Problems with the Problem of Evil

[bilby]

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

I shall remember that the next time a cow tells other cows to worship humans, pray to them for the things they want or need, and remember to drop a donation in the plate before they leave.

Christians don't argue that god is merely benevolent from god's perspective; They claim that he personifies, exemplifies, and defines what is good, from our perspective.

It's all "Thou shall not...", never "I, your God shall not...".

 

[Jarhyn]

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

I shall remember that the next time a cow tells other cows to worship humans, pray to them for the things they want or need, and remember to drop a donation in the plate before they leave.

Christians don't argue that god is merely benevolent from god's perspective; They claim that he personifies, exemplifies, and defines what is good, from our perspective.

It's all "Thou shall not...", never "I, your God shall not...".

IKR?

There is exactly one "I, your god, shall not" in the bible, and that relates to destroying the earth with floods, a promise which has aged like fine milk.

 

[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 never claimed to be (christian-omni).

I remember this conversation. You think of yourself as a god
because you play Sims or Sim City or something like that.

And when other people talk about gods, you jump in to confuse
the conversation like a troll.

You use the word omnipotence, but you don't really mean it.
Its as if you just want to see how long it will take us to figure
out that you're deliberately talking past us.

The PoE (problem of evil) does not disprove your existence.
Nobody here thinks it disproves your existence.

The PoE has nothing to do with your partial-omnipotence.

We all agree that that the PoE does nothing to disprove gods
who are only partly omnipotent, partly smart, or partly good.

I resent your muddying the water, wasting our time.

I'm happy to put you on ignore if you think you'll continue
this behavior. That would mean missing the rest of your
contributions, but I really resent your yanking our chains.

If I put you on ignore, I'd like you to do the same for me.

What is your inclination?

 

[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).

I remember this conversation. You think of yourself as a god
because you play Sims or Sim City or something like that.

And when other people talk about gods, you jump in to confuse
the conversation like a troll.

You use the word omnipotence, but you don't really mean it.
Its as if you just want to see how long it will take us to figure
out that you're deliberately talking past us.

The PoE (problem of evil) does not disprove your existence.
Nobody here thinks it disproves your existence.

The PoE has nothing to do with your partial-omnipotence.

We all agree that that the PoE does nothing to disprove gods
who are only partly omnipotent, partly smart, or partly good.

I resent your muddying the water, wasting our time.

I'm happy to put you on ignore if you think you'll continue
this behavior. That would mean missing the rest of your
contributions, but I really resent your yanking our chains.

If I put you on ignore, I'd like you to do the same for me.

What is your inclination?

Well, my point is that people if people want to talk about gods, people should be clear about what they are talking about about.

I personally think it's stupid to argue about things that can't exist, for which existence can't happen even as an ideal.

We are on page 15 of this topic and I think we got around to "the PoE makes for a contradiction between reality and Omnimax" some time around post 2-3.

If you don't want to explore "around" the problem, why are you even here at this point but to join a dead-horse-beating ceremony?

I want to explore around the problem, and find out what the nature of benevolence is, and the sort of systems that one would have an obligation to create or not create, and to discuss the nature of what makes behavior shitty, especially along the boundary of creation/creator.

Why discuss what obligations something has that cannot exist? Why discuss what a thing would do with a nonsensical
Perfect-future-seeing power?

I think it would benefit more people to think more seriously about gods and what they mean by the word when they say it.

One of my first contributions to the thread was "the problem of evil makes GODs impossible", but here on page 15, I think there's some margin to step away from the five minutes hate and discuss what it does and doesn't say about gods.

The word means no less than four things, and while considerations of the PoE eliminate GODs from consideration, it actually creates a rubric for judging gods for their acts of godhood or lack of such acts, and one I would be myself accountable to were I to make anything more complex and impactful than the ant-brained things that act as a case of study.

Humans are going to be doing this thing soon. We already have games we are shoving AIs into, and while these are still not much more than "ant-brained", they won't be so dumb forever.

So it does stand to be asked as a question, mostly to answer a different question: what responsibilities do we have with respect to the things we are creating?

I have exactly one reason to post on these forums, mostly as an open journal where I think about things I read here. If you want to ignore me you can, but I'm not going to ignore you. I'm also not going to stop bringing my own interests into such conversations, especially on page 15.

 

[Wiploc]

That's clear enough. Thanks.

For all I know, our prior discussion of this topic was on this very thread.

Pissed me off then. Pissed me off again.

I don't want to get pissed a third time, so I'll put you on ignore.

I'm not saying this in any way your fault. I just don't want to blunder into it again.

 

[TomC]

ignore.

How about you just manage yourself, instead of telling the rest of us about your inability to do so?

If you are unable to deal with reality, sorry. But there's no need to tell the rest of us that.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

ignore.

How about you just manage yourself, instead of telling the rest of us about your inability to do so?

If you are unable to deal with reality, sorry. But there's no need to tell the rest of us that.
Tom

Guy just wanted seriously to know whether I would do shit that annoys them. They're fully within their right to ignore me, and I have no problem with that. It's one of the best reasons I could see to do it, and while it makes me little sad it's done in peace, I think, at this point.

