Infinitely Powerful

[kmortis]

Then he is (by the common definition of the word evil) evil himself because he allows evil to happen when he could prevent it. If he couldn't prevent or achieve his goals another way then he is not omnipotent.

This is one of the age old paradoxes about why there is evil in the world that Christians in particular have had to struggle with. And considering many of the finest intellects of the ages have struggled to resolve the paradox I would be surprised if we manage to do so on this little 'o forum of ours.

Oh, c'mon, Darat, we could...*catches a glimpse of himself in the reflection of his office glass**oh, nevermind.

 

[Tricky]

This is a far more sweeping statement than saying that an "omnipotent, evil-hating God" is illogical if a simplistic definition of "evil" is used, since evil may exist even under more sophisticated moral philosophies.

Okay, give me a definition of evil under a sophisticated moral philosophy.

Your syllogism is simplistic because it assumes that a benevolent, omnipotent God could never have a reason for allowing evil to happen.

It is simplistic because the definition of evil is simplistic. The way you are defining it above, evil can mean "in accordance with God's will".

My definition of "evil" would be "against God's will". Let's hear yours.

 

[Elind]

The difference is that the God we are talking about is commonly understood to be:

Omnescient
Omnipotent
Omnipresent
and
Benevolent, or good.

That's why the argument appears to 'logic' God out of existence...

I think your post counts as a straw man argument, except that it appears to not actually be relevent in anyway to the discussion...

And calling a point irrelevant to the discussion and "straw" in the same sentence is called what? Wearing out one's welcome in a hurry?

What does "commonly understood" have to do with the fundamentals? We know the evolution is "commonly" understood to be just a theory, for example.

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure what your point is. Mine is that it makes just as much sense, and probably more, to say that God (assuming existence for argument) is quite Evil. Much of Christian history has in fact been the worship of an evil God, much more inclined to punish than reward.

People bow down and grovel for crumbs in either case, so what's the difference?

 

[bruto]

It does actually. You've got to look at your source material, as long as we're all accepting the basic premise that God exists, then the data we have is the experiential and emperical evidence (the beauty of nature etc), and the first hand accounts / inspired word of God - the Bible. And the Bible states that God is Love and God is Good. (references go here)

The actual point is that the logical 'paradox' is already assuming that God is benevolent / compasionate, and i've just demonstrated how the paradox is flawed...

I think it quite possible to accept the idea that there is some sort of god and to dismiss the biblical account entirely. The idea that the Bible is the inspired word of god is entirely a matter of opinion. There have been other religions on earth, you know.

As for the beauty of nature, who knows? We find nature beautiful because we've evolved in it and it's our home, so to speak. It's an unconvincing argument for any God, and even less so for an omnipotent, personal Jehovah-style God. It's just as consistent with the possibility of a God who designed a kernel of universal laws and principles so wonderful that they took care of themselves, pushed the "bang" button (figuratively of course) and leither left or died in the failed experiment.

 

[jjramsey]

Okay, give me a definition of evil under a sophisticated moral philosophy.

I suggest that you look up utilitarianism or Epicureanism and work from there.

 

[Tricky]

I suggest that you look up utilitarianism or Epicureanism and work from there.

No, I'd prefer that you tell me what working definition you are using. I'm afraid that "go look it up yourself" is a rather poor substitution for supporting your statements.

If you cannot define "evil" in any meaningful or consistant way, then I'd have to say that your objection is specious.

 

[jjramsey]

No, I'd prefer that you tell me what working definition you are using. I'm afraid that "go look it up yourself" is a rather poor substitution for supporting your statements.

Fair point. Actually it occurs to me that if we are only discussing the Problem of Evil, then "evil" can be defined fairly simply as "suffering." This, of course, mixes up moral evils, such as muggings and rapes, with natural evils, like diseases or hurricanes or earthquakes, and even actions that are usually considered justifiable, like killing in self-defense. However, the Problem of Evil is basically asking, "How could God let the world get so messed up?" and all of these things are part of the world being a mess, regardless of whether and how they fit into a moral framework.

 

[Elind]

My definition of "evil" would be "against God's will". Let's hear yours.

How about doing unto me as I would rather you not do?

 

[Tricky]

Fair point. Actually it occurs to me that if we are only discussing the Problem of Evil, then "evil" can be defined fairly simply as "suffering." This, of course, mixes up moral evils, such as muggings and rapes, with natural evils, like diseases or hurricanes or earthquakes, and even actions that are usually considered justifiable, like killing in self-defense. However, the Problem of Evil is basically asking, "How could God let the world get so messed up?" and all of these things are part of the world being a mess, regardless of whether and how they fit into a moral framework.

Okay. I'll accept that definition. So evil is then a trade-off. Much suffering in necessary for many good things, and of course, an omniscient God knows that. And if we assume God arranges for things to "come out for the best", then He intentionally creates suffering in some situations for the "greater good".

Now, if you define an evil being as a being who does evil things, then you must conclude that God is an evil being. Yes, he's a good being too. He is both omnibenevolent and omnimalevolent.

However, it is often said that (at least some) evil comes from men. But how can we blame flawed men for doing evil, when God himself does evil?

