Problems with the Problem of Evil

[Lion IRC]

You DID (caps intended) say you had the “exact same feelings of god” [as 5thC goat herders].

Show your work pal.

There's a perfectly good quote function you can use to reproduce the post where I allegedly said I had the.."exact same feelings”

 

[Elixir]

why do I think the same things about God as those so-called illiterate Bronze Age goat hearders who lived in Mesopotamia?

I accept your apology.

 

[Lion IRC]

Fail.

 

[DBT]

You can't think that God exists before you are exposed to the idea of God.

OK
We'll do it your way.
There was never a time I wasn't "exposed to the idea of God".

It's not 'my way.' It's just the way things work. You had no understanding of the world when you were born, and at some point you were exposed to the idea of God, what, at three or four years old? Even if someone talked to you about the idea of God and religion before you developed the ability to understand, you did not have the means of making a decision on whether to believe or not. The process of conditioning does not support free will as the agency of decision making, you are simply conditioned to believe. And you have already said that you had no choice.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Assumption.: if God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.

I made this same same mistake. Then I realized that the events we see around determine the traits of the thing. Like the events we see determine everything else we describe. lol, within the confines of a smart ape that is.

So, for me, the conclusion that "something more" matches observation than than the reverse. The claim, or belief, that nothing more, in a spiritual sense that is, is as about as reliable as a belief in a omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. Both imply far more than we know and neither match observation better than other beliefs. For example, its probably between the too.

As far as practicality goes, that is no my area. Yeah, religion is very dangerous. Trying to manipulate the social impact by not openly discussing the best conclusions due to a fear that some obnoxious belief run wild with is just intellectually immature. And believe me, I know, it takes one to know one.

So I list the all the beliefs and discuss them. Balance.
1-no gods or gods of any type
2-I don't have to say anything (but post hundreds of posts, over years, telling others they are wrong). Special Pleading to me.
3-something more {sliding scale here). I have no idea and really don't care past is what is being claimed match events we see around us.
4-diest-ish. Kind of goes with 3.
5-my god only

we can add any others and discuss.

The weights we assign have to addressed. I feel very bad, but things like abuse have to be rationally discussed in terms of how observations are weighted. It is horrible, but doesn't determine how the universe works. And things like "other" countries on the internet. To ignore this is a red flag. Of course, to solely focus on it is paranoid also. Balance.

for me, 1 and 5 seem least reliable to me in terms of just how the universe works. #2 is political. theist and atheist coming in belief forums with social change considerations is well ... think of the things we would admit to or deny if wee are focused on "Social Change for practical reasons". The means justifies the end type thinking.

^ This looks to me like trying to define the problem with the problem with the problem of evil.

IMO the entire "discussion" is ill founded, as there is no PROBLEM of evil in the first place.
Evil is whatever we call evil.
And that depends almost entirely on what was so defined for each of us in early childhood.

Problem(s) with evil are real, if we either disagree about what is and is not evil (which we do), or find ourselves compelled to combat, negate or otherwise get rid of that which we have accepted as evil (which we mostly do).

So yeah, we have problems with evil. But problems with the problem(s) of evil? I don't think so. Problems with evil are doing just fine, thank you. Problems with evil don't need any "fixing" by those who would like to find problems with the problems that evil confers upon us. Our energies are best spent negating evil (as we each see it) directly, where the opportunity arises to do so. Trying to make it more complicated than that simply gives license to evil, to present itself as intractable, and efforts to counter it as "problems" themselves.

Excellent point and perspective. Many people discuss labels endlessly as if these labels have some actual existence, never thinking beyond merely rearranging labels. Forget the fucking labels, start making observations. forget the fucking feelings. We don't need feelings to be decent people.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Words have meaning.

Words have meanings.

 

[Wiploc]

The Problem with the Problem of Evil

The problem of evil has been around for thousands of years and generated much discussion. There is a lot that I do like about it. Frankly theists don’t have many good arguments against it. That being said, I did not lose my faith because of it even though I was aware of it. I have a few issues with it.

The problem of evil can perhaps best be encapsulated as follows:

If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.

1. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
2. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
3. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
4. Evil exists.
5. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.
6. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

My main issue with this line of argument is that evil doesn’t really exist except in the sense of a limited human life. What is evil? Typical examples include, childhood cancer, famine, war, and genocide. I suppose smaller evils include jealousy, anger issues, and impotence.

The PoE points out that a god cannot coexist with evil if that god is
1. Able to do anything, including able to prevent all evil,
2. Smart enough to know how to prevent all evil, and
3. Totally and completely against all evil.

