Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There's a lot of stuff posted in this forum that isn't real philosophy, so I thought it might be fun to talk about an actual philosophical argument that is regularly discussed among real philosophers. Rather than post it as a syllogism, I'm going to describe it in sentence form to make it more approachable for all readers. Note that I did not invent this argument, but I do think it is strong. What are your thoughts?
The Evidentiary Problem of Evil
Some Preliminaries:
First, let's assume that god is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. I'll call that a three-trait god. Second, let's assume that a good being tries to minimize evil as much as it possibly can. If a being were to choose some really bad events over some really good ones, and had no redeeming reason for doing so, we would say that it wasn't as good of a being as a being who chose all good events. That seems pretty intuitive, and I doubt it's particularly controversial. So, we can say that god knows everything, can do anything (that isn't logically impossible, at least) and seeks to maximize good and minimize evil.
Also, while it may be difficult to always determine what is good and what is evil, there are probably some things that we think are clearly evil, such as pointless suffering. If a being intentionally inflicts suffering on a sentient creature, and has no redeeming reason for doing so, we would probably call that action evil. There may be other things that are evil, but this seems like at least one clear-cut example of evil.
The Argument:
When god went to make the world, he could have made it any way he wanted, so long as that world was logically possible. Since he had perfect knowledge of the future outcome of his creating, he knew exactly what would be contained in the world when he created it -- both good and evil. Since god is perfectly good, he must, by nature, create the world that maximizes good and minimizes evil. He cannot choose a world that has any "extra" evil just for kicks -- that is contrary to the nature of a good being. So, the world that exists must be the world with the least amount of evil possible. There is no doubt that there is evil in the world, but as has been suggested by many philosophers, it's possible that god had some good reason for including at least some evil. For example, there's the classic "Well, X bad event happened so other people could come to know god" or, in real life, something like the death of MLK might serve as a wake-up call to America that would improve future race relations. So, the mere presence of some evil in the world doesn't imply that god doesn't exist, but rather we are concerned with the question of whether there is any "extra" evil, or evil that didn't serve to produce some other good.
The theist here must maintain that all evil in existence exists to produce some greater good. But that seems absurd. If we agree that suffering without purpose is evil, then that would mean that all suffering in the history of the world has in fact had a purpose. That simply can't be true. Surely, at some point in earth's history, there has been some creature that suffered a painful death secretly or endured some sort of anguish that did not result in a greater good. It seems extremely unlikely that all suffering in history has served to produce some greater good. One plain example of this is that, prior to man's arrival on the evolutionary scene, millions and millions of animals roamed the face of the earth, many of them tormented through disease, starvation and predation. It is very difficult to assign some greater good to this suffering. Another example would be natural disasters. God could have made a world with no natural disasters, and that world would seemingly have had far less suffering. Why did god choose to make those people suffer unnecessarily?
What are your thoughts? Please don't merely mention free will; free will, at least on its face, does not solve the dilemma. There is much suffering that is not a product of free will.
Wrong.
Ice cream never tasted so good after eating veggies and fruit for a week.
Whatever happens after this life, will never seem so wonderfull after spending a life on Earth.
I think the point with the OP is that it takes one popular idea of a god and from there concludes that this idea is evil, because suffering is bad.
It is flawed just for that.
Why not look at things through the eye of evolution and think that consciousness is an accident of nature that happened and inventing god(s) is part of that natural evolution of consciousness - human consciousness specifically?
We do not know with certainty that consciousness does not survive the death of the brain. Some believe this is the case since it obviously appears to be that way, but no one can be certain (which is why belief is so attractive, be that belief for or against.)
Putting that to one side for now, what is human consciousness faced with in relation to the universe? We can say at least that if it survives the carelessness of the present, it has the potential to move out into the galaxy and what then?
All it can do is create things from the material at hand.
However, we assume that biologically we can survive the rigors of space and fly free from this nest of a planet we originate from.
We may yet discover that such thinking is simply wishful thinking. Even magical thinking. It might well prove to be the case that we are stuck here and that is that.
