The problem of Evil, a question for theists

[davo]

Let's look at the points major religions present and follow them thru to a conclusion based on logic, let's for the fun of it, take your postulation that a god exists, and work from that :

- God exists
- God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good
- A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils.
- An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
- An omnipotent being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
- A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
- If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists.

Yet Evil exists, how therefore does the god that you present, possibly exist?

[kencooke]

From the horses mouth ... uh, I mean John Paul II (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19860604en.html).

The existence of created freedom (and therefore the existence of man, and the existence of pure spirits such as the angels, of whom we shall speak later), is indispensable for that fullness of creation which corresponds to God's eternal plan (as we already said in a previous catechesis). By reason of that fullness of good which God wills to be realized in creation, the existence of free beings is for him a more important and fundamental value than the fact that those beings may abuse their freedom against the Creator, and that freedom can therefore lead to moral evil.

and ...


From this text we become aware of the limit and transience of created things. Certain forms of physical "evil" (due to the lack or limitation of the good) belong to the very structure of created beings, which by their nature are contingent and passing, and therefore corruptible. Besides, we know that material beings are in a close relation of interdependence as expressed by the old saying: "the death of one is the life of another" (corruptio unius est generatio alterius). So then, in a certain sense death serves life. This law refers also to man inasmuch as he is at the same time an animal and spiritual being, mortal and immortal. In this regard, however, St. Paul's words open up much wider horizons: "Though our outer nature is wasting away, our inner nature is being renewed every day" (2 Cor 4:17). And again: "For this slight momentary affliction is preparing us for an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison" (2 Cor 4:17).


and so on.

[davo]

hmm ok popey(e),

(your fault kencooke for setting me off, thanks for playing the visiting catholic pope ;)

If god is omnipotent, he could do anything right? how could anything be indespensible to him achieving something then? least of all having to have freedom to achieve his 'plan'.

And this idea of free will just doesn't make sense logically.

If a god knew everything from beginning to end, before creating. He knew exactly what choices you would make. He would know every step leading up to that choice, and being all powerful, be able to adjust it any way he wished before creating it. He would understand and comprehend exactly any small deviation or setup that would have circumstance or situations change.

To you, you would have choice, but god would have known from the start, everything anyone would do and all the influences on it, and it chose to create, setting this in motion. It could not by his very nature, do something that itself did not expect, it is omniscient of course. The whole of existence would be simply a machine it set in motion, knowing every single thing that will happen. To have true freedom, you would have to be able to do something a god could not expect. A paradox

Which brings up a number of paradox :

an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent god could not exist in the first place, by definition. Let alone one that is completely benevolent.

Omnipresent is a paradox, (would mean your god is also in hell, which according to christians, hell is the absence of god, so he could not be omnipresent either)

Omnipotence is a paradox, an all powerful being would not be able to create a rock it could not lift (as an example of many paradox with this concept)

Omniscience is a paradox, does a god know what it's going to do tomorrow? If so, could it do something else?

If a god knows what is going to happen in the future, it is not able to omnipotently change that future because it is limited to what it knows will happen. If a god can omnipotently change that future then that god can not of known the future in the first place and is therefore not omniscient.

The concept of a god is one big paradox

[kencooke]

hmm ok popey(e),

(your fault kencooke for setting me off, thanks for playing the visiting catholic pope ;)

We should not be so naive as to assume that the "great "religions have not yet pondered the questions and paradoxes that you have put forward. Before we engage in an argument with them we should inform ourselves of their argument so far so as to avoid going over 'old ground". Know thine enemy's arguments. Let's discuss one point at a time.

If god is omnipotent, he could do anything right? how could anything be indespensible to him achieving something then? least of all having to have freedom to achieve his 'plan'.
First of all re God's powers and his plan. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm) says in paragraph 271. ...
271 God's almighty power is in no way arbitrary: "In God, power, essence, will, intellect, wisdom, and justice are all identical. Nothing therefore can be in God's power which could not be in his just will or his wise intellect."
and...
273 Only faith can embrace the mysterious ways of God's almighty power........
and...
324.............. Faith gives us the certainty that God would not permit an evil if he did not cause a good to come from that very evil, by ways that we shall fully know only in eternal life.
In his wisdom and for reasons not yet known to us, God chose to create the world "in a state of journeying"....


