12 ms·

The Problem of Evil (2015)

15 points by ashutoshgngwr 5y ago

hash872 5y ago
Just relative to the world that we live in now, I'm much less interested in traditional concepts of 'good and evil' and much more interested in fanaticism. While there are certainly genuinely evil human beings out there, in my (maybe totally naive, I dunno) view, they are generally not very effective- more like low-level street criminals. Psychopathy is a real thing, but I think most of them lack the foresight and patience to achieve real positions of power. On the other hand, fanaticism where the fanatic believes they're good and their (political, racial/ethnic or religious) opponents are evil seems like approximately one billion times more of a problem in modern human society. These are the people who hold actual positions of power at every level, in every country
- pmoriarty 5y ago
  The Problem of Evil is not really about "evil" people doing "evil" things... or at least only tangentially so. It's about why there is suffering (or imperfection even) in a world created by an ostensibly omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent god. Terrorism would qualify as being one of the causes of suffering, as would completely impersonal forces such as earthquakes, hurricanes, and diseases. If god exists and really is omnipotent (ie. of limitless power), omniscient (knows everything), and perfectly good, why does he/she/it allow suffering? That's the problem of evil.
  - liberalbias998 5y ago
    This sort of discussion usually gets trapped in discussions about God allowing Evil in order to allow free will; but that is an evasion; especially since the universe is probably deterministic; and consciousness is probably an illusion. The problem of evil; is logically caused by the existence of life that strives and competes within an environment of finite resources. Give us a universe where all the beings are powered by an infinite source of energy so they don't need to chase, catch, kill and eat each other. Problem solved; would have expected God could figure this out.
    - pmoriarty 5y ago
      "especially since the universe is probably deterministic" Not at the subatomic level.. and the subatomic level may well have some significant impact on (or even be responsible for) consciousness. "consciousness is probably an illusion" This is an extremely controversial claim which is far from settled. We can't even settle on a definition of consciousness. "The problem of evil; is logically caused by the existence of life that strives and competes within an environment of finite resources. Give us a universe where all the beings are powered by an infinite source of energy so they don't need to chase, catch, kill and eat each other." Again, this explanation doesn't even attempt to account for sources of suffering that have nothing to do with human agency, such as hurricanes, earthquakes, and disease. But even were we to focus only on humans it doesn't explain why some people actually enjoy making others suffer or hate one anohter. No amount of resources would be sufficient to fix this. Finally, even were this a perfectly deterministic universe with no free will (which is contrary to the core beliefs of many of the major religions) in which there is suffering, then there's still the question of why a perfectly good, all-powerful, and all-knowing god made it that way.
      - liberalbias998 5y ago
        The hurricane events described are only natural in this Universe; there is no reason that another Universe would have harmful natural events; assuming it is created to be perfect by God.
        pmoriarty 5y ago
        The Problem of Evil concerns this universe. Why is there suffering in this universe? Why is this universe imperfect? The possibility that another universe could be better actually argues against god being omnipotent, perfectly benevolent, or omniscient. The standard answer from theists is that this is "the best of all possible worlds" -- a position that Voltaire satirized in Candide.
    - throw0101a 5y ago
      > This sort of discussion usually gets trapped in discussions about God allowing Evil in order to allow free will; but that is an evasion; especially since the universe is probably deterministic; and consciousness is probably an illusion. If you actually think the universe is deterministic, then cross the street without looking both ways. If you were "meant" to get hit by a car, looking won't matter anyway; if you are not meant to, you'll be safe. Or perhaps play golf during a thunderstorm? > Give us a universe where all the beings are powered by an infinite source of energy so they don't need to chase, catch, kill and eat each other. "Man does not live by bread alone." There are needs besides beyond mere sustenance that people have: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs Your idea doesn't solve problems like jealousy and envy and a whole host of other problems people have between each other. In a performance of Swan Lake only one person can play Odette, the Swan Princess: you don't think that's not going to cause issues of jealousy?
  - Zababa 5y ago
    I don't know much about theology but couldn't this be justified as punishment for the original sin, at least in the Christian/Catholic worldview? From what I understand, the real perfect world is in paradise, after you die. But during your life you have to """prove your worth""" in a world where evil exists. Maybe the problem is on the "benevolent" part.
    - pmoriarty 5y ago
      "couldn't this be justified as punishment for the original sin, at least in the Christian/Catholic worldview?" Then why did god create humans such that they could sin (and would sin, as an omniscient god knew full well they would) and then punish them for it? It seems sadistic and perverse, and yes, it leads one to question whether god is really benevolent after all (which, if he/she/it is not would likewise shatter most major religions). Of course religion has answers for all of these questions... mainly having to do with humans having free will or evil being a "privation of good" (ie. there's no such thing as evil, but only a lack of good), etc.. but that's where the arguments start.
      - Zababa 5y ago
        You're right, thanks for the explanation.
- throw0101a 5y ago