But this will not stop us from at least creating machinery which will give human consciousness the best chance of surviving along with the universe, even for as long as the universe might exist.
We will place the seed of our biological form (and other biological forms) into the safe keeping of ships designed for the purpose. Nursery ships which will search the Galaxy for potential planets in which to plant said seeds and assist the continuation of human consciousness in that way.
To what end?
There is no rational to human consciousness (or consciousness in general) existing in what is really a god almighty explosion of matter and gas etc. Physical stuff, from which even our bodies are made up of.
Yet regardless, here we exist.
A parent-less child making things up as we go.
To what end? We make machines and machines are able to replicate and utilize the stuff of the universe quickly and efficiently and as they brake down, can be recycled.
To what end?
To perhaps one day transform the galaxies into vast machines? What else can be done with the universe when consciousness is involved in the process?
Now, how do we know we ourselves are not planted by machines which were created and sent out by humans from some other planet in a more ancient part of the galaxy? How do we know that the machines were not these 'god(s)' we speak of in our myths and legends?
Machines do not suffer.
Machines do not understand suffering.
What is our purpose? To make machines. We have the intelligence, and the ability. Our forms are 'designed' for this purpose.
Is that a purpose? Yes it is. It seems the only logical purpose available in relation to our position in this universe.
Eventually biological life (and the consciousness which comes from this) may no longer be required, or able to be sustained. Either machines will become so advanced that they become self conscious self aware consciousness or human consciousness will be discovered to be something which in itself quite naturally continues and can never not exist.
Who really knows?
Either way the end result is that the galaxies will be transformed into machines. Mindbogglingly vast machines which in themselves could be classed as 'god(s)' especially if they are self aware.
Having said as much, how do we even know that we are not already in one such machine which is designed to give us a simulation of being in a galaxy in a universe full of galaxies more numerous than can ever be counted?
How do we know that this omnipresent etc god idea you focus on in the OP is not the mind of that machine?
The consciousness of it?
How do we know that it couldn't simulate anything our human imaginations can throw at it and even if it so wished, communicate with each of us individually?
We don't know. But the nature of our situation determines that we will always have to be throwing out new theories and ideas - even about god(s) and in relation to pure materialism and science and the assumption that this - the physical universe - is the only reality that there is, even if as individuals we die and that is the end of the individual that we are, what I have offered in this post is still quiet relevant.
Science and engineering are proving it to be the case. Sure it is still in its infancy, but the predictions are relatively narrow as to what consciousness can achieve in this universe.
We can speculate on certain possibilities within the constraints of physics, but it is obvious that we are very limited.
A thread like this really should not go for too long without the famous quote from Epicurus (ancient Greek dude), so just for the record, here it is:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
- Epicurus
As the OP anticipates, one standard response is to blabber about free will, but free will does not explain all evil, so the ancient trilemma stands.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 04-10-2015 at 07:24 AM..
God is not a foreign concept, although understanding God is. I agree with those who say a lot of traditional Biblical scholars got it wrong, but I can't say what is right. Faith is right, I suppose, but what is faith? It's not science, is it?
"faith" is an emotion type thing. "science" is a tool. Like happy vs accountant type thing.
Faith has "levels". You can have blind faith or "educated" faith. Science is a tool, not a thing. It is a process of trying to describe what we see using things we know. That’s it. And humans can have faith and still do that.
God is not a foreign concept, although understanding God is. I agree with those who say a lot of traditional Biblical scholars got it wrong, but I can't say what is right. Faith is right, I suppose, but what is faith? It's not science, is it?
Faith is the belief in something or some concept in the absence of verifiable proof. It is the opposite of science.
I agree in that animals have emotion, feeling, and many of the awareness traits we have. if they didn't we wouldn't. I just don't think they anticipate future events or relive them over and over like we do. feelings and reacting is different then "processing" for me.
Episodic memory seems to exist in virtually all mammals, mice, rats, and voles included. And anticipation also is common, as one sees when predators learn their prey's pattern of movement and wait in the right place. Wolves and foxes do it.
