The Problem of Evil.
Discuss the merits and deficiencies of political theories and philosophical questions.
| Announcements | Posted on | |
|---|---|---|
| Enter our travel-writing competition for the chance to win a Nikon 1 J3 camera | 21-05-2013 | |
-
- Reputation:
- Thread Starter
- New Member
- Posts: 10
The Problem of Evil.So we were looking at this dilemma in our Philosophy class a while back, and I've been thinking about it a fair bit lately and wanted a place to discuss it.
Evil exists, in one way or another - bad things happen. Hypothetically speaking, God should be able to stop it. He knows everything, so he would know how to eradicate it. He is all powerful, so if he knew a way he would be able to do it. He is all loving, so he must surely want to get rid of the bad things in the world. So why doesn't he? The only answer must be that God does not exist as many believe he does - he cannot be all loving, all powerful, and all knowing because evil exists. So where does that leave religion?
[Just want to say, I'm not religious at all. I just think this is a pretty interesting problem] -
- Reputation:
- Exalted and Worshipped Member
- Posts: 984
Re: The Problem of Evil.If God stopped bad things and evil happening like tsunamis, earthquakes, murderers etc, everyone would believe in him because he revealed himself. There would then be no faith, which goes against the idea of free will, as God would have forced everyone to believe in him through this proof. Faith is the only way to get into Heaven apparently, which nobody would have if God proved himself.(Original post by mwells1996)
So we were looking at this dilemma in our Philosophy class a while back, and I've been thinking about it a fair bit lately and wanted a place to discuss it.
Evil exists, in one way or another - bad things happen. Hypothetically speaking, God should be able to stop it. He knows everything, so he would know how to eradicate it. He is all powerful, so if he knew a way he would be able to do it. He is all loving, so he must surely want to get rid of the bad things in the world. So why doesn't he? The only answer must be that God does not exist as many believe he does - he cannot be all loving, all powerful, and all knowing because evil exists. So where does that leave religion?
[Just want to say, I'm not religious at all. I just think this is a pretty interesting problem]
Of course God can stop these things happening, but if he wants people to have faith in him, with faith meaning continuous belief without solid evidence, he cannot intervene in anything on Earth. Only people who choose to have faith in God are 'saved', so if God revealed himself and forced people to believe in him, taking away people's free will, nobody could be saved.
Sinners and atheists who never believed in God and never would unless he revealed himself would then just believe in God, because they saw him and there's proof, rather than thtrough their own free will.
I'm not religious either.Last edited by Flyteryder; 21-07-2012 at 11:24. -
- Reputation:
- Respected Member
- Posts: 196
Re: The Problem of Evil.Maybe there is a god or a greater power, but he/it certainly is not what religions tell us he is (all loving, all powerfull, all knowing and omnipresent)
Religions have challenged this with the idea that we are created with free will, but that fails to explain natural disasters, diseases and famines. -
- Reputation:
- Banned
- Posts: 1,430
Re: The Problem of Evil.The only religious defense is this: if there was strong evidence for God then everyone would believe in him and faith would not be required. Therefore God must have made the Universe in such a way that it looks almost certain that he does not exist. In the face of such poor evidence for God's existence, a huge amount of faith is required - which is a good thing. As an atheist, I think that's a stupid viewpoint. We should base our beliefs off of evidence, not despite of evidence.
Some religious people do like to say that there are explanations for this problem (posed famously by Epicurus, 341 BCE - 270 BCE). For example, they use free will to cover man made evils. But I have not seen a satisfactory explanation for natural disasters - for God to cause that much pain and suffering on innocent lives is unjustifiable. Then again, maybe he's malicious. -
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
Re: The Problem of Evil.You don't need to have faith to have free will. You believe in many things when you have proof of their existence, but you have the free will to interact with those things whichever way you want.(Original post by Flyteryder)
If God stopped bad things and evil happening like tsunamis, earthquakes, murderers etc, everyone would believe in him because he revealed himself. There would then be no faith, which goes against the idea of free will, as God would have forced everyone to believe in him through this proof. Faith is the only way to get into Heaven apparently, which nobody would have if God proved himself
Of course God can stop these things happening, but if he wants people to have faith in him, with faith meaning continuous belief without solid evidence, he cannot intervene in anything on Earth. Only people who choose to have faith in God are 'saved', so if God revealed himself and forced people to believe in him, taking away people's free will, nobody could be saved.
