Philosophy Paper

[turambar85]

Hey. I am turning in a philosophy paper for a contest an UT, and I was wondering if any of the brilliant Spurstalk minds might be willing to look it over and see what you think.

It is a 14 page paper defending the possibility of the Christian ideal of God coexisting in a world with evil.

If anybody is willing to look it over, just post and let me know and I will email or post a link.

Thanks!

Also, to keep this in the boards spirit, what do you think?? Can God exist in a world with evil? Can evil exist in a world with God?

[boutons_]

Good and evil co-exist, always have, always will. It's been debated and studied for 100s, 1000s of years by the best philosophers and holy men. All the major religions have well-defined positions. Have you done any research?

[turambar85]

Good and evil co-exist, always have, always will. It's been debated and studied for 100s, 1000s of years by the best philosophers and holy men. All the major religions have well-defined positions. Have you done any research?

That God and evil co-exist is not a fact, it is an assumption. It could be argued that God does not exist, and some theologians have even begged the question that evil does not exist...so let not take anything for granted.

However, I have done a small measure of research...but I take a different philosophical approach, in that I prefer to make my arguments as independently as possible of external ideas and claims by past philosophers. The reasons for this should remain a different topic for a different day.

My argument centers around the premise, in apologizing for God's allowing of evil, that evil must exist...must exist...in an existence containing mortality and/or free will.

[turambar85]

Let me make it clear that I have read many arguments about the "argument from evil" but that when I say I prefer to go my argumentative route alone, it means without building from, and citing from, external sources.

[ThomasGranger]

It depends. How are you defining "God" and "evil"?

I'm assuming that since you're arguing about the Christian ideal of God, you mean that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, no? Also, is the notion of God that you are working from a temporal or atemporal entity?

[turambar85]

It depends. How are you defining "God" and "evil"?

I'm assuming that since you're arguing about the Christian ideal of God, you mean that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, no? Also, is the notion of God that you are working from a temporal or atemporal entity?


Yes, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. Also, an atemporal entity.

[turambar85]

Evil is defined in two ways, natural evils, or man made evils, at least is we are to refrain from digressing back to the meaning behind the term evil itself, which seems a little much for this discussion.

We can safely dismiss man-made evils through analysis of free will, but then we are left asking how an omni-everything God could not hve given us free will without the capacity for evil. This seems to be an interesting notion until you consider that we do not have the free will to fly, to create matter, or to otherwise be something other than what we were created to be. So, the question then becomes why did God allow an "evil" will? But that also seems heavy, so I would like to focus on how God allows natural evils, or, otherwise, why God allows any unnecessary suffering.

[turambar85]

Curiosity...

Would anybody be annoyed/put off if I were to post my essay to be considered in its entirety within this thread in a post? It is 4,100 words...but it has a very distinct mid-point from which people can choose to begin reading and simply see my argument regarding why God might be forced into allowing evil?

[ThomasGranger]

Given the conditions you supplied above, I would posit one of three possibilities (none of which really accords with your thesis, but they may be useful to you somehow nevertheless).

A. The positivist approach to the problem of evil: what we perceive as evil isn't really evil (even though it looks that way to us) since we can't see the whole picture i.e. everything that happens is an expression of God's will and as such part of an absolute good that will be realized at the end of time.

B. Human suffering is a form of evil in the world; therefore, either God can't end it (which we can't allow since this doesn't accord with your premise that God is omnipotent) or God does not exist at all.

C. God is omnipotent, but chooses to allow the existence of evil b/c God is in fact evil (The Marquis de Sade's position). This is probably a risky argument to pitch to some profs, but in a philosophy class one could probably pull it off if the logic were presented soundly enough.

[turambar85]

Given the conditions you supplied above, I would posit one of three possibilities (none of which really accords with your thesis, but they may be useful to you somehow nevertheless).

A. The positivist approach to the problem of evil: what we perceive as evil isn't really evil (even though it looks that way to us) since we can't see the whole picture i.e. everything that happens is an expression of God's will and as such part of an absolute good that will be realized at the end of time.

B. Human suffering is a form of evil in the world; therefore, either God can't end it (which we can't allow since this doesn't accord with your premise that God is omnipotent) or God does not exist at all.