  > On the other hand, fanaticism where the fanatic believes they're good […] Everyone thinks they're doing good when they before an action; no need to be a "fanatic". Speeding? I need to get there on time. Lying? Don't want to hurt the other person's feelings. Stealing? I need this more than the rightful owner, and they won't miss it / insurance. Cheating? I have needs that aren't being met. Etc.
alex_young 5y ago
If you can get to the understanding that all of the outcomes in human thought and behavior are based on inputs of some level, be they genetic, or nurture, or through interaction with others or impacts from the natural environment, then it seem truly odd to believe in a concept like evil.
- tovej 5y ago
  Following this argument, nobody is culpable for any crime they may commit, because their behavior is fully determined by their biology and environment. Try that in a court. Evil is a perfectly straightforward concept. It may have many definitions but it's easy to conceive of one, e.g.: willingly making others suffer unjustly. The concept of evil is quite different from what is being argued in the source material. There, we are questioning whether the environment created by a proposed god systematically leads to situations that indicates that the creator is not benign.
  - alex_young 5y ago
    > Following this argument, nobody is culpable for any crime they may commit, because their behavior is fully determined by their biology and environment. Try that in a court. I’m not sure I understand the contradiction there. Are you saying that a court doesn’t care enough about any mental disorder which may have led one to commit a crime to completely absolve them? That’s does indeed seem to be the case in many areas, and for good reason: one important function of our legal system is to prevent future harm.
    - tovej 5y ago
      I'm saying that determinism doesn't remove issues of ethics.
  - david422 5y ago
    > Following this argument, nobody is culpable for any crime they may commit, because their behavior is fully determined by their biology and environment. Try that in a court. It's pretty simple. If you have no choice but to commit murder because your fate is predetermined, the court is also predestined to put you in jail.
breuleux 5y ago
It seems kind of presumptuous to think that God's conception of morality would bear any similarity with ours. Presumably God created what It considers to be the perfect world and therefore everything that happens in it is good according to God's own definition of goodness, including torturing babies (if and when it happens -- and when it doesn't happen, then it is good that it doesn't). Perhaps God never had any intention of telling any of Its creatures about the true nature of good and evil (what would be the point of that), so we're just completely off base, with no way of knowing besides the evidence that evil can't be what we think it is, because if it was, it wouldn't exist.
- tovej 5y ago
  If we limit god to any god worth worshiping, i.e. one that prescribes a set of morals on their followers and answers the prayers of those who follow the god's morals, you would expect that the god has the same set of morals as their followers. Unless the god is playing games with their creation, maybe studying them to see how they would respond. But even then, this would tell us something about the nature of a god. That they are not worth worshiping from a moral standpoint, since they aren't benevolent.
  - nine_k 5y ago
    > maybe studying them to see how they would respond Have you ever looked at the Book Of Job [1]? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Job#Contents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Job#Contents
    - tovej 5y ago
      Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm talking about. I would argue that whether or not the set of morals that god expects Job to follow are the ones that god considers good and correct makes a difference here. If they aren't, god is not worth worshiping. If they are, at least god is consistent, and may be worth worshiping if he exists.
  - breuleux 5y ago
    Right. And considering the existence of natural disasters and horrible diseases, which conventionally moral humans would prevent if they could, the problem of evil is really about arguing the possibility or plausibility that if you were omniscient and omnipotent, you would see that there are in fact good reasons to allow natural disasters and horrible diseases. And if there are, well, maybe there are good reasons to torture babies as well. Who's to say, except God? Plus, there is no real evidence that God rewards followers. A conventionally moral human, perhaps, would do so. But if you were omniscient, isn't it possible that you wouldn't? Instead, perhaps you would see that it is in fact best to reward sufferers and punish those who lived happy lives, regardless of their moral character. Or perhaps you would see that afterlives are entirely pointless. But it is difficult to take these considerations seriously without degrading one's motivation to worship, so they generally aren't.
dfilppi 5y ago
Yes but if Santa Claus exists, how can you explain the Easter bunny?
heythereguy 5y ago
This is how I see it. I’m actually open to a creator of our simulation or our reality simply because it’s the best explanation we have right now. Existence coming out of nothing is ridiculous. We really have no clue how we even got here. Maybe our existence could be proven scientifically down the line, but right now creation is actually the most feasible to my mind, strange enough. So with that the problem of evil comes up and I gotta give it up to the late great Epicurus. And I quote: “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?” The other stance you can have are God’s plan is unknowable to us. His mystical plan is not for us to know and grasp. Which is a huge leap of faith and so wishy washy I can’t bring myself to adopt it.
- paulryanrogers 5y ago
  > I’m actually open to a creator of our simulation or our reality simply because it’s the best explanation we have right now. This was my position as I was leaving Christianity. Now though I think it's more likely that matter and the laws of physics have just always existed, possibly an infinite amount or to an infinitely small scale. While that may seem difficult to comprehend I think it's much simpler than omnipotent turtles all the way down.
  - smeej 5y ago
    It is omnipotent turtles all the way down, though. "Matter and the laws of physics" is "turtles" just as much as "God" is "turtles." Choosing to believe the turtles are impersonal doesn't alleviate the problem of the turtles.