Sinners who never believed in God and never would unless he revealed himself would then just believe in God., because they saw him and there's proof, rather than thtrough their own free will.
I'm not religious either.
As for faith being the only way to get into heaven - that also contradicts the notion of an all loving, all knowing and all powerful god (he could just choose to put everyone in heaven). Heaven and hell as concepts of reward and punishment which are only decided on the basis of faith have nothing to do with morality. It's more like a sick game than anything else. -
- Reputation:
- Thread Starter
- New Member
- Posts: 10
Re: The Problem of Evil.I agree, but surely if God is omniscient he knows of a way to stop suffering in the world while remaining unrevealed. Since God by definition is omnipotent/scient/benevolent etc. etc, when you remove qualities from God the entity you are left with ceases to be God, therefore actually disproving the existence of God, don't you think?(Original post by Flyteryder)
Of course God can stop these things happening, but if he wants people to have faith in him, with faith meaning continuous belief without solid evidence, he cannot intervene in anything on Earth. Only people who choose to have faith in God are 'saved', so if God revealed himself and forced people to believe in him, taking away people's free will, nobody could be saved. -
- Reputation:
- Junior Member
- Location: West Mids
- Posts: 25
Re: The Problem of Evil.I think there is a danger in presuming that God is omnipotent/scient/benevolent, as you say. These characteristics are defined, ultimately, by human beings and who is to say that God is definitely any of these things? He could be a complete and utter tosser for all we know - in my opinion (atheist), if there is a God, I wouldn't be shy in saying he's a bit of a **** for the reasons you and others have mentioned. Anyway, I digress. There are also some people who argue that evil - and all that comes with it - is an illusion, part of a bigger picture that we, as underlings, cannot understand. Personally, I don't think there is a God (or Gods), but there are ways for theists (although perhaps not all of them, as you pointed out) to get around the problem of evil. Interesting post!(Original post by mwells1996)
I agree, but surely if God is omniscient he knows of a way to stop suffering in the world while remaining unrevealed. Since God by definition is omnipotent/scient/benevolent etc. etc, when you remove qualities from God the entity you are left with ceases to be God, therefore actually disproving the existence of God, don't you think?
-
- Reputation:
- TSR Legend
Re: The Problem of Evil.I don't think anybody believes in a God who wishes to rid the world of everything that displeases us. Otherwise God could have just put us all in Heaven to begin with. Most religions contain some sort of explanation regarding the fact that God chose not to do this.(Original post by mwells1996)
So we were looking at this dilemma in our Philosophy class a while back, and I've been thinking about it a fair bit lately and wanted a place to discuss it.
Evil exists, in one way or another - bad things happen. Hypothetically speaking, God should be able to stop it. He knows everything, so he would know how to eradicate it. He is all powerful, so if he knew a way he would be able to do it. He is all loving, so he must surely want to get rid of the bad things in the world. So why doesn't he? The only answer must be that God does not exist as many believe he does - he cannot be all loving, all powerful, and all knowing because evil exists. So where does that leave religion?
[Just want to say, I'm not religious at all. I just think this is a pretty interesting problem] -
- Reputation:
- Vengeful, Imperial Overlord of The Student Room
- Location: Edinburgh!
- Posts: 4,830
Re: The Problem of Evil.A God, if one exists, doesn´t need to be all loving. Who decided that? The Bible, Torah and Quaran, as well as other holy texts point to a benevolent God, but that doesn´t simply mean you should take your argument based on that. If there does exist a God then we don´t know for sure what he/she/it is really like. You´re trying to eradicate theism by attacking religion which fails.(Original post by mwells1996)
So we were looking at this dilemma in our Philosophy class a while back, and I've been thinking about it a fair bit lately and wanted a place to discuss it.
Evil exists, in one way or another - bad things happen. Hypothetically speaking, God should be able to stop it. He knows everything, so he would know how to eradicate it. He is all powerful, so if he knew a way he would be able to do it. He is all loving, so he must surely want to get rid of the bad things in the world. So why doesn't he? The only answer must be that God does not exist as many believe he does - he cannot be all loving, all powerful, and all knowing because evil exists. So where does that leave religion?