C. God is omnipotent, but chooses to allow the existence of evil b/c God is in fact evil (The Marquis de Sade's position). This is probably a risky argument to pitch to some profs, but in a philosophy class one could probably pull it off if the logic were presented soundly enough.

B is the one the interests me, but I seriously do not consider the inability to eliminate evil a pox on God's omipotence. Just as God cannot make a person that is not a person, a rock so heavy he can't lift it, or a joint so strong he couldn't smoke it, creating mortality without evil is a contradiction and simply a play on words.

[turambar85]

I feel that I can't explain how I came to my conclusion in my last post without doing this, so here is the last half of my essay...the portion pertaining to the necessity of evil. Enjoy.

I apologize if the spacing and paragraphs were not formatted properly. It did not convert very well.


Why free will may be contingent on evil

The previous arguments were all centered on the principles behind God's allowing of natural evils within our lives. However, it may be wondered how this is so, and many may ask if God could not achieve these ends with only the use of moral evils brought on by the existence of humanity. When considering things in this light, it might seem somewhat egregious for God to also curse mankind with natural evils, but it seems to us that there is a reason for this as well.

We, as humans, are said to have the free will to act in whatever manner we see fit. We can decide to follow God, or we can choose to become atheists. We can choose to murder and plunder our fellow brothers and sisters, or we can choose to live a peaceful life. However, if we were not subjected to evils on Earth, we would be far less likely to display such evils in our daily lives, and our free will would be greatly infringed upon. We make this claim because Earth itself, if made without any natural evils, would be, without a doubt, perfect in every conceivable way. Any deviation from this perfection would leave mankind lacking or suffering in some manner, and finding some levels of evil within their own environment.

Thus, in order to truly know evil, it must first be experienced. Otherwise, we would see nothing in life except for good, and know nothing except for satisfaction and pleasure. We would never find ourselves in want, and would never be put in a position where we had the need to take from others what we need for ourselves. Having thus lived in a world that is truly perfect, and seen nothing but the beauty of God's creation, we would be far less apt to have evil thoughts or evil desires. Our minds and souls would be flooded with nothing but the goodness of God's perfect creation, and this bias would be displayed in our actions. We would, it could be argued, not be completely free to act in a way that is either good or evil because we are so predisposed through our conditioning to act in a manner that is good.

Why the existence of Earth is contingent on evil
In order to better elaborate on our position that an Earthly existence is contingent on the presence of evil, we would like to proceed to discuss the different possible universes that God could have created in anticipation of mankind's clamoring for a better life, and analyze the existence and effects of the evils that may reside within each one. Over the course of this analysis, we will break down the possibilities behind a series of conceivable existences that become progressively less evil. We will begin with the universe that we currently live in, and traverse the different hypothetical creations until we reach the conclusion, a universe that exists without any degrees of evil or suffering. However, is this a possible plane of existence, and, if so, can it even be contained within the realm of mortality?
In order to test this thesis we will illustrate our point through the analysis of four hypothetical universes, as well as the addition of the one in which we currently reside, which will be incorporated for a measure of control.

Universe A stands for our current level of existence and incorporates the entire spectrum of feelings and sufferings known to humanity. Universe B eliminates evil and nothing else, while Universe C eliminates everything except for pure pleasure in life. Universe D rids humankind of its final punishment, which is death. Finally, Universe E is offered as another control in order to directly compare a universe which embodies our conception of hell itself made into a mortal land, with our current existence, Universe A.

Universe A: The problem of evil
Our analysis begins with a glimpse into Universe A, the plane of actual existence and awareness with which we can relate. In this universe we currently run the entire gamut of feelings and perceptions, from pure bliss and happiness, down to the utter bowels of mortal hell. The fact that the possibility of terrible suffering exists has caused many to question and doubt the existence of God. It is said that, if God truly loved us, then we would be released from this suffering and be allowed to live in an environment more fitting of the creations of a loving God. Perhaps, they say, it would have been possible for God to have created a universe in which we did not have to live with evils or suffering. If we were only given such a small gift then we would be truly happy, and would surely call ourselves children of the one true, loving God.