Your response: The PoE doesn't preclude the possibility of gods who aren't all that powerful, all that smart, or all that opposed to evil.

You're right that the PoE doesn't preclude the existence of pretty powerful gods, pretty smart gods, and pretty good gods who coexist with some evil. But, it does nonetheless preclude the existence of all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good gods who coexist with any evil.
If you want to argue against gods who don't mind a little evil, then you need some argument other than the PoE. But so long as your subject is gods who don't want any evil, the PoE is ironclad.

 

[SLD]

The Problem with the Problem of Evil

The problem of evil has been around for thousands of years and generated much discussion. There is a lot that I do like about it. Frankly theists don’t have many good arguments against it. That being said, I did not lose my faith because of it even though I was aware of it. I have a few issues with it.

The problem of evil can perhaps best be encapsulated as follows:

If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.

1. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
2. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
3. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
4. Evil exists.
5. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.
6. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

My main issue with this line of argument is that evil doesn’t really exist except in the sense of a limited human life. What is evil? Typical examples include, childhood cancer, famine, war, and genocide. I suppose smaller evils include jealousy, anger issues, and impotence.

The PoE points out that a god cannot coexist with evil if that god is
1. Able to do anything, including able to prevent all evil,
2. Smart enough to know how to prevent all evil, and
3. Totally and completely against all evil.

Your response: The PoE doesn't preclude the possibility of gods who aren't all that powerful, all that smart, or all that opposed to evil.

You're right that the PoE doesn't preclude the existence of pretty powerful gods, pretty smart gods, and pretty good gods who coexist with some evil. But, it does nonetheless preclude the existence of all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good gods who coexist with any evil.
If you want to argue against gods who don't mind a little evil, then you need some argument other than the PoE. But so long as your subject is gods who don't want any evil, the PoE is ironclad.

But how can you even define evil from the perspective of an infinite god? What is evil is only defined by HUMAN nature, usually in reference to our inevitable death. But a god does not die. Therefore how does he define evil. He would not consider himself evil simply for allowing human suffering. 100 years is an infinitesimal amount of time to god. 200 quadrillion years from now, your physical existence, for good or bad, is utterly irrelevant. If you have eternal life in a heaven it really doesn’t matter what happened in your physical life. My point is that the concept of infinite life destroys evil.

 

[Elixir]

But how can you even define evil from the perspective of an infinite god? What is evil is only defined by HUMAN nature, usually in reference to our inevitable death. But a god does not die. Therefore how does he define evil.

Why, that’s why we God compiled, edited, translated his Words. To make it crystal clear that you have to consult a priest (or one of their acolytes) to know precisely what God wants to call evil. This is not stuff for the average bear - you need an expert.

 

[SLD]

But how can you even define evil from the perspective of an infinite god? What is evil is only defined by HUMAN nature, usually in reference to our inevitable death. But a god does not die. Therefore how does he define evil.

Why, that’s why we God compiled, edited, translated his Words. To make it crystal clear that you have to consult a priest (or one of their acolytes) to know precisely what God wants to call evil. This is not stuff for the average bear - you need an expert.

And pay him a lot of money, too.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

The Problem with the Problem of Evil

The problem of evil has been around for thousands of years and generated much discussion. There is a lot that I do like about it. Frankly theists don’t have many good arguments against it. That being said, I did not lose my faith because of it even though I was aware of it. I have a few issues with it.

The problem of evil can perhaps best be encapsulated as follows:

If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.

1. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
2. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
3. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
4. Evil exists.
5. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.
6. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

My main issue with this line of argument is that evil doesn’t really exist except in the sense of a limited human life. What is evil? Typical examples include, childhood cancer, famine, war, and genocide. I suppose smaller evils include jealousy, anger issues, and impotence.

The PoE points out that a god cannot coexist with evil if that god is
1. Able to do anything, including able to prevent all evil,
2. Smart enough to know how to prevent all evil, and
3. Totally and completely against all evil.

Your response: The PoE doesn't preclude the possibility of gods who aren't all that powerful, all that smart, or all that opposed to evil.

You're right that the PoE doesn't preclude the existence of pretty powerful gods, pretty smart gods, and pretty good gods who coexist with some evil. But, it does nonetheless preclude the existence of all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good gods who coexist with any evil.
If you want to argue against gods who don't mind a little evil, then you need some argument other than the PoE. But so long as your subject is gods who don't want any evil, the PoE is ironclad.

But how can you even define evil from the perspective of an infinite god? What is evil is only defined by HUMAN nature, usually in reference to our inevitable death. But a god does not die. Therefore how does he define evil. He would not consider himself evil simply for allowing human suffering. 100 years is an infinitesimal amount of time to god. 200 quadrillion years from now, your physical existence, for good or bad, is utterly irrelevant. If you have eternal life in a heaven it really doesn’t matter what happened in your physical life. My point is that the concept of infinite life destroys evil.