[Just want to say, I'm not religious at all. I just think this is a pretty interesting problem] -
- Reputation:
- Thread Starter
- New Member
- Posts: 10
Re: The Problem of Evil.I probably should have added earlier that I'm talking solely about a christian god here. Unfortunately, a fundamental christian belief is that anything written in the bible is the word of God and fact - no two ways about it. I agree, personally I don't believe that we have any way of knowing what God is like. But, Christians would disagree and say the bible is pure truth. God, by Christian definition must be a lot of things, including omnibenevolent/scient/potent because of what is said about him in the bible. When you remove qualities from God, the thing you are left with can no longer be defined as 'God'. Therefore, if evil exists then God cannot exist as Christians believe, discounting the bible and leaving the whole religion in a bit of a tricky position.(Original post by Kiss)
A God, if one exists, doesn´t need to be all loving. Who decided that? The Bible, Torah and Quaran, as well as other holy texts point to a benevolent God, but that doesn´t simply mean you should take your argument based on that. If there does exist a God then we don´t know for sure what he/she/it is really like. You´re trying to eradicate theism by attacking religion which fails.
Yeah, you're right - a lot of theists believe it's a chance for us to grow as people and such, but the point is surely the purpose of our suffering could be achieved in a different way, one that doesn't hurt people.(Original post by tazarooni89)
I don't think anybody believes in a God who wishes to rid the world of everything that displeases us. Otherwise God could have just put us all in Heaven to begin with. Most religions contain some sort of explanation regarding the fact that God chose not to do this.
I definitely agree (see above with regards to the first part of your post) but the main point still remains: Evil/suffering might serve a purpose but is God was omniscient he would know of a way to serve this purpose without causing pain, and if he was omnipotent he would be able to make it happen, and if he was omnibenevolent then he would want to remove pain from our lives.(Original post by Charlotte:3)
I think there is a danger in presuming that God is omnipotent/scient/benevolent, as you say. These characteristics are defined, ultimately, by human beings and who is to say that God is definitely any of these things? He could be a complete and utter tosser for all we know - in my opinion (atheist), if there is a God, I wouldn't be shy in saying he's a bit of a **** for the reasons you and others have mentioned. Anyway, I digress. There are also some people who argue that evil - and all that comes with it - is an illusion, part of a bigger picture that we, as underlings, cannot understand. Personally, I don't think there is a God (or Gods), but there are ways for theists (although perhaps not all of them, as you pointed out) to get around the problem of evil. Interesting post!
-
- Reputation:
- TSR Legend
Re: The Problem of Evil.Perhaps it could. Or perhaps it couldn't. Or perhaps God doesn't want the purpose of our suffering to be achieved a different way - perhaps our perpetual happiness is simply not a priority to him. My point is that the "problem of evil" remains open ended at this point. It asks leading questions about God, sure. But it doesn't disprove God - at least, not the kind of God that anybody believes in.(Original post by mwells1996)
Yeah, you're right - a lot of theists believe it's a chance for us to grow as people and such, but the point is surely the purpose of our suffering could be achieved in a different way, one that doesn't hurt people. -
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Location: New York University '12 --> Durham Law '15
- Posts: 2,866
Re: The Problem of Evil.Welcome to something called "The Argument from Suffering"; no theist who believes in an omnipotent, omniscient, and all-good God has ever been able to defeat the argument; their rebuttals have always failed and eventually forced them to admit that suffering and horrible things do exist on Earth and God does nothing about them, which would in turn mean that either: (1) God is not omnipotent; (2) God is not omniscient; or (3) God is not all-good. Due to the inclusive nature of the word "or", one of (1) or (2) or (3) can be true, two of them can be true, or all three can be true. The argument does not provide which is true, as that is not within the scope of the argument. Rather, it merely shows that one of (1), (2) or (3) must be true.
-
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Location: Look at my flag!
- Posts: 2,514
Re: The Problem of Evil.The questions are: is the mankind evil by nature? or mankind become evil in society? If we consider that everyone of us have vices in a certain degree I would say that the first question is the basic of all evil things in the world by humans.