310 But why did God not create a world so perfect that no evil could exist in it? With infinite power God could always create something better. But with infinite wisdom and goodness God freely willed to create a world "in a state of journeying" towards its ultimate perfection. In God's plan this process of becoming involves the appearance of certain beings and the disappearance of others, the existence of the more perfect alongside the less perfect, both constructive and destructive forces of nature. With physical good there exists also physical evil as long as creation has not reached perfection.

[youngmoigle]

Included in the quotation posted by kencooke, I noticed this:
Certain forms of physical "evil" (due to the lack or limitation of the good)

That's a trick apologists use when all of the other arguments have failed. They say there is no such thing as evil; what we perceive as evil is nothing more than the absence of good. An article on the subject can be found here: http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/arguments-for-atheism/the-problem-of-evil/does-evil-exist/

To use an extreme example: When a person is murdered by a serial killer, nothing evil has occurred. The victim just happened to be in a place where there was a little less than the normal amount of good...and the killer is not evil, he's actually good. Not quite as good as you and me, but still good!

The mere fact that apologists find it necessary to raise such a ludicrous defence of their God is enough to suggest that the conclusions drawn from the problem of evil are far more effective than any of them would dare to admit.

[davo]

Well done. Taking 'benevolent' out of the is the only way out of the paradox of evil :)

Saying god encompasses evil it doesn't surprise me in the least either considering your heritage ;)

but beside that your not answering my other points popey, your just like the bible christians, only more devious as you can make up your own rules and say they are gods... at least you admit that your god is not good. I wonder how you get past the other paradox I presented? You chose to avoid those.

All the elements of a supreme being are a paradox, your god can't be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent or any mix of them. They stand alone as being a paradox, and together just strengthens it. Your god can't possibly exist, and with any of the elements missing it is not worthy of being a god. The whole concept of a god is a paradox of impossibility.

I could also go on about 'eternity'.... eternity is a massive concept. If this life is less that 100 years, and eternity is .. eternity, I wonder what such a supreme being is even bothering .. why not just reveal all to us now? In the scheme of things, our time on earth is less than miniscule. If we are talking about a 'heaven' that encompasses infinity and eternity, everything, that our knowledge holds no bounds, there seems little point to making us suffer.

Indeed, eternity is an interesting concept. if god sent himself to earth as jesus, to die, then be born again, but this is just over 3 days, then gets to spend eternity in the ultimate paradise .. it does not seem like such a massive sacrifice at all.

[davo]

That's a trick apologists use when all of the other arguments have failed. They say there is no such thing as evil; what we perceive as evil is nothing more than the absence of good. An article on the subject can be found here: http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/arguments-for-atheism/the-problem-of-evil/does-evil-exist/


Therefore their god is not omnipresent either

[youngmoigle]

In paragraph 213 of the Catechism (mentioned in an earlier post) there is a reference to the "ineffable name" of god.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p1.htm

And the Ineffable Deus of 1854 begins by describing god as "ineffable".
http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pi09id.htm

I guess it would be possible to argue dictionary definitions until the cows come home, but any reasonable person would understand ineffable to mean incomprehensible; beyond the understanding of mere humans.

So how can the Catholics go on to describe their god in such fine detail when part of the description declares that god is ineffable (one could say, indescribable).

[kencooke]

I wonder how you get past the other paradox I presented? You chose to avoid those.


As I said, I have chosen to discuss one point at a time. I think it can be useful to stay focused rather than flitting from one argument to the next and back. Its beyond my powers of concentration! have you any idea how long it takes to search through the Catechism. its more than 700 pages.

Meanwhile, reading further on, I have discovered that god is in contravention of the Catechism of his church; for paragraph 1759 says...
1759 "An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention" (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.
If you recall, god's plan was to create a world in a "state of journeying" towards his ultimate perfection and there exists physical evil as long as creation has not reached perfection. In other words god is using the ultimate end of a reached perfection to justify a bit of evil along the way. But the church says in its Catechism that the end does not justify the means.