However, it is not readily apparent that a world without what we consider evil would truly be, to its inhabitants, considered as such. This claim is presented under the initial premise that was laid forth in explaining why a mortal existence is dependent upon the existence of evil; namely, that all evil is relative to the individual and their experiences. In order to test this theory, we would like to introduce the fictitious plane of existence, Universe B, as well as a direct comparison of Universe B and Universe E, which is the manifestation of the earthly concept of Hell.

Universe B: The problem of mediocrity
Universe B is created without the horrible evils that plagued mankind in
Universe A. However, it still contains every other aspect of human life. This universe maintains the feelings of excellence, the feeling of mediocrity, the feeling of excitement, and the feeling of boredom. However, we propose, this would still be unsatisfactory in regards to eliminating evil from existence. This is asserted on the principle of the relativity of evil. Mankind has, throughout history, always clamored for that which is the greatest possible existence. Those who have not reached this pinnacle lament their losses and feel that they have suffered some injustice.

The citizens of Universe B will have never experienced any of the so-called evils of Universe A, and will only know the traits that exist within their own world. They will experience these moments of, what we would consider to be mediocrity, and will find them to be much worse than the lives of others around them. This discrepancy in levels of pleasure and happiness will cause envy and jealousy. They will begin to resent their lots in life and will think this to be a great injustice, or evil, done to them. They will ask why God has allowed for these discrepancies, and wonder if God could do this and still love them as dearly as their neighbors. However, for any who remain unconvinced that evil is relative, we will now introduce the hypothetical Universe E for a direct comparison with the previously mentioned Universe A.

Universe E, as was illustrated earlier, stands as the physical manifestation of our understanding of the concept of Hell. In Universe E, people suffer through an existence filled with nothing but the most unimaginable pain and sorrows that can be thrust upon mankind. Every second of every day is filled with the utmost levels of suffering that the human body can endure.
If, however, some of the inhabitants of Universe E were to be miraculously transported into the realm of Universe A, then surely these lucky few would find their new homes to be more than satisfactory. Clearly, they would have to believe that evil, at least as known to them, could hardly even be said to truly exist in this world. Having thus determined the relativity of evil, we will proceed onward with the investigation as to whether or not evil is a required aspect of mortality.

Universe C: The problem of death
In the creation of Universe C, we find yet another step towards the perfect existence. God has now removed the final semblance of evil that plagued mankind in Universe B, namely mediocrity. At this point in our development, we have a society that is completely predisposed to the utmost levels of happiness and bliss. There is now no sickness, no hatred, no envy, and no discrepancies. Every individual inhabiting this universe shares in the highest degrees of pleasure. However, one problem remains: the problem of death.

Throughout each of the hypothetical universes that we have analyzed, death has arguably been the greatest evil that has plagued mankind. While the level in which this evil has triumphed over the others has increased as we have eliminated other evils from man's existence, we would argue, even in Universe A, that death is one of the greatest evil that mankind has faced.

In Universe A, death had competition for the honor of being the most unbearable evil that faced mankind. There existed instances of horrible torture and pain, of hunger and thirst. But, many people have chosen to suffer through these pains rather than risk the death of themselves, or of a loved one. However, you will also find many accounts of people committing suicide, and openly accepting death rather than be forced to deal with the horrors of their daily lives. Because of this, a concise answer in regards to the place of death in Universe A cannot be truly found, and we are left with no choice but to simply list it as one of the greatest evils mankind can face.

In Universe B, we no longer have the suffering and undeniable torture found within the confines of Universe A, but only mediocrity which translates to evils in the eyes of those blessed enough to have coddled through life in this universe. To these hypothetical individuals, death would be, by the relativity of evil, much worse than death was in Universe A. Death would be less of a respite from the toils of everyday life than it had been, and the levels of suffering to which death could be compared would also pale in direct contrast. In this existence, death is, by far, the greatest evil to be suffered by mankind.

In Universe C we have, as we have already discovered, nothing except for the greatest levels of pleasure. Death, in comparison, would be so far beyond the scope of their everyday experiences that it would be, we would argue, nearly traumatic. People would no longer be able to say that their loved ones are "going to a better place," because there is no better place to be found. The daily existence of man would be so perfect that there would be no hope that Heaven would contain greater wonders or pleasures; it would only contain a lack of death. However, just as the people in Universe A, there would also be the doubts as to whether or not Heaven even exists, and for these people, death would be an evil which could not be alleviated.

