Some observations on the problem of evil

[UndercoverElephant]

But you don't need to define good and evil in absolute terms. Any way one defines them it puts god in the pickle of not being able to do whatever it wants to.

That is only a pickle if it makes sense to claim that God could "want" to do anything at all. "Wanting" is something that can never apply to God. God cannot "want anything" - "wanting" is to be in need of something, it is a response to a need. But God cannot need anything. The only reason humans "want" things is because they are genetically programmed to physically survive, avoid death, increase their status, their standard of living and ultimately to enhance their chances of successfully reproducing. None of these things could possibly apply to a non-physical immortal being which has no physical needs, cannot be threatened and cannot possibly wish to improve it's status. "Wanting" simply does not apply to God.

According to our logic, if god is absolutely good, there can be only ONE choice for it to make at any given moment -- this is what the "absolute" refers to.

This presupposes a meaning of "good" that I have rejected.

The paradox of the stone doesn't really have anything to do with omnipotence. The fact that a stone too heavy to lift is a logical impossibility holds regardless of how we define omnipotence. Therefore, the solution to the paradox, that such a stone is logically impossible, isn't dependent upon the attributes we give god.

Agreed, it is a red herring.

On the other hand, labeling god omnipotent and omnibenevolent creates a paradox that is completely dependent upon those two labels taken together. As such, it's solution is completely different from the paradox of the stone. It is exactly the same as saying "I drive red cars only" and "today I drove a yellow car." Taken independently, both of those statements are logically possible. Taken together, one of them must be false.

OK, I agree. But I have already put a restriction on "omnibenevolent".

 

[rocketdodger]

None of these things could possibly apply to a non-physical immortal being which has no physical needs, cannot be threatened and cannot possibly wish to improve it's status. "Wanting" simply does not apply to God.

You don't seem to be arguing about the same thing the problem of evil was created to challenge...

This presupposes a meaning of "good" that I have rejected.

No, not at all. "Absolute" anything implies a single value. It is the "absolute" that I am referring to, not the "good."

OK, I agree. But I have already put a restriction on "omnibenevolent".

Yeah but that is my point. Putting any restrictions on the nature of god turns it into nothing more than either a personal idea or a tool used to control and oppress populations via arbitrary nonsense..

 

[ExitDose]

Of course there is new information. After the dice has been rolled, the new information was "I rolled a six". I might add that this is a bit confusing since I was talking about free will, not probability. God does not know the outcome of a human free will decision, but not for the same reason that I do not know the outcome of the dice roll. The dice roll could well have been purely deterministic. The same does not apply to a free will decision, which is neither random nor (empirically) deterministic.

Probability is important because we know that indeterminance creates 'many worlds' interpretations. Whether you realize or understand this doesn't change what you've created when free will is fit into the equation is the same sort of indeterminancy that we find in probabilistic events. Your example in the above paragraph is irrevelant considering that a being with omniscience would experience time uniformly, not as a human would. Which means that it would know each divergent world equally. To it, each is correct because there is no resultant collapse of probability. Now, unless you have derrived some new proof to explain human action, besides the probabilistic or the determinant, feel free to post your groundbreaking argument here and I will gladly congratulate you on the strength of your breakthrough.

Sorry, but you have lost me again. After you have rolled a six (or made a free will decision) then one outcome has come to fruition and the others have not. So they are not all "equally true" after the event. One of them is true, and all the others are false.

Perhaps you should explore the subject with greater depth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everett_many-worlds_interpretation
That might help.

It's not synonymous. Not remotely.

This is a mistake I must own up to. What I meant was complete information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_information
I apologize for the mix up.

 

[ExitDose]

ExitDose - how is the "multiple paths" universe compatible with free will?

Upon each divergence the individual splits with the paths and in each path the individual experiences that path subjectively. To it, it is the only path. What makes them compatible is that with free will we have a situation where differing possible choices creates multiple paths. To each individual along these paths perceive having made only a singular choice.

For the record, I find the idea of free will stupid, incomplete, and forever hiding in the vague sprawl of language.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Upon each divergence the individual splits with the paths and in each path the individual experiences that path subjectively.

Okay, I said there was a major communication problem (or an unspecified assumption) here and I was right. What you are describing is only compatible with the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is itself incompatible with libertarian free will. So none of what you are saying is relevant to me. If MWI is true, all my arguments in this thread are invalid. I can't prove its false, either. I did actually believe it for a while.