[kencooke]

In paragraph 213 of the Catechism (mentioned in an earlier post) there is a reference to the "ineffable name" of god.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p1.htm



Good to see someone else having a read of the enemy's handbook.

[TÐöer]

Good work Kencooke,

Better at snipping then those proselytisers. This is why it's called blind faith. They believe in something without the answers at hand.

Well about what the pope said. Why is it so ambiguous? Why can't he just say it so the masses can understand him? is it to sound more intellectual. It sounds more like sophistry to me.

If he was omnipotent, then why the test? can't he make humans perfect (I mean really perfect)? Why is the test so unfair? some die at birth, some die older? how is he going to test those whom die at birth?

If this is some sick test, why doesn't he give us a choice? I would have gladly told him, no, I'd rather not have existed.

Some say that this life is hell, and heaven comes on judgement. Then, imagine spending eternity in hell for following the wrong religion. Is the test really worth it?

What's the purpose of living in heaven for eternity? How can anybody imagine that God would want you to live in heaven for eternity? Didn't he create us in the beginning for his own pleasure? What makes you think he won't get bored?

How is heaven, a paradise, if your loved ones don't make it, because they weren't baptised?

Is this the work of an omnipotent God?

Is god limited to certain rules that is proposed by the Christians? To create the best he has to create the whole lot, then later he has to create elaborate test to know which is worthy?

And who is the pope to put words in God's mouth? What happens if his words get disproved? Say something else? Can you trust a religion that keeps doing that?

[youngmoigle]

Good to see someone else having a read of the enemy's handbook.

As you mentioned earlier: Know thine enemy.

In my younger days I made a habit of gathering ALL of my debating points from either the bible, or recognised religious publications - made it very hard for them to argue against what I was saying.

These days though, I just bore it up 'em.

[eclectic]

It is an age-old debate between protestanism and catholicism. (As a student of medieval history, and an ex-prod marrying an ex-catholic these debates are of interest to me). Catholicism says that god gave us free will so that we could choose to follow god's path - we can't worship god if we have no free will. Prods say that we have no free will, that god planned everything, and thus if you are going to heaven you already are... (in the original prod churches anyway) hence protestants are really just being good on earth to prove to other prods that they are the chosen ones of god - they are naturally pious because they are chosen for heaven. this has also been taken to other weird and wonderful extremes, such as prods thinking that THEY knew they were the chosen ones, and thus being free to act as they want (as everything they do is holy) - including walking around naked and indulging in 'free love'. well that's what i remember from lectures anyway... i will try to find the name of this group.

[eclectic]

How is heaven, a paradise, if your loved ones don't make it, because they weren't baptised?


Ah but thedoer, earthly love means nothing next to the glory of god.

You're also not supposed to hope for heaven at all if you're a PROPER xian - all is to be done for the glory of god, not for personal reward.

[eclectic]

grrr... I can't find it! But this discussion has got me reinterested in my medieval studies - thanks. :)

[TÐöer]

Ah but thedoer, earthly love means nothing next to the glory of god.

You're also not supposed to hope for heaven at all if you're a PROPER xian - all is to be done for the glory of god, not for personal reward.

Yeah sigh.... how do we argue with such idiosyncrasies? People just hear what they wanna hear, if you're after Paradise then it's there. If you talk about the relative and ethical sense of paradise, then you aren't suppose to think about it to begin with.

But when we are in paradise, and we do not think of our father and mother who do not make it. Doesn't that make us bad?

If we do worry about them, isn't that eternal suffering?

If god wipe the memory of our parents from our heads, doesn't that defeat the purpose of free will? making us into zombies? And god has to be evil to want to take away our love for our parents. Is Jesus a utilitarian?

If we praise Jesus for his sacrifies. Then what about our mother, who endure labour, for us?


That's insightful about difference between prod and cath. I didn't know that.

[eclectic]

Yeah sigh.... how do we argue with such idiosyncrasies? People just hear what they wanna hear, if you're after Paradise then it's there. If you talk about the relative and ethical sense of paradise, then you aren't suppose to think about it to begin with.

But when we are in paradise, and we do not think of our father and mother who do not make it. Doesn't that make us bad?

If we do worry about them, isn't that eternal suffering?