It doesn't matter if this god can't conceive anything as being evil. It is the people who make claims about their god, and that he is not evil in human terms. They are making the claim that he is all powerful, all knowing, and all good (by human standards).
In that light, there is a contradiction in their belief.

 

[SLD]

The Problem with the Problem of Evil

The problem of evil has been around for thousands of years and generated much discussion. There is a lot that I do like about it. Frankly theists don’t have many good arguments against it. That being said, I did not lose my faith because of it even though I was aware of it. I have a few issues with it.

The problem of evil can perhaps best be encapsulated as follows:

If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.

1. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
2. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
3. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
4. Evil exists.
5. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.
6. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

My main issue with this line of argument is that evil doesn’t really exist except in the sense of a limited human life. What is evil? Typical examples include, childhood cancer, famine, war, and genocide. I suppose smaller evils include jealousy, anger issues, and impotence.

The PoE points out that a god cannot coexist with evil if that god is
1. Able to do anything, including able to prevent all evil,
2. Smart enough to know how to prevent all evil, and
3. Totally and completely against all evil.

Your response: The PoE doesn't preclude the possibility of gods who aren't all that powerful, all that smart, or all that opposed to evil.

You're right that the PoE doesn't preclude the existence of pretty powerful gods, pretty smart gods, and pretty good gods who coexist with some evil. But, it does nonetheless preclude the existence of all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good gods who coexist with any evil.
If you want to argue against gods who don't mind a little evil, then you need some argument other than the PoE. But so long as your subject is gods who don't want any evil, the PoE is ironclad.

But how can you even define evil from the perspective of an infinite god? What is evil is only defined by HUMAN nature, usually in reference to our inevitable death. But a god does not die. Therefore how does he define evil. He would not consider himself evil simply for allowing human suffering. 100 years is an infinitesimal amount of time to god. 200 quadrillion years from now, your physical existence, for good or bad, is utterly irrelevant. If you have eternal life in a heaven it really doesn’t matter what happened in your physical life. My point is that the concept of infinite life destroys evil.

It doesn't matter if this god can't conceive anything as being evil. It is the people who make claims about their god, and that he is not evil in human terms. They are making the claim that he is all powerful, all knowing, and all good (by human standards).
In that light, there is a contradiction in their belief.

Anthropomorphic god is nonsensical. When I studied mythology in High School, I couldn’t understand why they always wanted to fuck humans. If they’re all powerful gods they could put themselves in a constant state of bliss. The only reason, I figured was just to fuck with us humans - figuratively speaking.

 

[bilby]

He would not consider himself evil simply for allowing human suffering.

Then He is morally bankrupt.

There is no level of suffering, however small, that an all knowing, all powerful, and loving God would tolerate.

Such a God should consider Himself evil if he allowed insects to suffer.

100 years is an infinitesimal amount of time to god.

But not to a human - and an all knowing God knows that; and an all loving God cares about that; and and all powerful God can do something about that.

Saying that human suffering is too ephemeral, or too trivial, for God to care about is saying that God isn't all-loving and all-caring; Nothing is beneath the notice of an omnibenevolent God.

An all powerful being cannot possibly be too busy with other things; Nor can an all knowing being be distracted by other matters.

 

[Jarhyn]

Then He is morally bankrupt

So, yet again I can ask "am I morally bankrupt were I to create a universe with suffering?"

I am good insofar as I don't WANT any individual to suffer, powerful insofar as I could spend a LOT of time running my little simulation universe VERY slow and doing a lot a lot of work to find and stop every "unhappy" thought that ever could happen, and capable of observing any arbitrary momentary present detail even though it takes me a long time between universal moments of my creation.

The only thing that makes something morally bankrupt would be were they to plan the outcome, making things that think by process into some sort of actor-puppet, setting people up like dominoes. THAT is kind of fucked up.

I don't think it makes me a monster to create that system without planning for any given thing to suffer. I accept that the possibility of suffering is a necessary thing for me to be able to create a possibility of joy, activity, and adventure. The fucked up part would be making arbitrary decisions over who suffers in some controlled way rather than offering exactly the same sort of agency I myself have in making decisions according to the person I happen to be.

It's interesting that from one perspective the power of a god may "look" unlimited merely because the fact that when the 'god' does 'the work necessary to know/do the thing', all the work is hidden during the systemic halt, and none of my creations get to see me sweat. How could I have done any work (from the perspective of my simulation)? It took me literally a "single moment of causality"... Still the exchange rate for changes on a moment of causality sucks.