 

[ExitDose]

Okay, I said there was a major communication problem (or an unspecified assumption) here and I was right. What you are describing is only compatible with the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is itself incompatible with libertarian free will. So none of what you are saying is relevant to me. If MWI is true, all my arguments in this thread are invalid. I can't prove its false, either. I did actually believe it for a while.

The same problem of MWI that is created by quantum mechanics is also created by your proposed free will. Feel free to continue your denial, though.

Looking at your posts in the other sections of this board it appears that you are prone to the tactic of evasion, to the extent that you have earned a spot on the ignore list.

Goodbye.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

The same problem of MWI that is created by quantum mechanics is also created by your proposed free will.

That is absolutely false. Please explain why you believe it.

Looking at your posts in the other sections of this board it appears that you are prone to the tactic of evasion, to the extent that you have earned a spot on the ignore list.

Oh well.

 

[elliotfc]

So here we have evidence of something that we cannot imagine, but that is all we have, and furthermore our logic as it is doesn't seem to be capable of allowing us to understand it even if we have an infinite amount of data. Such a thing is what I call "beyond our logic."

But we'd call that God (or could call that God), and lots of people can imagine God. Or as you guys would put it, lots of people DO imagaine God, tee hee.

-Elliot

 

[Bri]

No, you don't.

What would be the point? You would conveniently refuse to understand that too. You have no intention of questioning your beliefs here - you just want to argue.

That is not the case, and I honestly don't understand your example.

I thought I had asked you to 1) provide a clear example of suffering and then 2) show how it cannot possibly lead to a greater good. Since by your own admission a coma may not constitute suffering at all, your example seems to fail at criteria 1 (much less criteria 2).

Perhaps I'm still misunderstanding and you're saying that the coma is indeed a clear case of suffering, in which case perhaps someone else can explain your example to me. I honestly don't get it.

No, that was a hypothetical example, dependent on a God who doesn't exist.

As you pointed out, one explanation is that God exists and made the moon out of green cheese (below the surface where we wouldn't know). Perhaps you can prove that God doesn't exist, and therefore that this theory is wrong. Wouldn't that prove that the moon isn't made of green cheese?

Oh, but wait...if aliens exist, they might have had the technology to make a moon out of green cheese. Perhaps you can also prove that it is impossible for aliens to exist. Surely if you were to disprove God and aliens, that would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the moon isn't made of green cheese.

But what about the possibility of a giant green cow who hides behind Saturn who once squirted a giant blob of green milk into the vacuum of space which solidified into our moon? Can you disprove that one? There are many, many possible explanations of how our moon could actually be made of green cheese, so to say that it is impossible that the moon is made of green cheese is simply false. So it is possible that the moon is made of green cheese, is it not?

Whether I have to show that something is impossible depends on exactly what I am claiming.

True, if you are claiming it as a fact that it is impossible that an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God exists based on the PoE, then you would have to prove it. If you're simply claiming that it's possible that such a God doesn't exist, few theists would disagree with you since you're also admitting that the opposite is possible.

I don't want to play this game, beloved of Christians, of "who is making a positive claim" where we try to paraphrase each other's positions to look like positive claims that then need to be proven (a dubious assumption, anyway).

I'm sorry, but the claim that it is impossible for an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God to exist is a positive claim. As is the claim that an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God does exist.

The PoE is a problem that Christianity must address. It challenges them (and anyone who wants to argue their case) to provide an answer that isn't just an assumption that the problem can somehow be answered in ways that we don't understand. That is obviously a non-answer. If this was the only answer that Christianity had it would be in an even worse state than it is. There are much better answers than that. I just still don't think they work.

A successful argument against the PoE simply points out that the PoE fails to prove that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God cannot exist. If you're happy with the possibility that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God exists, then there you have no argument with theists, since most of them would agree with you.

LOL. Easily dismissed?? It's the single biggest philosophical problem Christianity has and one of the most common reasons people give up on the religion.

If anyone gives us Christianity entirely based on a logic argument such as the PoE, then they haven't read up on it much. There are plenty of reasons to give up on Christianity, but the PoE isn't one of them. The PoE is hardly a threat to Christianity I'm afraid.

Why would anyone assume that God's goodness manifests itself in ways that we cannot see and is somehow at work in even the vilest atrocities, rather than concluding that he is not good after all (or doesn't exist)?