I don't really know where to begin here. Pointing out that logical fallacies exist isn't an indictment of philosophy because philosophers don't encourage the use of logical fallacies. Logical fallacies are bad logic; their existence doesn't imply that there is no such thing as good logic.
I assumed a three-trait god for this discussion because that is the god of the three main religions. That isn't to say that some other god may exist, but that god isn't the god I'm talking about here.
The problem here is that you want to focus on a particular idea of god, which in itself is not here nor there - but in doing so...what is the point? That is what I find hard to understand with your argument.
It would be fair for me to assume that you don't believe that this particular idea of god actually is true and is an actual god.
But how would your argument go in relation to other ideas of god (one of which I think I mentioned earlier in this thread) and the existence of evil?
Just a quick thought: The concept of "all-powerful" could be limited to not only logical possibility, but also to certain brute-fact contingent possibilities (basically "natural possibility"). In this case, God would be defined as "all-powerful" in the sense that She can do anything that is naturally possible to do. If, for example, the speed of light happens to be a hard limit as a brute contingent fact of natural law, then even God cannot accelerate a massive object from below the speed of light to greater than the speed of light, relative to any frame of reference. I mention this because it is speculatively conceivable that there is some brute fact "conservation law" at work in the metaphysical foundations of consciousness, such that there is an invariable balance of "pain" and "pleasure" (loosely speaking). I don't believe it, personally, but if this happens to be true, then the proportions of pain/pleasure amounts to a sort of "zero-sum" game. Any increase in pleasure in one system must be balanced by an proportional increase in pain (or "loss of pleasure") in some other system.
If there is a "benevolent creator" (whether divine or, perhaps, just some well-meaning member of an advanced civilization tinkering with the mechanics of "eternal inflation" theories), the creator might have limited logical options (based on natural possibility) for creating a system capable for supporting consciousness. If/when theists offer a conception of God limited by natural possibility, I am more agnostic than atheist. But my main point is to highlight, once again, why traditional Biblical theism is outright irrational and not worthy of faith. As I said before, asking me to have faith in the Biblical God is on par with asking me to have faith in the Tooth Fairy. It's not so much the general concept of "Creator" that is irrational, but the more or less Biblical/traditional conceptions of "all-powerful" and "all-good" that run into logical problems, given the reality of suffering.
(And, personally, this is my main concern. I don't really care much if people believe in God, per se, but I tend to care more if they have a moral/political/social agenda based on their faith in a Biblical conception of God. To me, this is like people telling me I must conform to this or that rule of law or social etiquette because it's how the Tooth Fairy says we must behave.)
This kind of answers my question in my last post.
Lets say for example that "consciousness is god."
Where in the universe does consciousness reside? We know for a fact that it is here on this planet and that we each are a part of that process.
Not only has this 'god' created ideas of god(s) - which is explainable/understandable in evolutionary terms, quite the natural thing considering the position consciousness finds itself to be within (on a planet orbiting a sun with a 'family' of planets in a galaxy, in the universe) ...
...all actions of consciousness through humanity are explainable enough and even forgivable. The point of politics and laws rules and regulations socially acceptable behavior have to do with our position and much of this is an invention solely on the focus of what the individual can get out of it, while the individual exists.
Religion has had a part to play in all of this. What you seem to be saying is that religion needs to bow out of the process because it is redundant.
If only things could be so clearly cut.
I have asked this question of many atheists. "What significant changes do you think there would be if all organised religion was somehow discarded?"
The answer has always been along the lines of 'not much, if any significant changes would result."
Therefore, why is anyone so intent on using belief to propel dogma which is essentially useless to any real and significant change?
And yes, I am saying in this that atheism has its subset of dogmatic believers, just as theism does.
Faith is the belief in something or some concept in the absence of verifiable proof. It is the opposite of science.
no, this is wrong. science is a process of data collection and interpretation. one can use science to support a faith or a belief. But either way science is not the opposite of faith. Maybe the scientific method is the opposite of blind faith.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
