Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Not sure if this belongs here or in religion.

    I was wondering if anyone had an intelligent attempt at resolving it that they'd be prepared to defend.

    Preferably not a recitation of either Augustine or Ireneus unless you're prepared to further their arguments- i'm looking for a debate not a revision session.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L-x)
    Not sure if this belongs here or in religion.

    I was wondering if anyone had an intelligent attempt at resolving it that they'd be prepared to defend.

    Preferably not a recitation of either Augustine or Ireneus unless you're prepared to further their arguments- i'm looking for a debate not a revision session.
    Formulate the problem, then I'll give you a solution (if I think there is one). There are many different Problems of Evil, and some require different solutions to others.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RawJoh1)
    Formulate the problem, then I'll give you a solution (if I think there is one). There are many different Problems of Evil, and some require different solutions to others.
    The problem is quite simple, requires virtually no formulation and as far as I know has only one "form".

    The god of the Abramic religions is omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
    People suffer.

    If both statements are true there is a logical contradiction- how can something purely good, that can do ANYTHING it wants, allow people to suffer.

    with out evil, how can there be good?
    Is there any actual reasoning here? If hatred does not exist, does that mean that love cannot? If I am not sick, does that mean I cannot be well because there's no sickness.

    The lack of something's opposite does not prevent it existing.

    So in answer to the question: How can there be good? Quite easily.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L-x)
    The problem is quite simple, requires virtually no formulation and as far as I know has only one "form".
    Well, you need to do more reading then.
    The god of the Abramic religions is omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
    People suffer.

    If both statements are true there is a logical contradiction- how can something purely good, that can do ANYTHING it wants, allow people to suffer.
    That's not a logical contradiction.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L-x)
    The god of the Abramic religions is omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
    People suffer.

    If both statements are true there is a logical contradiction- how can something purely good, that can do ANYTHING it wants, allow people to suffer.
    People make choices. Your suffering is a consequence to the bad choices you make.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    There is no god
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RawJoh1)
    That's not a logical contradiction.
    The three statements together do form a logical contradiction.
    the first two statements: God can do anything and God is all-loving, taken together, imply among other things that if god exists people should not suffer.

    The third statement is that people do, in fact, suffer.

    Taken together one concludes that people suffer and that people should not suffer if God exists, which is a contradiction.

    There is indeed no contradiction if god does not exist, isn't particularly nice, or just isn't very powerful. If however one holds one of these three positions belief in the most common theistic religions becomes difficult, it was this i was looking for discussion on.

    Yes, I need to read more, everyone does, I also need more sleep- in order to stop making rediculous statements like "the problem of evil...has only one form". What I meant is that the basic idea of the problem of an inconsistency between belief in an all-loving, all doing god in a cruel world is sufficient interesting discussion, and it is discussion which interests me.

    People make choices. Your suffering is a consequence to the bad choices you make.
    Feel like going to great ormund street and saying that?
    How exactly are diseases, famine and natural disasters a justified consequence of one's actions? Does a woman's chosing to wear makeup justify her rape?
    Do you really think that all suffering is caused by people making bad choices?

    Tomorrow i'll try to respond with some actual logic instead of a barrage of rhetorical questions.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L-x)
    The three statements together do form a logical contradiction.
    the first two statements: God can do anything and God is all-loving, taken together, imply among other things that if god exists people should not suffer.
    They imply nothing of the sort:

    1. God exists, and is omnipotent and all-loving
    2. There would be no suffering

    Is a logically invalid argument.
    Taken together one concludes that people suffer and that people should not suffer if God exists, which is a contradiction.
    1. God exists, and is omnipotent and all-loving
    2. Suffering exists

    Is not a contradiction It's only a contradiction if you add the suppressed premise:

    1a: If God exists and is omnipotent and and all-loving, then there'd be no suffering

    But as I've said, your argument for 1a is invalid.
    There is indeed no contradiction if god does not exist, isn't particularly nice, or just isn't very powerful. If however one holds one of these three positions belief in the most common theistic religions becomes difficult, it was this i was looking for discussion on.

    Yes, I need to read more, everyone does, I also need more sleep- in order to stop making rediculous statements like "the problem of evil...has only one form". What I meant is that the basic idea of the problem of an inconsistency between belief in an all-loving, all doing god in a cruel world is sufficient interesting discussion, and it is discussion which interests me.
    You're right, it is interesting. I'll try and be more helpful.

    The logical problem of evil looks like this:
    1. God exists, and is omnipotent and morally perfect
    2. A morally perfect being eliminates all the evils that it can
    3. God can eliminate all evils
    4. Yet evil exists

    It is then thought that the theist is committed to 2, 3, and 4. However, 3 isn't necessarily true (God can't do absolutely any action - it's logically possible that there be constraints on the evils God can get rid of - see Plantinga's God, Freedom and Evil for this). Nor is 2 necessarily true. The theist is committed to their being some successful theodicy out there (even if they cannot offer it), and this successful theodicy might give God a morally sufficient reason for permitting some evil (even if He could, if He wanted to, get rid of it). In premising 2, the atheist begs the question against the theist.

