problems with this sort of utilitarianism, but it's a start. If you don't like it, suggest some better definition.

Now, lets imagine someone whose suffering and cannot possibly have any effect on the world. This is just to provide a vivid example - there are many people whose suffering actually has no effect on the world but if you want a rigorous argument then I have to pick cut-and-dried cases. Lets imagine someone in a coma who will shortly die. No one can know what they are feeling (if anything). They will not come back to tell anyone what they felt. Therefore, their suffering cannot possibly contribute to any "greater good" as it is unknown to anyone but themselves.

It is pretty obvious to me (and to most people, I would have thought) that countless people, every day suffer in ways that do not provide any compensatory pleasure or satifsfaction to anyone else. So, I ask you, why would you even imagine that all suffering is for the greater good? Are you a theist desperate to preserve the notion of an omnibenevolent God or do you just like arguing hopeless positions for the intellectual challenge of it?

 

[ExitDose]

Eh?

Knowing that if you roll a dice, then you will either roll a 1, a 2, a 3, a 4, a 5 or a 6 isn't knowing the outcome of your dice roll.

There is no outcome of the diceroll until it's rolled in a truly probabilistic scenario. Otherwise it would cease to be probabilistic. You would still be all knowing as there would be no correct answer.

 

[Bri]

I'm relieved to hear you say that. If I had said it you would have immediately challenged me about how I "knew" this was so, but since you have volunteered it I'm guessing you wont do that so lets try and build on it.

Well, you said that you knew what "good" is:

I can't define "good" but I have to assume that I know what it is, otherwise it is meaningless to even talk about whether or not God is good.

Indeed, the Problem of Evil requires that we have at least an intuitive notion of what is good. But I'm not interested in a tedious discussion of semantics any more than you are.

Can we say, at least to a first approximation, that goodness is to be found in the increase of pleasure and the reduction of suffering, in the aggregate and over the long term? I know there are problems with this sort of utilitarianism, but it's a start. If you don't like it, suggest some better definition.

Is pleasure the only good and suffering the only evil? This definition seems a little restrictive to me. How do we reconcile other things that might be considered to be "good" like love, hope, etc. or "evil" like hatred, greed, etc.? What if someone gets pleasure from hurting others? Or is able to help ease the suffering of others because of his greed? But I think if we stick to clear cases, we can avoid such pitfalls without a perfect definition.

Now, lets imagine someone whose suffering and cannot possibly have any effect on the world. This is just to provide a vivid example - there are many people whose suffering actually has no effect on the world but if you want a rigorous argument then I have to pick cut-and-dried cases. Lets imagine someone in a coma who will shortly die. No one can know what they are feeling (if anything). They will not come back to tell anyone what they felt. Therefore, their suffering cannot possibly contribute to any "greater good" as it is unknown to anyone but themselves.

I'm not sure how you can say that a coma patient doesn't have any affect on the world. If compassion is good and suffering is bad, then easing the suffering of a coma patient would be good, no? Or perhaps the struggle of this person inspires a child to become a researcher and cure whatever ailment placed the person in a coma. Or do you know of a comatose person who is alone in a sealed cave? Then perhaps this person, were they to have not slipped into a coma, might have escaped the cave to cause great suffering in others. Of course, we're assuming that the coma patient is actually suffering, otherwise the coma isn't bad at all (using your definition) -- it might even be pleasurable!

It is pretty obvious to me (and to most people, I would have thought) that countless people, every day suffer in ways that do not provide any compensatory pleasure or satifsfaction to anyone else.

Please provide a real-world example where someone's suffering couldn't possibly have been for the greater good and I'll agree with you. I'm just not sure that the number of actual examples you can come up with is actually "countless" as you say.

So, I ask you, why would you even imagine that all suffering is for the greater good? Are you a theist desperate to preserve the notion of an omnibenevolent God or do you just like arguing hopeless positions for the intellectual challenge of it?

I don't imagine that all suffering is for the greater good. Indeed, it is quite possible that some or all suffering isn't for the greater good. Of course, it is also possible that all suffering is for the greater good, one of many possibilities that seem to soundly defeat the Problem of Evil. It's fairly clear that the more hopeless position in this particular discussion is one in defense of the Problem of Evil. So, the truth is that I'm lazy and just taking the easy way out.

-Bri

 

[Tricky]

I do not believe in god. And I can't give you an example because anything beyond our current logic is impossible for us to imagine hehe.