-
- Reputation:
- TSR Demigod
- Posts: 6,673
Re: The Problem of Evil.Have you read Swinburne's answer to it?(Original post by NYU2012)
Welcome to something called "The Argument from Suffering"; no theist who believes in an omnipotent, omniscient, and all-good God has ever been able to defeat the argument; their rebuttals have always failed and eventually forced them to admit that suffering and horrible things do exist on Earth and God does nothing about them, which would in turn mean that either: (1) God is not omnipotent; (2) God is not omniscient; or (3) God is not all-good. Due to the inclusive nature of the word "or", one of (1) or (2) or (3) can be true, two of them can be true, or all three can be true. The argument does not provide which is true, as that is not within the scope of the argument. Rather, it merely shows that one of (1), (2) or (3) must be true. -
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Location: New York University '12 --> Durham Law '15
- Posts: 2,866
Re: The Problem of Evil.He faces the exact same problem everyone else does. His answer is nowhere near sufficient to defeat the argument. In admitting that suffering DOES occur, he accepts that God is either not all good, not all powerful or not all knowing.(Original post by chickenonsteroids)
Have you read Swinburne's answer to it?Last edited by NYU2012; 23-07-2012 at 23:33. -
- Reputation:
- TSR Demigod
- Posts: 6,673
Re: The Problem of Evil.But doesn't the idea of limiting what 'evil' is to us seem pointless? If he's omniscient then surely he knows what is best for us even if we experience suffering.(Original post by NYU2012)
He faces the exact same problem everyone else does. His answer is nowhere near sufficient to defeat the argument. In admitting that suffering DOES occur, he accepts that God is either not all good, not all powerful or not all knowing.
Do you think that the problem disproves an omni benevolent God? -
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Location: New York University '12 --> Durham Law '15
- Posts: 2,866
Re: The Problem of Evil.No. What is best would always be to do some X without any form of suffering. For example, you may say suffering teaches something; all all powerful, all knowing, all good God, would know how to and could and would teach that thing without there being any suffering involved.(Original post by chickenonsteroids)
But doesn't the idea of limiting what 'evil' is to us seem pointless? If he's omniscient then surely he knows what is best for us even if we experience suffering.
Do you think that the problem disproves an omni benevolent God?
The problem merely indicates that at least one of the following is true: (1) God is not all good, (2) God is not all powerful, (3) God is not all knowing. It could be any of three. -
- Reputation:
- TSR Demigod
- Posts: 6,673
Re: The Problem of Evil.Is there anyway of coming to a conclusion that hinders one property the most? Or would that involve further argument?(Original post by NYU2012)
No. What is best would always be to do some X without any form of suffering. For example, you may say suffering teaches something; all all powerful, all knowing, all good God, would know how to and could and would teach that thing without there being any suffering involved.
The problem merely indicates that at least one of the following is true: (1) God is not all good, (2) God is not all powerful, (3) God is not all knowing. It could be any of three.
At least it isn't a really strong conclusion. -
- Reputation:
- Full Member
- Posts: 82
Re: The Problem of Evil.Perhaps God has a bigger picture in mind. According to Christianity, God is fair as well so all the "evil" we see in the world could be a punishment.
If we agree that God knows all things then why question what He's done? Why think "we're suffering because God is not good" instead of thinking "we're suffering because God knows that this is the best way for us to learn" or something like that. Just because you might not like what God is doing doesn't mean that He isn't God. -
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Location: New York University '12 --> Durham Law '15
- Posts: 2,866
Re: The Problem of Evil.For God to be all good, that would require that NO action or event involve ANY suffering - causing or allowing suffering is, by definition, not good. Therefore, either God is not all good; or he not all powerful; or he is not all knowing.(Original post by pyjamatrousers.)
Perhaps God has a bigger picture in mind. According to Christianity, God is fair as well so all the "evil" we see in the world could be a punishment.
If we agree that God knows all things then why question what He's done? Why think "we're suffering because God is not good" instead of thinking "we're suffering because God knows that this is the best way for us to learn" or something like that. Just because you might not like what God is doing doesn't mean that He isn't God.
If you admit that there is suffering, you accept the argument and must reject one of following: god is all good, god is all knowing, god is all powerful