    The logical problem of evil isn't the cut and dry issue it's taken to be.
    Offline

    13
    *Thinks*. I'm not sure the problem of evil and suffering can be justified, really. I would like try, though.

    If everything were perfect then the world would be unliveable. I mean, everything would have to be child-proof and it would mean that we couldn't do anything that could potentially kill us, e.g., drive a car (crash), fly in an aeroplane (engine failure ---> crash), eat (choke), stand on something high (fall), chop vegetables (chop finger off) etcetera. We wouldn't be able to take ANY risks because most risks (that we don't necessarily register as 'risky' because we do them everyday) pose dangers.

    I guess that doesn't really cover evil. I can't justify paedophiles or murderers. All I can justify is their state-of-mind (or can I? :confused:). Although most acts of cruelty are unforgivable, I guess it's important to question why a person behaves the way that they do. We aren't automated robots who are made to behave in a particular way. We have freedom to do what we want (or, at least, we think we do).

    I'm not sure if I believe in God so I will not bring religion into the argument.

    It's pretty crap, sorry. Those are just a couple of ideas.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    if i was religious id probably argue that evil doesnt exist. god created the laws of nature and afterwards, cannot intervene. so, what we actually call "evil" is just nature
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zzzzzoe)
    if i was religious id probably argue that evil doesnt exist. god created the laws of nature and afterwards, cannot intervene. so, what we actually call "evil" is just nature
    Any 'solution' to the problem of evil that says that the Holocaust wasn't really evil is no solution at all. It just makes the theist look barmy, and an incompetent witness to how the world is. There is evil. It's plain to see.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    a man is not good if he is forced to be good. If God forced everything and everyone to be good, there would be no goodness perhaps. goodness arises from will, as does evil.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Well, if God exists in our traditional Judaeo-Christian understanding (the 3 omnis etc) then it seems to me that there must be some purpose to this world which is different from heaven.

    If God wanted everything to just be perfect all the time, why bother with earth at all? Why not have us all just in heaven?

    Not sure why God created anything at all in the first place, I can't possibly claim to know what God thinks, and tbh I can't even begin to imagine!

    BUT, maybe this world is just a test? To see who is worthy of heaven and His love etc? While evil and suffering is not evenly distributed around the world, we are all equally tested (eg obviously starving kids in Africa are tested, but so is the rich upper-middle class white man in England - but tested in a different way, will he use God's gifts to do good, or become selfish etc - perhaps a more subtle test?) so maybe it should be the problem of God's test, rather than the problem of evil?

    Basically, I don't know!!!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RawJoh1)
    The logical problem of evil isn't the cut and dry issue it's taken to be.
    I actually think that for all the effort that religious philosophers have (for obvious reasons) put into attempting to refute the problem, it really is still quite straightforward. I guess the easiest way to put it is the following argument:

    1) If God exists, God is omnipotent, omniscient and all-loving.
    2) If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
    3) If God is omniscient, then God is aware of all evil.
    4) If God is all loving, then God desires to eliminate all evil.
    5) If God has the power to eliminate all evil, is aware of all evil, and desires to eliminate all evil then evil cannot exist
    6) Evil exists
    C) Therefore God doesn't exist

    Which is valid and, I think, has true premises. I imagine you'd dispute 2 and maybe 4, but I'm interested to hear your precise response.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Let's say A assaults B. Perhaps God considers the kind of intervention that would prevent A from doing so is a greater evil than the suffering to B.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by sidewalkwhenshewalks)
    a man is not good if he is forced to be good. If God forced everything and everyone to be good, there would be no goodness perhaps. goodness arises from will, as does evil.
    Volcanoes, earthquakes, storms, tsunamis, floods, disease, mental and physical illnesses etcetera do not arise because of will, though.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Laus)
    I'm not sure if I believe in God so I will not bring religion into the argument.
    Sorry if I'm being impertinent, but, surely, if you don't believe in God, there isn't really a problem of evil to worry about?
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by tommorris)
    Sorry if I'm being impertinent, but, surely, if you don't believe in God, there isn't really a problem of evil to worry about?
    I said I'm not sure. I didn't say I don't believe in God, did I?
    Offline

    13
    And yes, I DO think there is a problem of evil to worry about. Christians aren't the only people concerned with the welfare of the planet.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Laus)
    Volcanoes, earthquakes, storms, tsunamis, floods, disease mental and physical illnesses etcetera does not arise because of will, though.
    haha i took that bit out my original post as well. You cannot seriously call natural disasters or ilness evil. Evil is malice performed willingly and of reasonable sound mind. A mountain, lacking a mind, lacks will and does not deign to smite a tiny villiage out of hate or rage, its just physics. Evil does not equal Suffering
 
 
 
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.