I do talk about gods with a bit of aplomb.

Its my intellectual hobby, to understand the very idea and to learn what I may by it.

It's probably pretty distasteful to hear someone talk about it, especially someone who thinks as most do here that thinking about gods is as much of a waste of time as believing in them.

And to be honest I'm a little miffed that they were as critical about the injection into the discussion given the late hour and the well-tenderized horse corpse in the room, but C'est La Vie.

 

[Wiploc]

ignore.

How about you just manage yourself, instead of telling the rest of us about your inability to do so?

If you are unable to deal with reality, sorry. But there's no need to tell the rest of us that.
Tom

I thought he was being a jerk, and I let him know it.

He defended himself surprisingly well. He came off
well, made me feel like maybe I was the jerk.

You don't have to agree, but I think it's fair to make
a retraction just as public as the accusation. That
seems right to me.

 

[Jarhyn]

ignore.

How about you just manage yourself, instead of telling the rest of us about your inability to do so?

If you are unable to deal with reality, sorry. But there's no need to tell the rest of us that.
Tom

I thought he was being a jerk, and I let him know it.

He defended himself surprisingly well. He came off
well, made me feel like maybe I was the jerk.

You don't have to agree, but I think it's fair to make
a retraction just as public as the accusation. That
seems right to me.

I was being a bit of a jerk?

You weren't exactly "the jerk". I'm abrasive from time to time. I started a thread where I'll talk about it, but to be fair I'll keep using the simulation metaphor from time to time, I just won't explain it well.

There's just a lot of nuance there.. I don't know if you're gonna see this, but I don't mind. If you're active in a conversation, maybe I'll use spoiler tags for that stuff?

 

[Lion IRC]

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.

To really 'respond' to the so-called problem we will have to bite some other bullets.

Point number 1 doesn't get us anywhere if we don't agree that all things are possible for an omnipotent God. We have to sort out whether true omnipotence still comes with some ontological limitations. IMHO you're either omnipotent with zero limitations/exceptions or you're NOT omnipotent.

Points number 2 and 3 always stall or hit a dead end because nobody arguing the POE is going to accept that 'smart' and 'nice' are in the eye of the beholder. Forget about skeptical theism or brute assertions that omniscient moral wisdom trumps everything.
You're still always going to wind up claiming that God isn't nice enough. If He erases cancer, people will complain about arthritis. If He erases arthritis people will complain about paper cuts and splinters. If he erases even the most mild forms of discomfort people will complain about how boring life is.

Point number 4 is along the same lines as 2 and 3 and usually goes nowhere unless you have an agreed definition of evil - bad stuff.
But there's still the difficulty of agreeing whether or not God is doing something about evil. I argue that He is doing something about it but my opponent will say God isn't allowed to play the long game of gradually eliminating all evil. They say that God is either taking too long or that He should have prevented it before it happened.

 

[bilby]

You're still always going to wind up claiming that God isn't nice enough.

Well, yes; The whole point of the argument is to rebut the claim that god is perfect in the three ways described; And not being nice enough neatly demolishes one if those three claims.

If He erases cancer, people will complain about arthritis.

Yes. Why would a tri-omni god tolerate either cancer or arthritis?

Prioritising issues is a HUMAN necessity, caused by our impotence, and/or lack of knowledge.

An all powerful entity could cure arthritis and cancer with no more effort than it needed to cure one, or neither. An all knowing entity would be aware that both were unplessant. And an all loving entity would want to end any degree of unpleasantness, no matter how minor.

If He erases arthritis people will complain about paper cuts and splinters.

Yes.

If he erases even the most mild forms of discomfort people will complain about how boring life is.

And an all powerful god could provide perfect entertainment that didn't require suffering.

Your objection here is logically equivalent to declaring that god is limited in his capabilities - ie that your god is not omnipotent.

But there's still the difficulty of agreeing whether or not God is doing something about evil. I argue that He is doing something about it but my opponent will say God isn't allowed to play the long game of gradually eliminating all evil. They say that God is either taking too long or that He should have prevented it before it happened.

Well, yes. "Playing the long game" is a strategy to overcome our limited power to change things. An omnipotent god has unlimited power to change things; If you think that god might have a reason to "play the long game", then logically you must think that god is NOT omnipotent.

And we are limited to taking preventative action after a problem arises, only by our lack of perfect knowlege. If god cannot prevent evil before it happens, then he is either ignorant or powerless. If he could prevent evil before it happens, but doesn't, then he is uncaring.

It seems that your defence here is that we shouldn't expect god to do stuff that a human couldn't do; But that expectation is logically inescapable IF a god has both omnipotence and omnicognisance.

Your objection that the PoE fails to allow for god's limited power, coupled with your adamant insistence that he is nevertheless omnipotent, seems to fall into category 5, and summarises to "He may be God, but give the guy a break, he's only human".

 

[pood]

You're still always going to wind up claiming that God isn't nice enough.

Well, yes; The whole point of the argument is to rebut the claim that god is perfect in the three ways described; And not being nice enough neatly demolishes one if those three claims.