Universe D: The problem of immortality
Due to the fact that the people within Universe C found death to be one last remaining evil, God must take one final step to create a universe which finds itself free from the bonds of suffering. In Universe D, death itself is removed. We now have a universe that contains no evil, no suffering, no wants, and no death. However, this universe has lost the defining characteristics that made it a mortal life.

With the absence of evil, with the absence of death, what is to separate this level of existence from Heaven itself? Can Heaven and Universe D even coexist? We would like to claim that this coexistence is a logical impossibility.

This claim is made because, without death, there is no way for people to traverse the gap from Earth to Heaven. If humans lose their mortality, and can no longer die, they are unable to travel from Earth to their final resting place, Heaven. Even if God were to be able to take them, without the need for death, from Earth to Heaven, there would be no way, short of eliminating free will altogether, of convincing mankind that they were truly being taken to Heaven. Also, a perfect God would have no need for creating two planes of existence for mankind that had no discernable differences during inhabitation. It would be a universe of redundancy, and this is a flaw that perfection does not permit.

III. Conclusion
It is because of these given reasons that we believe it to be possible for an omnipotent, omniscient, and omni benevolent God to exist in a world with evil. However, there is still one final gap within the argument: the problem regarding God's assumed limitation by logic within our work.

We account for this apparent oversight through the following premises: 1) God is perfect; 2) God could then only create that which is also perfect; 3) When God created logic and the governing laws of the universe, they must also have been perfect; 4) God is all loving; 5) An all-loving being cannot act in any way that is self-serving, or otherwise lie or mislead others; 6) To circumvent logic, God must lie or mislead mankind about what is being done, or what logic was/is.

In the first premise we made the claim that God is perfect. This means that God, as characterized in the argument from evil, is a supremely perfect being. God cannot be any better because to be perfect is to be without flaw, and God could not be worse without diluting his/her perfection.

As premise two shows, God is limited by the boundaries of perfection, and could not create anything that is not perfect. If God creates something, then, insofar as these attributes are assigned to God, it must also be supremely perfect. There would be no conceivable creation that is better, and God could not create anything that is worse. This, it would seem, almost restricts the actions of God to creating the one singularly perfect thing in every instance.

The third premise states that God created the laws that govern the universe, as well as the logical system by which we abide. Having already determined that God is perfect, and, subsequently, that all creations by God must be perfect, we can safely assume that any logical system created by God would also be perfect. Thus, God could not have created any logical system other than the one in use today, as this system must either be supremely perfect, or have been created independently of God.

Our fourth premise claims that God, as we have already discussed, is an all loving, or omni benevolent God. Through this we find that God must also act in a way that is perfectly good and just in regards to humanity and other creations. This is due to the fact that, in order to be truly omni benevolent, you must act in a way that is entirely altruistic.

The fifth premise asserts that God could not lie to, or otherwise mislead humanity because these are actions that are purely self-serving and egocentric. What naturally follows from this statement is that God must both be what has been shown to us, and must follow the dictates that have been delivered, or else no longer maintain an omni benevolent nature.

The sixth and final premise that we have lain down is that, in order to go against the grain of logic, God must lie to, or mislead humanity. Thus, as we have seen, an omni benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent God is limited to creating a certain form of logical thought and laws. And once they are created, God cannot break these laws without dismissing his/her omni benevolent nature in the process.

What follows from these premises is that God could not create a universe that does not contain evil without completely circumventing the logical system that currently exists. And, in order to do that, one or more of the omni natures attributed to God would have to be dismissed as well. And to do so would be unacceptable in terms of the argument from evil, which assumes these attributes as a major aspect of the argument itself.

In conclusion, the argument from evil is flawed in its premise that an all loving, all powerful, and all knowing God could not exist in a world with evil because, not only can evil be used by God to promote the greater good, but also because the logical system installed by God shows that evil is a necessary aspect of a mortal existence. These natural evils are hardwired into our basic existence, and to find a way to eliminate them from our lives would also eliminate our mortality in the process.

[ThomasGranger]

B is the one the interests me, but I seriously do not consider the inability to eliminate evil a pox on God's omipotence. Just as God cannot make a person that is not a person, a rock so heavy he can't lift it, or a joint so strong he couldn't smoke it, creating mortality without evil is a contradiction and simply a play on words.