BUT, there MUST be something beyond our current logic, as the question I posed illustrates. Our current system does not account for itself fully.

Just to be pedantic here RD, I think you mean "evidence", "data" or "knowledge", not "logic". Logic can account for absolutely anything, for example:

Major premise - All Alabamians are idiots
Minor premise - Tricky is an Alabamian
Conclusion - Tricky is an idiot

That is a perfectly logical statement, even though the conclusion could still be false. It is the job of evidence to show that the premises are correct, and the evidence shows that the major premise is flawed. There are a few Alabamians who are not idiots.

Also note that you can have a correct conclusion yet the logic is wrong, to wit,

Major premise - Some Alabamians are idiots
Minor premise - Tricky is an Alabamian
Conclusion - Tricky is an idiot

In this case, the conclusion is correct, yet the logic does not prove the correctness of the conclusion.

This is why I always use "evidence" instead of "logic". But then, I'm an idiot, so you might not want to follow my example.

 

[rocketdodger]

Just to be pedantic here RD, I think you mean "evidence", "data" or "knowledge", not "logic". Logic can account for absolutely anything, for example:

Nope, I mean logic. No matter how much evidence we gain, how much data we gather, or how much knowledge we posess, the question of existence can never be fully addressed by our current logic.

It is the logic that is the problem.

 

[chriswl]

Is pleasure the only good and suffering the only evil? This definition seems a little restrictive to me. How do we reconcile other things that might be considered to be "good" like love, hope, etc. or "evil" like hatred, greed, etc.?

They are good insofar as they feel good to the person experiencing them or lead to other people feeling good. The opposite for bad things.

I'm not sure how you can say that a coma patient doesn't have any affect on the world. If compassion is good and suffering is bad, then easing the suffering of a coma patient would be good, no? Or perhaps the struggle of this person inspires a child to become a researcher and cure whatever ailment placed the person in a coma.

You're not reading what I wrote. We have no way of knowing whether this coma patient is suffering physical pain, is experiencng terrible nightmares or ecstatically beautiful dreams. He can't communicate to us and will not recover to tell us about his experiences. So his plight cannot affect or inspire anyone.

I don't understand why feeling compassion for someone would be considered a good thing in itself. OK, it can be a pleasant feeling, but not greatly so. Surely the main reason compassion is good is because it inspires action that leads to a reduction in suffering, so we are back to judging things on the basis of suffering/pleasure. But this is all irrelevant in this case. You can't feel compassion for another's suffering if you don't know that they are suffering.

I don't imagine that all suffering is for the greater good. Indeed, it is quite possible that some or all suffering isn't for the greater good. Of course, it is also possible that all suffering is for the greater good, one of many possibilities that seem to soundly defeat the Problem of Evil.

Unless you can think of a way in which this might be so it is as idle as saying that the moon might be made of cheese. After all an omnipotent God could surely arrange this (the cheese is just below the suface, which is why we've not seen it). If I declare that the moon is not made of cheese is this just an "opinion"?

People have been trying for hundreds of years to get round the PoE argument against the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God. If there was a knock-down argument against it would be common knowledge and would be parroted, ad nauseam, by all theists. There is no such argument. The PoE shows that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God is incompatible with the world we live in. For more sophisticated theists this is not a problem - they have more subtle versions of God that are not affected by this argument. But the vast majority of Christians do assume that their God is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent and they are wrong. Such a God cannot exist.

 

[Bri]

They are good insofar as they feel good to the person experiencing them or lead to other people feeling good. The opposite for bad things.

Well, hatred and greed feel good for some people, but I wouldn't argue that they are good. I suppose it can be argued that they lead to more bad than good, which might make them a net "bad."

You're not reading what I wrote. We have no way of knowing whether this coma patient is suffering physical pain, is experiencng terrible nightmares or ecstatically beautiful dreams. He can't communicate to us and will not recover to tell us about his experiences. So his plight cannot affect or inspire anyone.

I beg to differ. Just because the coma victim can't communicate doesn't mean that his plight cannot affect or inspire others. Perhaps he has a young family member who visits him and decides to find a cure in order to help him. I would say the family member was inspired by his situation, if not by him directly. Therefore, the coma may have been for a greater good.

I don't understand why feeling compassion for someone would be considered a good thing in itself. OK, it can be a pleasant feeling, but not greatly so. Surely the main reason compassion is good is because it inspires action that leads to a reduction in suffering, so we are back to judging things on the basis of suffering/pleasure. But this is all irrelevant in this case. You can't feel compassion for another's suffering if you don't know that they are suffering.