If He erases cancer, people will complain about arthritis.

Yes. Why would a tri-omni god tolerate either cancer or arthritis?

Prioritising issues is a HUMAN necessity, caused by our impotence, and/or lack of knowledge.

An all powerful entity could cure arthritis and cancer with no more effort than it needed to cure one, or neither. An all knowing entity would be aware that both were unplessant. And an all loving entity would want to end any degree of unpleasantness, no matter how minor.

If He erases arthritis people will complain about paper cuts and splinters.

Yes.

If he erases even the most mild forms of discomfort people will complain about how boring life is.

And an all powerful god could provide perfect entertainment that didn't require suffering.

Your objection here is logically equivalent to declaring that god is limited in his capabilities - ie that your god is not omnipotent.

But there's still the difficulty of agreeing whether or not God is doing something about evil. I argue that He is doing something about it but my opponent will say God isn't allowed to play the long game of gradually eliminating all evil. They say that God is either taking too long or that He should have prevented it before it happened.

Well, yes. "Playing the long game" is a strategy to overcome our limited power to change things. An omnipotent god has unlimited power to change things; If you think that god might have a reason to "play the long game", then logically you must think that god is NOT omnipotent.

And we are limited to taking preventative action after a problem arises, only by our lack of perfect knowlege. If god cannot prevent evil before it happens, then he is either ignorant or powerless. If he could prevent evil before it happens, but doesn't, then he is uncaring.

It seems that your defence here is that we shouldn't expect god to do stuff that a human couldn't do; But that expectation is logically inescapable IF a god has both omnipotence and omnicognisance.

Your objection that the PoE fails to allow for god's limited power, coupled with your adamant insistence that he is nevertheless omnipotent, seems to fall into category 5, and summarises to "He may be God, but give the guy a break, he's only human".

Lion? Could you please address the above?

 

[Lion IRC]

Why?
It's a rehash of the POE argument premises which I (already) said are problematic dead-ends because they get bogged down in disagreement over what omnibenevolence ought to entail. And double standards when it comes to claims that God should stop one evil but turn a blind eye to behaviour we don't think is evil. And dissatisfaction with the timeliness of God's action to eliminate evil.

 

[bilby]

Why?
It's a rehash of the POE argument premises which I (already) said are problematic dead-ends because they get bogged down in disagreement over what omnibenevolence ought to entail.

No, they don't. They get bogged down in your refusal to accept that omnibenevolence is wildly incompatible with observed reality.

And double standards when it comes to claims that God should stop one evil but turn a blind eye to behaviour we don't think is evil.

Well, then let's look at a behaviour you agree is evil, both in your own eye and that of God: Abortion

Given that it should be trivially easy for an omnicognisant God to know who will want an abortion if she happens to conceive, and given that it should be trivially easy for an omnipotent God to arrange matters so that those women do NOT conceive, we have to conclude that God either does not care about abortion, OR is not omnicognisant, OR is not omnipotent.

Indeed, given the number of women who desparately DO want to conceive, but never succeed, it would appear to require FAR less than omnipotent ability for a god to arrange matters such that all conceptions are wanted.

And dissatisfaction with the timeliness of God's action to eliminate evil.

If God cannot act immediately, He is not omnipotent. Timeliness is an issue for mere humans. Because (apparently just like your God) we are NOT omnipotent.

 

[TomC]

Well, then let's look at a behaviour you agree is evil, both in your own eye and that of God: Abortion

Oh, it gets better.
Best stats indicate that half or more babies die before birth with no human interaction at all. Usually before the mother even notices being pregnant.
Call it Divine Abortion, AKA miscarriage.

But it doesn't just happen sometimes, it's the main cause of death amongst humans if you consider unborn children humans.
Tom

 

[ideologyhunter]

Every unborn child on earth was destroyed in ch. 7 of Genesis. I guess, 'cause, their parents were eeeeeeeeeevil.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why?
It's a rehash of the POE argument premises which I (already) said are problematic dead-ends because they get bogged down in disagreement over what omnibenevolence ought to entail.

Are we arguing that Yahweh, as written of in the Torah, is omnibenevolent? And I'm not talking the pre-history issues. I'm talking the Exodus onward quasi-historical record. I'm sure some people could justify the orders of Yahweh from a perspective of order and justice, but benevolence?!

Omnibenevolence is a Xian fan-fiction attribute, a relatively new one.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Yep. I think Yahweh was meant to be dreaded and tiptoed around, like puppies should act around Governor Noem. It confused me as a kid to hear the expression 'God-fearing', but later, when I read the OT, that confusion cleared up.

 

[Elixir]

Every unborn child on earth was destroyed in ch. 7 of Genesis. I guess, 'cause, their parents were eeeeeeeeeevil.

Everybody knows, God is anti-choice.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yep. I think Yahweh was meant to be dreaded and tiptoed around, like puppies should act around Governor Noem. It confused me as a kid to hear the expression 'God-fearing', but later, when I read the OT, that confusion cleared up.

The Omnibenevolent Fear of Isaac.