OK, but I think that begs the question: if there is evil, is it part of God's will?

edit: (I posted this while you were posting your paper. I imagine the answer to my question is in there).

[turambar85]

OK, but I think that begs the question: if there is evil, is it part of God's will?

It must be an aspect of God's will, or otherwise we must assume that it could not be.

However, before you pass judgment, or question any further, read the text I provided.

Also, if you will be so kind as to give your opinion I would very much appreciate it.

[turambar85]

Keep in mind, I am just a junior and this was just for a class, so I don't expect it to be that great.

Throw me any and all criticism, and don't think that I believe through some nearsighted conceit that it is anything other than ordinary. I understand it has many weaknesses, likely from grammatical to logical, so errors are fine to point out.

[turambar85]

So, no reviews or pointers on the portion of my essay then, eh?

[Guru of Nothing]

So, no reviews or pointers on the portion of my essay then, eh?

Through questions, you are trying to make a point.

The older you get, the sharper your questions will become.

[Yonivore]

So, no reviews or pointers on the portion of my essay then, eh?
What's the prize in this contest? Are you going to share it with the editors in this forum?

[turambar85]

Through questions, you are trying to make a point.

The older you get, the sharper your questions will become.

My questions are pretty dull at this point, and that is why I am interesting in receiving input.

[turambar85]

What's the prize in this contest? Are you going to share it with the editors in this forum?

Eh, its a $500 prize. I won't win, I don't write or think well enough, but I like to give it a shot anyway for kicks and giggles.

But my main goal is just improving my essay through discussion with others.

[ThomasGranger]

I'm having trouble with your claim that "Throughout each of the hypothetical universes that we have analyzed, death has arguably been the greatest evil that has plagued mankind." I would argue that death in and of itself isn't evil.

Certainly, taking the life of another person can be considered an evil act, and the pain one feels before dying may be attributed to evil, and perhaps even the suffering of one in mourning may be considered a type of evil, but not death at the level of the individual (i.e. death in the ontological sense). In fact, it's beyond the scope of moral concerns in that it's natural and inevitable.

What's more, I would argue that mortality (death) is necessary to give meaning to life. In short, we value life b/c we know it will end at some point.

This is more of an existential position than traditional Christian ideology, but the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

[BradLohaus]

I think your paper is good. Your case for evil as a relative concept was supported well with your Universe A-E example. But I have a couple of things about the 6 step logical chain in your conclusion:


1) God is perfect; 2) God could then only create that which is also perfect; 3) When God created logic and the governing laws of the universe, they must also have been perfect; 4) God is all loving; 5)An all-loving being cannot act in any way that is self-serving,or otherwise lie or mislead others;6) To circumvent logic, God must lie or mislead mankind about what is being done, or what logic was/is.

I'm not sure that those 2 premises would be accepted by everyone.
God could then only create that which is also perfect- I'm not saying that I disagree with that myself, but I think someone could argue that God could create something that is imperfect and not lose his own "perfect" status. I'm not sure how I would counter that if I was arguing that God can only create perfection. God created the Earth, and one could certainly argue that it isn't perfect. If you have something in mind for that then I'd recommend throwing in a line or 2 to defend that premise.(EDIT: If your using that only to bridge to premise 3 then you might not need #2. You could just say in #3 that God, who is perfect, created logic and the governing laws of the universe, so they are perfect. That way you don't open up premise #2 for debate. Instead of saying that everything God creates is perfect you will only be saying that true logic and the laws that govern the universe are perfect, which is a much easier pill to swallow, I think.)
An all-loving being cannot act in any way that is self-serving - I think there could be some arguments against that as well. In the Bible God orders humanity to serve him many times. It could be possible that these self-serving actions by God are actually good for us and he tells us to do this because he is all loving. I'd recommend removing part of that line, leaving premise #5 as "An all-loving being cannot lie or mislead others". I don't think the self-serving aspect of the premise is neccessary for your argument.


I'm having trouble with your claim that "Throughout each of the hypothetical universes that we have analyzed, death has arguably been the greatest evil that has plagued mankind." I would argue that death in and of itself isn't evil.

