Hey, I was wondering if any of the brilliant minds of Spurstalk could possibly think of a good answer for the argument from evil?
You do not have to be a Christian to do this, the goal is not to prove that God exists, just that it is not a complete impossibility that he/she/it might.
In case you aren't familiar with this argument, it says:
An all knowing, all powerful, all loving God CAN NOT exist in a world with evil because he/she/it would know the evil existed, be strong enough to stop this evil, and finally would want to stop the evil because he/she/it cares for us.
I was just curious, I have an idea for a possible answer, but desired to hear what everybody else thought as well.
--very short answer, long answer may follow later--
It depend on both your definition of good and evil, as well as you definition and/or characterization of "God". There's other conceptions of god besides the Judeo-Christian-Islamo monotheistic all-knowing, all-good deity.
I agree with Pixel that more info is needed in order to give anything more than a generalization of an answer.
The question you pose reminds me of what I'll refer to as a "trick" question;
"Can God create an object that is too heavy for him to lift"? Either a yes or no answer would suggest that God has limitations.
The God of Christians is a God of Love and a God of Wrath, and his Wrath is just as righteous as his love.
The Christian answer is that God created man with free will. In other words, man, who knows what is good and what is evil, has the free will to chose. God usually does not meddle with these choices and these chioces have eternal consequences.
Well, no...you can not use any other view of God in this argument. The argument from evil is a published article that had the sole purpose of proving that the "Christian God" could not exist.
Thus, those qualifications must exist.
Well, there are also two kinds of evils, Smeagol. There are man-made evils that can be attributed to free will, and there are also natural evils such as disasters and viruses.
And this is under the supposition that many Christians have evinced, that God is simply all-loving. This is the view that, if not at this point, at least at the time of the arguments conception, was the traditional/popular view of the Christian faith.
"natural evils"
How can some "thing" be evil when it occurs naturally and has no nervous system, free will or moral sense?
Producing negative consequences for a single species (eg, humans) isn't evil.
It's just tough . Win some, lose some.
Well, as things stand I only have two very simple answers to this argument.
1. The finite (man) can not understand the motivations of the infinite. This is similar to the analogy posed of man being the sheep to Christs good shepherd. The good shepherd has one diffiult duty, that is to break the legs of the errent sheep. If one continually strays to the point of posing a danger to itself or to others, the shepher will break its leg(s) and then proceed to carry the sheep on its back.
Man, just like the sheep, can not grasp why these evils are done to us...but perhaps they are allowed in order to promote personal growth/spiritual development, or perhaps they are for the good of the community as a whole. We (man and sheep) always wonder why these great evils are done to us because neither of us are capable of understanding the motivations of our "shepherd."
2. This is a little less practical. I would like to make the claim that evil is a prerequisite for Earths existence. That in any scenario of a mortal life, at least one with free will, we must have some form of evil.
As a way of sort of testing this claim, let us pretend that in order to answer this cry out by mankind that God then created 3 other universes. Throughout this argument we will live in Universe A, the original creation.
In Universe A, mankind is crying out that if God loves them, then he should remove these evils that plaque our lives.
God hears their cries and creates Universe B. In universe B there are no evils, at least not the standard evils which were condemned in Universe A. There is only mediocrity through excellence. Well, Universe B has never experienced the evils of Universe A, so by the relativity of evil, they will find this mediocrity to be an evil.
This can be seen by creating Universe E. In Universe E there is a constant state of . Everybody is in a constant state of pain and suffering. There may be times of slightly more pain, but the pain is constant and great, and there is no reprieve. If a citizen of Universe E made the trip to Universe A, they would be shocked and disgusted by our petty definitions of evil. They would say that life here is beautiful and full of pleasure, and that most evils are miniscule and can be avoided.
So, back go Universe B. They see this "mediocrity" as an evil fron God. It is in mankinds nature to always clamour for that which is the greatest possible good, and these people would be no different, crying out to God, asking why it is that they must suffer so greatly compared to their fellow brethren. To answer their pleas, God makes Universe C.
In Universe C there is nothing but absolute pleasure and happiness. The life-span of man is even longer than before because we do not get sick or suffer worldly or spiritual pains. However, one great evil still exists. Death. Eventually our bodies, painlessly, cease to exist in this world, and our spirits are taken up to Heaven.
Death seems to be one small evil left, but I believe that death in Universe C is the greatest evil that man has ever experienced. This is in part due to the relativity of evil, in part due to the difficulty of coping with death. In universes A and B, the only way that people cope with death is by saying that they are "going to a better place." And the people who do not believe in Heaven still believe that they are losing their Earthly burden. Well, in Universe C, there is no Earthly burden, there is no better place. We are going from a place of pure bliss to a questionably afterlife. The only way to make us sure of our position in the afterlife is to remove free-will, and the God that we are supposing to exist in this argument could not/would not do that.
But now, this is the only evil in existence, so in comparison to daily life it is relatively so much greater in contrast than any evil in our world is from the next worst possible option, and, as said before, it will be even more difficult to cope with. That is why I say that death in Universe C is the greatest evil ever created. Thus, the people of Universe C cry out to God, saying that if he loves them, then this evil of death will be removed.