 

[Elixir]

How could I have done any work (from the perspective of my simulation)?

You shouldn’t go around creating universes if you’re not tri-Omni powerful over and within them. To do so is immoral.

 

[SLD]

He would not consider himself evil simply for allowing human suffering.

Then He is morally bankrupt.

There is no level of suffering, however small, that an all knowing, all powerful, and loving God would tolerate.

Such a God should consider Himself evil if he allowed insects to suffer.

100 years is an infinitesimal amount of time to god.

But not to a human - and an all knowing God knows that; and an all loving God cares about that; and and all powerful God can do something about that.

Saying that human suffering is too ephemeral, or too trivial, for God to care about is saying that God isn't all-loving and all-caring; Nothing is beneath the notice of an omnibenevolent God.

An all powerful being cannot possibly be too busy with other things; Nor can an all knowing being be distracted by other matters.

Morally bankrupt from a human perspective. But not from the perspective of a god. From a cows perspective we are morally bankrupt.

And maybe Finite suffering is rewarded in an infinite heaven. Thus there’s balance. And therefore no real evil.

But I do like your argument nonetheless. I agree that from a human perspective of evil god is not all omnibenevolent.

 

[Wiploc]

But how can you even define evil from the perspective of an infinite god?

Suppose I say I like ham and cheese sandwiches.

You respond that you prefer chicken salad.

So I say, "But you don't even know what gods mean by 'chicken salad,' so you don't know whether you're right about liking chicken salad."

Yes, one can try to confuse any argument by asking how the argument would hold up if other people used the same words to mean other things. But that will never be relevant to the original discussion.

What is evil is only defined by HUMAN nature, usually in reference to our inevitable death.

Still not sure what you're on about.

Evil is anything that causes unhappiness. By extension, we sometimes use the word to refer to unhappiness itself.

If a death causes unhappiness, then it is evil.

But a god does not die.

Gods don't exist. I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion.

Therefore how does he define evil.

In possible worlds, an infinity of gods define the word in an infinity of ways. This has no effect on our situation.

He would not consider himself evil simply for allowing human suffering.

And he doesn't consider your sandwich filling to be chicken salad. So what?

100 years is an infinitesimal amount of time to god. 200 quadrillion years from now, your physical existence, for good or bad, is utterly irrelevant. If you have eternal life in a heaven it really doesn’t matter what happened in your physical life. My point is that the concept of infinite life destroys evil.

Does unhappiness exist at all? If so, then evil exists.

If evil exists, then we know for a fact that all-powerful gods who totally oppose evil do not exist.

Suppose a first grader gets a D on his report card. As his teacher, will you be impressed with her argument that she plans to get straight A's from now on, so, since it will be dwarfed by the sheer volume of A's, this D doesn't exist now?

Or suppose you see a self-proclaimed vegetarian eating a lamb chop. Would you be impressed by her argument that she eats so many vegetables that the lamb chop doesn't count, that she is a true vegetarian despite the lamb chop?

 

[Wiploc]

Then He is morally bankrupt

So, yet again I can ask "am I morally bankrupt were I to create a universe with suffering?"

We know you're not morally perfect. We can't say whether you're bankrupt until I know the ratio of happiness to unhappiness.

If you create a badworld while claiming to be omnibenevolent, we know you're a liar.

I am good insofar as I don't WANT any individual to suffer, powerful insofar as I could spend a LOT of time running my little simulation universe VERY slow and doing a lot a lot of work to find and stop every "unhappy" thought that ever could happen, and capable of observing any arbitrary momentary present detail even though it takes me a long time between universal moments of my creation.

If creating a goodworld is too much work for you, then you aren't omnipotent.
This, "God isn't really all that powerful," is one of the five relevant responses to the PoE (problem of evil).

The others:
2. God isn't really all that smart.
3. God isn't really all that nice.
4. Evil does not exist. (Really doesn't exist, not at all, as opposed to SLD's what-if-evil-is-outweighed-by-good move.)
5. My belief isn't logical, so you can't refute it with logic.

The only thing that makes something morally bankrupt would be were they to plan the outcome, making things that think by process into some sort of actor-puppet, setting people up like dominoes. THAT is kind of fucked up.

According to Plantinga, Jehovah knew from the getgo, everything that would happen in every possible world. He knowingly chose to create this world with full cognizance of all the evil it would contain.

I don't think it makes me a monster to create that system without planning for any given thing to suffer.

You're innocent if you plan the suffering without knowing who will do the suffering?
That's a weird kind of innocence. SLD might say that's what gods mean by innocence.