I'd agree with TG on that statement; I think that argument can be made.

Again, I think it's all very good.

[Nbadan]

We can decide to follow God, or we can choose to become atheists

What of Pagans, Wickans and secularists? They all believe in a type of god, just not a God.

[Nbadan]

Wonderful essay turambar85. Chinese philosophers refer to the concepts in your main thesis as ying-and-yang.


In Western culture, the dichotomy of good and evil is often taken as a paradigm for other dicotomies. In Hegelian dialectics, dichotomies are linked to progress. In Chinese philosophy, the paradigmatic dichotomy of Yin and Yang does not generally give preference or moral superiority to one side of the dichotomy, and dicotomies are linked to cyclical processes rather than progress. However, taoism often values Yin above Yang, and confucianism often values Yang above Yin.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ying_and_Yang)

[ThomasGranger]

I second NBADan's remark. Good job. The essay is a keeper--one that you may want to come back to as you refine your ideas and develop your strengths as a writer. Even if you don't win the contest, it may come in handy later if you find yourself in need of a writing sample while applying for a job or grad program.

[spurster]

I would argue that it is impossible to create anything without the potential of good and evil. For example, the tools we create are, by themselves, neither good nor evil, but can be used for good or evil. A hammer can be used to pound a nail or pound someone's head. The universe when created was neither good nor evil. However, randomness appears to be part of how it works. It would seem inevitable that some random events will be evil.

Does this argument mean that God is not good or perhaps evil? Well, if God doesn't create anything, then you have nothing, no good and no evil. I guess this ends up being a dilemma.

[turambar85]

I'm having trouble with your claim that "Throughout each of the hypothetical universes that we have analyzed, death has arguably been the greatest evil that has plagued mankind." I would argue that death in and of itself isn't evil.

Certainly, taking the life of another person can be considered an evil act, and the pain one feels before dying may be attributed to evil, and perhaps even the suffering of one in mourning may be considered a type of evil, but not death at the level of the individual (i.e. death in the ontological sense). In fact, it's beyond the scope of moral concerns in that it's natural and inevitable.

What's more, I would argue that mortality (death) is necessary to give meaning to life. In short, we value life b/c we know it will end at some point.

This is more of an existential position than traditional Christian ideology, but the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

Well, it seems that you believe I was claiming death to be an evil from God, but that is not the case.

When I say death is an evil, I mean that it is perceived to be by the individual, both his/her own, and that of a loved one.

[turambar85]

I think your paper is good. Your case for evil as a relative concept was supported well with your Universe A-E example. But I have a couple of things about the 6 step logical chain in your conclusion:



I'm not sure that those 2 premises would be accepted by everyone.
God could then only create that which is also perfect- I'm not saying that I disagree with that myself, but I think someone could argue that God could create something that is imperfect and not lose his own "perfect" status. I'm not sure how I would counter that if I was arguing that God can only create perfection. God created the Earth, and one could certainly argue that it isn't perfect. If you have something in mind for that then I'd recommend throwing in a line or 2 to defend that premise.(EDIT: If your using that only to bridge to premise 3 then you might not need #2. You could just say in #3 that God, who is perfect, created logic and the governing laws of the universe, so they are perfect. That way you don't open up premise #2 for debate. Instead of saying that everything God creates is perfect you will only be saying that true logic and the laws that govern the universe are perfect, which is a much easier pill to swallow, I think.)
An all-loving being cannot act in any way that is self-serving - I think there could be some arguments against that as well. In the Bible God orders humanity to serve him many times. It could be possible that these self-serving actions by God are actually good for us and he tells us to do this because he is all loving. I'd recommend removing part of that line, leaving premise #5 as "An all-loving being cannot lie or mislead others". I don't think the self-serving aspect of the premise is neccessary for your argument.



I'd agree with TG on that statement; I think that argument can be made.

Again, I think it's all very good.

I would say that the Earth, for the purpose it serves, must be perfect from a Christian viewpoint. While it may not be perftect in and of itself, it must be in the scope of the universal, and, in the spirit of Christianity, God's eternal plan.

Otherwise God would not be all-powerful or all-loving because, being perfectly powerful, God must be capable of creating that which is best, and, beingp perfectly loving "he" would not choose not to.