I didn't say that feeling compassion without action is necessarily good (although it could be argued that it is). But helping to make the coma patient comfortable, and even talking to the patient might be good. That said, you are wrong that we cannot feel compassion for a coma patient because we don't know if they are suffering. We generally assume that they are suffering because they cannot communicate or move. You made this same assumption by choosing the coma patient as an example, because if they weren't suffering then your example falls apart (the coma isn't bad at all by your definition).

Unless you can think of a way in which this might be so it is as idle as saying that the moon might be made of cheese. After all an omnipotent God could surely arrange this (the cheese is just below the suface, which is why we've not seen it). If I declare that the moon is not made of cheese is this just an "opinion"?

There is a difference between the statement "the moon is not made of green cheese" and "it is impossible that the moon is made of green cheese." The former is perhaps an opinion, but the latter is stated as fact. Since we have some evidence that the moon is not cheese (we've been there), the former can be backed up by evidence, but there is no evidence of the latter statement (since the only evidence that something is impossible is proof that it's not possible). I would never say that it's impossible for the moon to be made of green cheese for (among others) the very reasons you gave. I would also never say that it's impossible that all suffering serves a greater good.

People have been trying for hundreds of years to get round the PoE argument against the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God.

They have, and quite successfully. You should do a bit of reading on the subject. The problem with the PoE is that a defense of it bears the burden of proof since it makes a positive claim. In order to prove the PoE you must show that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God is impossible. Arguments such as the "greater good" argument demonstrate that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God is possible.

If there was a knock-down argument against it would be common knowledge and would be parroted, ad nauseam, by all theists.

These arguments are parroted, ad nauseum, by some theists (perhaps not all) every time the PoE is brought up (usually after some natural disaster or a news story about a person suffering). I don't know what a "knock-down" argument against the PoE would consist of, other than showing that it's conclusion is possibly wrong, in which case there are many knock-down arguments against the PoE.

There is no such argument. The PoE shows that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God is incompatible with the world we live in.

Sorry, wrong. The PoE has been argued in various forms for hundreds of years, and never has it been shown that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God is incompatible with the world we live in.

For more sophisticated theists this is not a problem - they have more subtle versions of God that are not affected by this argument. But the vast majority of Christians do assume that their God is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent and they are wrong. Such a God cannot exist.

Such a God may not exist, but to say that such a God cannot exist is a vast overstatement.

Again, if you can provide a single real-life example of human suffering that could not possibly have served a greater good, then I'll concede that the "greater good" argument against the PoE doesn't hold water. Since you claim that there are "countless" examples, it should be a piece of cake to prove me wrong.

-Bri

 

[UndercoverElephant]

There is no outcome of the diceroll until it's rolled in a truly probabilistic scenario. Otherwise it would cease to be probabilistic. You would still be all knowing as there would be no correct answer.

eh?

 

[elliotfc]

OK, so what exactly does that have to do with what God can do or can't do? Can God do something that is "beyond our current logic" in your opinion? Can you give an example?

Raise the dead to life? Transform a wafer into Christ's flesh? Be three persons at once?

Hell of a thread btw, keep at it folks!

-Elliot

 

[Bri]

I suspect that none of those are examples of what rocketdodger considers "beyond our current logic" since we can imagine them. They are physically impossible, but not logically impossible, and I'm guessing not "beyond our current logic" (although I'm still not sure what is meant by that).

-Bri

 

[elliotfc]

I suspect that none of those are examples of what rocketdodger considers "beyond our current logic" since we can imagine them. They are physically impossible, but not logically impossible, and I'm guessing not "beyond our current logic" (although I'm still not sure what is meant by that).

-Bri

How can you give an example of something that you can't imagine?

-Elliot

 

[Bri]

How can you give an example of something that you can't imagine?

I asked for an example before I knew that you apparently can't imagine it. Nonetheless, he did give an example. From the description, I would simply use the term "abstract" rather than "beyond our current logic" but like I said, I'm probably misunderstanding.

-Bri

 

[Robin]

A minor point, but if you're going to accuse someone of misquoting you, don't post the exact same quote that they quoted as evidence.
Read my quote. Read your representation of it. Different huh? That is why I reposted my quote.

I wanted to ensure we were debating my quote and not your misrepresentation.