I accept that the possibility of suffering is a necessary thing for me to be able to create a possibility of joy, activity, and adventure.

Who made that rule? Certainly not a good god.

And that rule couldn't apply to an omnipotent god.

 

[Jarhyn]

Then He is morally bankrupt

So, yet again I can ask "am I morally bankrupt were I to create a universe with suffering?"

We know you're not morally perfect. We can't say whether you're bankrupt until I know the ratio of happiness to unhappiness.

If you create a badworld while claiming to be omnibenevolent, we know you're a liar.

I never claimed to be (christian-omni).

As to the ratio... At least within the domain of my normal awareness, for the people who remain at the site and occupy it specifically (effectively, "for my chosen people"), that ratio was such that only one person in that area was unhappy.

All other happiness remained uncontrolled due to the difficulties of accessing those sites (I can, given even Jarhyn-omnipotence) in the immediate reality of my own time limitations.

I am good insofar as I don't WANT any individual to suffer, powerful insofar as I could spend a LOT of time running my little simulation universe VERY slow and doing a lot a lot of work to find and stop every "unhappy" thought that ever could happen, and capable of observing any arbitrary momentary present detail even though it takes me a long time between universal moments of my creation.

If creating a goodworld is too much work for you, then you aren't omnipotent.
This, "God isn't really all that powerful," is one of the five relevant responses to the PoE (problem of evil).

Again, care must be taken to distinguish Jarhyn-omnipotence from christian-omnipotence.

I CAN change anything at any rate with respect to the system time, including going back and forward in time... But doing so can take a lot of work in "real" time. So while I am infinitely powerful, there's a big caveat to that insofar as it's not so much that I can't spend 50 years of my life making everyone in a simulation artificially happy, I absolutely won't.

The others:
2. God isn't really all that smart.
3. God isn't really all that nice.
4. Evil does not exist. (Really doesn't exist, not at all, as opposed to SLD's what-if-evil-is-outweighed-by-good move.)
5. My belief isn't logical, so you can't refute it with logic.

Is not smart is mitigated by "infinite" time to muddle through.

I am what I would consider quite nice.

I just don't have the time or interest given the infinitely low impact of being infinitely ice there compared to the effort.

The only thing that makes something morally bankrupt would be were they to plan the outcome, making things that think by process into some sort of actor-puppet, setting people up like dominoes. THAT is kind of fucked up.

According to Plantinga, Jehovah knew from the getgo, everything that would happen in every possible world. He knowingly chose to create this world with full cognizance of all the evil it would contain.

Hence why I think Biblegod with Christian Omnimax qualities is a facile masturbatory fantasy.

I don't think it makes me a monster to create that system without planning for any given thing to suffer.

You're innocent if you plan the suffering without knowing who will do the suffering?
That's a weird kind of innocence. SLD might say that's what gods mean by innocence.

Yep. When you sit down to play a game of Settlers of Catan, are you guilty when you decide to play the game of forcing of your best friend to lose because you built roads that cut them off from ever building their own roads?

No. At that point you are guilty of "deciding mutually to play a game where someone will win and someone will lose". If you were to decide BEFORE the game who won and lost it, I simply wouldn't play the game. What would be the point, even, other than to get meaninglessly evaluated below others for no reason other than "you wanted it that way".

The point is that I don't know what will happen when I create a universe, but if I did, if I decided every winner and loser of every game, no game would ever be fun.

I accept that the possibility of suffering is a necessary thing for me to be able to create a possibility of joy, activity, and adventure.

Who made that rule? Certainly not a good god.

And that rule couldn't apply to an omnipotent god.

Well, we have different definitions of omnipotence.

I didn't make that rule, and I'm not sure it's the sort of rule even anything, no matter what, could break.

I certainly can't see clear to any way to implement a thing that may or may not be without creating an opportunity for its absence and thus "suffering" through that absence.

Anything that can exist in spectrum creates contrast in its absence. You can't make "warm" without having a relative "cold" to contrast it with. Not even a god could do such things, for any god that could do such things, they come equally with the fact of another thing that they can't do: exist.

 

[bilby]

So, yet again I can ask "am I morally bankrupt were I to create a universe with suffering?"

Are you perfectly benevolent, all knowing, and all powerful?

good insofar as

powerful insofar as

capable of observing any arbitrary momentary present detail even though it takes me a long time

(emphasis added)

Yeah, didn't think so.

The Problem of Evil specifically and only relates to gods purported to be perfectly benevolent, all knowing, and all powerful (such as that claimed by most Christians).

PoE demonstrates that no such gods exist. That's all it does; Other types of god require other logical disproofs.