And so we come to the paradox again. If evil (i.e. creating suffering) is necessary, then there is nothing wrong with evil. Since God is allowed much leeway in committing evil for the overall benefit of some master plan, then humans must be allowed even more, as they could be just the tools in that master plan. Once again, the term "evil" resolves to a meaningless phrase.

In each instance where I've tried to get to the heart of "what is evil", I always find that it depends on a person's own moral code. So the possibility of a universal evil is, at best, unknowable.

 

[Tricky]

How about doing unto me as I would rather you not do?

Even if I'm doing it for a greater good? If your definition is correct, then every parent who punishes a child is evil.

 

[Just thinking]

Or how about taking one's child to the doctor's office ... or the dentist.

Or even making an adult see a specialist for medical care against their irrational judgement?

 

[Just thinking]

In each instance where I've tried to get to the heart of "what is evil", I always find that it depends on a person's own moral code. So the possibility of a universal evil is, at best, unknowable.

Then I ask ... "Does evil exist outside of human behavior?"

If not, then it quickly becomes a subjective descriptor -- which makes it objectively non-existant; just like Santa.

 

[Elind]

Even if I'm doing it for a greater good? If your definition is correct, then every parent who punishes a child is evil.

I see I should have consulted my lawyer before making that post.

But then, using words like suffering is no better. I think we all know the essence of what I meant, but I'll concur that a better definition is called for.

 

[jjramsey]

Now, if you define an evil being as a being who does evil things

This is a questionable definition of "evil being." Usually, one is considered an evil person if one habitually does evil things, especially if one isn't bothered by them and even enjoys them.

 

[jjramsey]

But then, using words like suffering is no better.

If we are just talking about the Problem of Evil, then "suffering" works fine, since we'd all at least think that we'd rather live in a world where children behaved well enough that their parents wouldn't have to punish them, or no one had problems with health, so a doctor's or dentist's appointment was unnecessary. Whether such a world would really turn out to be so wonderful is a question that is more difficult to answer, since there may be hidden costs to it.

 

[Tricky]

Then I ask ... "Does evil exist outside of human behavior?"

If not, then it quickly becomes a subjective descriptor -- which makes it objectively non-existant; just like Santa.

Well computed, Robot! In popular parlance, evil is used to mean "very bad". Most of the rational people I know will admit that good and bad are relative terms, and are subjectively based on one's own moral code. You can speak of animals being good or bad, but it is some human's moral code which determines how their behavior is classified.

The terms "good" and "bad" have great utility, even if relative, because they determine what sorts of behaviors are acceptable in societies. There are at least, some big areas on which humans have basic agreement on what is good and what is bad, even in animals. The only being that gets a free pass on this moral judgment, is God. For many theists, God simply cannot be bad. If He violates one of the principles by which we judge goodness in humans or even animals, they simply conclude that He had a valid reason for it. So if God is incapable of doing bad, the the words "bad" and "good" really have no meaning as applied to God, because no definition of the word fits Him. He is totally amoral.

 

[Bri]

Perhaps good and evil aren't two sides of a coin, but rather two ends of a continuum. If something is for the "ultimate good" it then becomes better than "good" even if it appears to be "evil." In other words, one must look at the total effect of an action to see where it lies on the scale between "pure good" and "pure evil."

This would be particularly true of a god who knows the results of all actions. For a human being, most theists would probably say that we are required to do our best to anticipate the results of our actions in order to do the most good that we can. From this perspective, it is possible that an action by an omniscient god might actually be for a greater good even if it appears to be evil.

-Bri

 

[Tricky]

This is a questionable definition of "evil being." Usually, one is considered an evil person if one habitually does evil things, especially if one isn't bothered by them and even enjoys them.

Well, we can't say whether or not God enjoys them, but certainly He habitually does evil things. And if He is all knowing, or even just a lot knowing, you'd have to say He does them with 'malice aforethought'.

 

[kmortis]

Well, we can't say whether or not God enjoys them, but certainly He habitually does evil things. And if He is all knowing, or even just a lot knowing, you'd have to say He does them with 'malice aforethought'.

Of course, an apologeticist would say that since the Mind of God^tm is so much bigger and unfathomable than ours, how can we possibly see a big enough picture to see the good that came out of Katrina, say. Yes, in the short run there was massive suffering, but the city will be rebuilt, and maybe this time there will be better safeguards put in place in New Orleans and other cities in and around the area that will protect against such things occuring in the future; and maybe the social structure will be changed, ever so slightly.

I say it's a load of horse pucky, but that's just me.

 

[Tricky]

Of course, an apologeticist would say that since the Mind of God^tm is so much bigger and unfathomable than ours, how can we possibly see a big enough picture to see the good that came out of Katrina, say. Yes, in the short run there was massive suffering, but the city will be rebuilt, and maybe this time there will be better safeguards put in place in New Orleans and other cities in and around the area that will protect against such things occuring in the future; and maybe the social structure will be changed, ever so slightly.

Exactly.

Forgive me for violating Godwin's Law, but suppose God wanted Hitler to commit genocide against the Jews so that they could reap worldwide sympathy and enable them to rebuild Israel? How then could you possibly blame Hitler for his actions, when he was doing God's work?

I say, if a thing is bad by your moral code, then it is bad no matter who does it. You might change your mind if you found out the reasons (or if your moral code changes), but since you can never find out God's reasons, you might as well just call them bad.