If god wipe the memory of our parents from our heads, doesn't that defeat the purpose of free will? making us into zombies? And god has to be evil to want to take away our love for our parents. Is Jesus a utilitarian?

If we praise Jesus for his sacrifies. Then what about our mother, who endure labour, for us?


That's insightful about difference between prod and cath. I didn't know that.

Yes, it is very dodge-and-weave with religious 'debate'.

Glad you got something out of my prod/catholic ramblings. It's silly how interested I am in the debates BETWEEN churches - when I don't believe in ANY of them... but as I say, it's part of my interest in medieval history. The medieval monks all started from the assumption that god exists and in a xtian form that can be known from the bible... but they were quite intellectual about thinking about the nature of that god and human morality. (unlike the typical xtian today) It's largely thanks to religious enquiry that libraries were kept and universities begun (in western europe anyway... university-like institutions existed earlier in india and china and the middle east).

[Jaar-Gilon]

Yes, it is very dodge-and-weave with religious 'debate'.

Glad you got something out of my prod/catholic ramblings. It's silly how interested I am in the debates BETWEEN churches - when I don't believe in ANY of them... but as I say, it's part of my interest in medieval history. The medieval monks all started from the assumption that god exists and in a xtian form that can be known from the bible... but they were quite intellectual about thinking about the nature of that god and human morality. (unlike the typical xtian today) It's largely thanks to religious enquiry that libraries were kept and universities begun (in western europe anyway... university-like institutions existed earlier in india and china and the middle east).

It has to be dodge and weave with religion because the world is actually what it is and those who want to explain how they can have an omni*-benevolent, potent and present god have to backpeddle to try fit these things in a congruent, meaningful way with how the world is. Something they totally fail in my opinion for the reasons outlined earlier in this thread by Davo, Kencooke et al

A bit off topic (how unusual for me!!)Eclectic I too did medieval history at uni, at the time the head of the medieval history dept name was Constant Mews, I kid you not. He is actually a genius he would give full lectures without any notes. Recently I read he caused a stir by claiming he had discovered actual love letters between Abelard and Heloise.

* Does anybody remember Omni magazine, great publication I discovered William Gibson through Omni!

[Jaar-Gilon]

Damn I new there was something else I wanted to say.
I have always thought of evil as an erroneous religious concept. Something that exists on it's own and comes from "the devil", I often hear the dicotomous claim ie if there is good there has to be evil, 2 ends of a scale. I think that is absolute rot, it is easy to envisage a world with no evil.
In this sense I personally don't believe that any people are evil, there are seemingly evil acts done but it is out of ignorance or faulty thinking.

"from a psychological point of view to be evil is to refuse to acknowledge the weaknesses in one's own personality." Carl Jung

[eclectic]

A bit off topic (how unusual for me!!)Eclectic I too did medieval history at uni, at the time the head of the medieval history dept name was Constant Mews, I kid you not. He is actually a genius he would give full lectures without any notes. Recently I read he caused a stir by claiming he had discovered actual love letters between Abelard and Heloise.



"the lost love letters of abelard & heloise", constant mews? found the book! interesting.

even further off topic, I won a nice house-sit for a professor over other candidates, and i'm sure it was based mostly on the fact that I knew who their cats Abelard & Heloise were named after.

[kencooke]

.......Prods say that we have no free will, that god planned everything, and thus if you are going to heaven you already are... (in the original prod churches anyway) hence protestants are really just being good on earth to prove to other prods that they are the chosen ones of god - they are naturally pious because they are chosen for heaven. this has also been taken to other weird and wonderful extremes, such as prods thinking that THEY knew they were the chosen ones, and thus being free to act as they want (as everything they do is holy) - including walking around naked and indulging in 'free love'. well that's what i remember from lectures anyway... i will try to find the name of this group.
Eclectic,
Are you thinking of Calvinism? I don't mean the bit about walking about naked. I mean about the belief in predestination.

By the way, you can have a universe in which neither free will nor predestination operates. In fact that's the universe in which we live.

[davo]

ahh recently I came across a 'Christian Biblical Universal Transformationist' .. they believe everyone will be going to heaven in the end, after a time in hell for some. posted heaps of links to tentmaker.org ...

weirder than your average weirdo