Now, God creates Universe D. In Universe D there is no pain. There is no suffering. There is no death. Universe D is, thus, Heaven itself. A perfect God would not create something with no purpose, so he would not create a Heaven-like Earth, and then a Heaven later. There would be just one. And also, the souls could never be removed from Earth without some form of death of them ceasing to be, so they must stay there for eternity for this to not be an evil.
So, Universe D is Heaven.
There is no possible Earth without evil.
Boutons....come on. We are supposing that God created everything. If God created everything then he programmed these natural evils to occur, thus they are not natural at all, but a part of Gods "plan".
He, thus, created these for us, so they are truly evils. They are not chance. It is an evil from God.
"created these for us"
bull . and increidble hubris.
Why do people need the bull comfort that "God" created the entire universe just for humans? This seems to some kind of con job that comes mainly from US Protestants to hustle their members. Humans are the center of the universe? An anthropocentric, egomaniacal bull myth.
The universe (aka God) doesn't give a about humans.
They are just one more phenomenon that has to follow natural (God's) laws, which are never suspended.
If humans up their environment and make the surface of earth uninhabitable (for humans) for a few 1000 years, it's not evil, it's just tough . The humans didn't respect the law, so they law punished them. The earth will survive and shrug off humans and all their "evil" products like so many fleas off a dog (George Carlin).
If humans get killed in an avalanche, or get cancer, or Alzheimers, and get born with screwed up genes, it's not evil. It ain't evil. It's just tough .
Jesus Boutons, you just can't keep up, can you?
This is not an argument on what you think God is, or what I think God is. This is a look into a specific argument, and that specific argument attacks a specific view of God.
I did not write tje argument from evil, but whoever did wrote it in an attempt to discredit the Christian view of God. In this view he did create the Earth for us, and created everything on it. And if viruses and natural distasters harm us, and were created by God, then he made them to harm us.
Again, we arent trying to say what God is. Good lord man.
No comments?
:: the sound of a chain being pulled ::
I fail to understand what you are saying. It is not my fault that you do not understand what is going on in the thread, but being a kind soul I will try one more time to show you.:: the sound of a chain being pulled ::
1. The argument from evil is a philosophical argument that is meant to prove that the Christian God can not exist.
2. I tried to make an argument that opposes the argument from evil. In order to do this I have to assume all of the characteristics of the Christian God. Now, my goal is not to prove that God does exist, just that it is not an impossibility.
3. I presented an argument of my own regarding this argument from evil. In my argument I suppose many things...that God is perfect, that god is all loving, all knowing, and all powerful, and that God created all life and man in his image as the centerpiece. This is not a recitation of my views, it is a summary of the views assumed in the argument from evil.
So, none of the things that I have claimed about Gods nature can be argued. Well, they can, but that is a different argument. The argument from evil is only meant to argue with those who do believe in all of those qualities. It is a very narrowly defined argument from a period in time when these views consumed the majority of mankind.
So, would anybody like to truly argue/discuss the argument from evil? And no, this does not mean argue whether God is all-loving or any other quality because if you disagree with them then the argument from evil was not meant to attack you.
Ok, assuming a perfect, all-loving God, there are still terms that need to be defined, specifically good and evil. Also, how do we identify good and evil?
You're over his head, you're not gonna get a straight answer from him now.
I didn't mean for that to sound so mean, I just don't like when good-faith posters get attacked out of nowhere with things that don't make sense.
Last edited by ATX Spur; 10-02-2006 at 02:04 AM.
Here's what Descartes or Russell would tell you.
The problem with the argument from evil is that the notion of "good" for most people is too dispar e for the purposes of the syllogism that it is. Some Christian God (conceivably) could see a bigger picture than the human eye and there could be some large goal that escapes our comprehension. Here, then, it is a problem of scope. Or maybe this God's idea of good is salvation through trial. Or learning through trial. Or any number of things. Inherent within His all-knowingness (omniscience) is the notion of our limited knowledge, including regarding what we think is good.
Granted, I don't argue for the Christian God, but it's not this argument that deters me.
This just means that God is limited by logic. You can't lift something that you define as too heavy to lift. You are bound by logic, but that's not a deficiency.
For example, my body currently lacks motor oil, but that's not a limitation. The human body doesn't need motor oil. In fact, if you consume it, it's to your detriment.
That God would be held to the laws of logic means he is lacking the corruption of illogism. That's why the question is a "trick" question. It gets you to think in terms of language (using the word 'limitation' incorrectly) rather than truth.
Yes, he can. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, does it not? well, for every good, there is an evil. Superman has his villain, Batman has the Joker and friends, and such. God has the devil. it even acknowledged that there is evil in the world in the bible, and that evil is spewed by the fallen angel toward god.
For this to be true, wouldn't the devil, at least in some respects, have to be just as powerful as God?
Extra Stout answered this question very eloquently awhile back...
I don't put God to the test and don't question why but rather try to do his will by speaking out against the attrocities being done in our world.
This is a law of thermodynamics. There's a big jump from there to being able to use it as a premise in a normative argument.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