Have you never heard that God works in mysterious ways? Or that whatever God does is for the best? Theists make these assumptions all the time, and will likely continue to do so unless you can prove them wrong. Give it your best shot.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

But we'd call that God (or could call that God), and lots of people can imagine God.

People are free to fill our gap of knowledge with God. They have been doing it since the dawn of humans. God lived in the trees and made them grow, god moved the sun across the sky, god made volcanoes erupt, flowers grow, etc. Of course we don't need to insert god into those things anymore to understand how the do what they do. For me, what I don't know is...well, that which I don't know.

 

[elliotfc]

People are free to fill our gap of knowledge with God. They have been doing it since the dawn of humans. God lived in the trees and made them grow, god moved the sun across the sky, god made volcanoes erupt, flowers grow, etc. Of course we don't need to insert god into those things anymore to understand how the do what they do. For me, what I don't know is...well, that which I don't know.

Any Christian can say the same thing. We just think we know a few things that you don't know is all.

-Elliot

 

[Robin]

Yes, it most certainly does match our morality. Human beings are required to weigh the forseeable bad and the forseeable good consequences of any action to determine what is morally right or wrong. If the forseeable bad outweighs the good, it is wrong. If the forseeable good outweighs the bad, it is right. The only difference is that human beings aren't omniscient, and therefore cannot know or take into account every variable as God can. Therefore, humans must do our best to make a reasonable estimate of the immediate results of a particular action. If we were omniscient, and knew that the choice was a greater good than not having any human suffering, we would have to act according to the list above.

Well this, then, is the crux of our disagreement.

I cannot ever see how it would be right to cause suffering for the sole purpose of providing moral choice.

If a person caused suffering and used this as an excuse it would never be accepted in any forum.

It is just wrong in principle, or so it seems at least to me. Now you say that I am capable of judging morality - so am I wrong here?

Now you seem to be saying that an omniscient god could do this evil action because he is capable of judging all possible variables.

So in other words you are saying that an evil action is OK, just so long as it is sufficiently well executed.

In my moral code and evil action is still an evil action no matter how well executed.

It is the principle that is wrong. It is the motive that is wrong. No matter how well God does it, it would still be wrong.

 

[Robin]

• no suffering - good
• suffering, but presenting a choice to another person who makes the wrong choice - better
• suffering, but presenting a choice to another person who makes the right choice - best

You see this illustrates the problem with your argument precisely. You state that suffering but presenting a choice is better than no suffering at all.

If that is so, then alleviating, or preventing the suffering will move it from better to merely good, and so would be decreasing the total good.

If, on the other hand, no suffering is inherently better than suffering then your list is in the wrong order – and so should be:

• no suffering - good
• suffering, but presenting a choice to another person who makes the right choice – bad
• suffering, but presenting a choice to another person who makes the wrong choice – even worse

 

[chriswl]

If anyone gives us Christianity entirely based on a logic argument such as the PoE, then they haven't read up on it much. There are plenty of reasons to give up on Christianity, but the PoE isn't one of them. The PoE is hardly a threat to Christianity I'm afraid.

You are entitled to your view that it is not a threat to "proper" Christianity as defined by you. It is a threat to the faith of real actual Christians and has been for hundreds of years. I mean objectively so - many people can no longer believe in the religion for this very reason and will say so.

Have you never heard that God works in mysterious ways? Or that whatever God does is for the best?

Like I said, these are non-answers. They would only satisfy someone who was determined to believe in the Christian God regardless of the evidence.

Theists make these assumptions all the time, and will likely continue to do so unless you can prove them wrong. Give it your best shot.

You don't think that merely proving them wrong will stop them, do you? The PoE argument is quite convincing enough even without absolute proof. Those believers who just want to ignore the argument will continue to do so whatever we say.

 

[elliotfc]

You are entitled to your view that it is not a threat to "proper" Christianity as defined by you. It is a threat to the faith of real actual Christians and has been for hundreds of years. I mean objectively so - many people can no longer believe in the religion for this very reason and will say so.

You are correct.

Now, we can question the religious beliefs of these Christians. Do these Christians believe that Jesus was God? Do they believe that God himself, in the form of a man, submitted to and succumbed to evil? Do they believe that evil is only temporarily given power over good? Do they believe that good will eventually triumph, totally, over evil? Do they believe that when people die horrible deaths, they are not eternally destroyed, but have the opportunity to live with God?

When the problem of evil becomes insurmountable, so much so that the Christian faith is abandoned, an outsider is justified in questioning just how truly such a person held the essentials of the Christian faith.

-Elliot

 

[rocketdodger]

Upon each divergence the individual splits with the paths and in each path the individual experiences that path subjectively. To it, it is the only path. What makes them compatible is that with free will we have a situation where differing possible choices creates multiple paths. To each individual along these paths perceive having made only a singular choice.

This is what I thought you meant. But you have a big problem now -- where does god fit in? If it is part of the diverging universe, then whatever it is will also only experience the illusion of continual existence that we do. If it is apart from the diverging universe, then what is it and how do you explain it?

In other words by attempting to explain our own existence with this model you have either limited your god along with humans or else simply pushed the problem one level further.

 

[Bri]

Well this, then, is the crux of our disagreement.

I cannot ever see how it would be right to cause suffering for the sole purpose of providing moral choice.

I'm not certain that the sole reason for suffering is to provide moral choice, but that is one possibility (assuming that having moral choice is a greater good than not suffering). I don't see how we could have moral choice (i.e. the ability to cause or allow suffering) without suffering. Do you agree that in order for us to have true moral choice, we must have the ability to cause or allow suffering?

If a person caused suffering and used this as an excuse it would never be accepted in any forum.

Of course. Because a person isn't omniscient, no action performed by a person is assured of achieving a greater good. But there would be no excuse for God to do otherwise.

It is just wrong in principle, or so it seems at least to me. Now you say that I am capable of judging morality - so am I wrong here?

You're capable of judging a person's morality based on your ability to determine the good and bad outcomes of their action that they should have reasonably anticipated. That would preclude you from judging God's morality (unless you're omniscient).

Now you seem to be saying that an omniscient god could do this evil action because he is capable of judging all possible variables.

No, I'm saying that the action isn't evil if you know beforehand that it is necessary to achieve a greater good. It's the same for humans. An action isn't considered evil if the forseeable good outweighs the forseeable bad. It is not evil for a doctor to give a painful injection to a child if they reasonably believe that it will help the child.

So in other words you are saying that an evil action is OK, just so long as it is sufficiently well executed.

No, I'm saying that the action isn't evil at all if you know beforehand that it is necessary to achieve a greater good.

In my moral code and evil action is still an evil action no matter how well executed.

I agree, how well an action is executed doesn't determine whether it is evil or good.

It is the principle that is wrong. It is the motive that is wrong. No matter how well God does it, it would still be wrong.

I disagree. If God is omnibenevolent (as we are assuming) then his motives are only good. And if God is omniscient and omnipotent (as we are assuming) then the results of God's actions would only be for the greater good. It is inevitable given our limited ability to understand that some things that are actually good would seem bad to us, just as a child doesn't understand how a painful injection could actually be good.

-Bri

 

[rocketdodger]

But we'd call that God (or could call that God), and lots of people can imagine God. Or as you guys would put it, lots of people DO imagaine God, tee hee.

-Elliot

No, people imagine an old man with a grey beard in a cloak or something. People CANNOT imagine "that which they cannot imagine."

The only attribute you can give such a thing is that you can't give it any attributes at all.

 

[Bri]

You see this illustrates the problem with your argument precisely. You state that suffering but presenting a choice is better than no suffering at all.

If that is so, then alleviating, or preventing the suffering will move it from better to merely good, and so would be decreasing the total good.

We're not talking about preventing suffering from occurring at all. The basis for your argument is suffering that is unpreventable (so that it cannot be attributed to a human cause).

I'm talking about alleviating the suffering after the fact. In other words, helping a person who is already suffering. You suggested that if the suffering was for the greater good, the only moral choice would be to do nothing (i.e. not help the person). The list illustrates this to be wrong if the greater good achieved isn't negated by the action to help the sufferer (which must be the case if God is omnibenevolent).

-Bri

 

[rocketdodger]

The same problem of MWI that is created by quantum mechanics is also created by your proposed free will. Feel free to continue your denial, though.

I am not exactly sure what this statement means. I guess I will see when you address geoff.

I can, however, tell you that MWI only dodges free will -- it still suffers from the other metaphysical questions regarding existence that other models do. In other words, appealing to it for some absolute truth is nonsense because it offers none.