    - paulryanrogers 5y ago
      Except the turtle of matter and physics aren't creators and don't need themselves to be created if they always existed. Mass and physics aren't sentient or acting with purpose.
danuker 5y ago
> How would one go about establishing via a purely deductive argument that a deer’s suffering a slow and painful death because of a forest fire, or a child’s undergo lingering suffering and eventual death due to cancer, is not logically necessary either to achieve a greater good or to avoid a greater evil? Gods can't make a square circle, even if they're omnipotent? They could rewrite our brains to just make the words mean the same. Logic problem solved. The more complex a situation, the more opportunity for this supposed omnipotent being.
- pmoriarty 5y ago
  "Gods can't make a square circle, even if they're omnipotent?" I'm not really seeing what this has to do with what you quoted about the existence of suffering. Still, to go on that tangent about God being unable to make a square circle... God's omnipotence (ie. being all-powerful) means they can do anything... even things that might appear contradictory to the puny human intellect. And what seems contradictory to the puny human intellect and the entire universe being such that squares aren't circles are themselves supposedly due to God's will.. which could be otherwise. So we could very well live in a world of square circles if God wished it so. It might not make sense to us, but God is not limited to only doing what makes sense to us.
  - smeej 5y ago
    The flaw here isn't in God's omnipotence. It's in the nonsensical question formulation. I can make up whatever words I want and put them in a syntactically correct structure, but that doesn't mean the sentence means anything. "Can God tell a true lie?" No, of course not, not because God isn't omnipotent, but because it's a nonsense question. There can no more be true lies than four-sided triangles or objects that are immovable in the face of an irresistible force. The flaw is in the question.
    - pmoriarty 5y ago
      Claiming that a question is nonsensical doesn't make it so. Such questions are meaningful to the people that ask them. Someone who asks "can God make a square circle?" is unlikely to consider it to be equivalent to asking "gjqrio jtioajfs dklfjl?" (ie. a sentence made of words which really are meaningless) You can claim that these questions are meaningless, but then you have to prove why.. and there's been no such proof, just an assertion. Maybe you intended a proof by definition? That is to say that you want to maintain that any question that involves a contradiction is meaningless by definition? Well, that's an assumption, and the person you're speaking with doesn't have to grant that assumption or agree to that definition.
deertick1 5y ago
Just wanted to chime in here with a book suggestion : "The Problem if Pain" by C.S. Lewis. Tackles this problem from a christian apologista perspective. Its about as intellectual an analysis as you are going to get on this subject matter. I personally don't agree with 100% of it, but Lewis always presents arguments I never would have considered otherwise. Worth a read. Also, listening to scientists and engineers discuss issues of morality (e.g. this comments section) is always a painful experience. The analytical mind is not often applied appropriately to matters of philosophy. At least thats my impression.
- exo-pla-net 5y ago
  The linked article presents the theistic counterarguments to The Problem of Evil, such as those espoused by C.S. Lewis. Here is an example of what C.S. Lewis has to say in his book: "If the universe is so bad… how on earth did human beings ever come to attribute it to the activity of a wise and good Creator? Men are fools, perhaps, but hardly so foolish as that." Perhaps I am a small-minded engineer, but that seems like an incredibly weak argument. The linked article, on the other hand, presents the best of the counter-arguments; I don't think C.S. Lewis adds anything of value.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    That's taking one sentence from one argument from the book, and finding it weak. You should compare the strongest arguments from the article to the strongest arguments from the book, not to the weakest.
NotSwift 5y ago
Something that I find extremely disturbing about this entire discussion is the implicit assumption that there is only one god. Some religions assume that there are many gods, e.g. Hinduism and most African religions. Other religions do not really assume the existence of gods, e.g. Buddhism or Taoism. Of course all atheists believe that there are no gods at all.
- exo-pla-net 5y ago
  You find it "extremely disturbing"? The Problem of Evil is an argument explicitly against a loving, omniscient, omnipotent god. The god that appears in various monotheistic religions. We're not discussing religion at large.
- archduck 5y ago
  The problem of evil arises when all three of the following are true: 1) the deity is omniscient; 2) the deity is omnipotent; 3) the deity is omnibenevolent. If God knows all, can do all, and is all good, why does evil exist? If any of those conditions is not true, the existence of evil is a lot easier to explain: - omniscient and omnipotent, but not 100% morally good - omniscient and omnibenevolent, but has limited power to change the bad things - omipotent and omnibenevolent, but isn't aware that evil exists It's only when someone's making the claim that all three are true at the same time that it starts to get interesting, because some of the arguments get really hokey. So to address your observation that there's an implicit assumption that one god exists, I would wager a guess that it's because polytheistic religions don't wade into the waters of theodicy much (if at all), as they don't deal in "omni-'s" to the same extent as monotheistic religions tend to.

15 points by ashutoshgngwr 5y ago

Just relative to the world that we live in now, I'm much less interested in traditional concepts of 'good and evil' and much more interested in fanaticism. While there are certainly genuinely evil human beings out there, in my (maybe totally naive, I dunno) view, they are generally not very effective- more like low-level street criminals. Psychopathy is a real thing, but I think most of them lack the foresight and patience to achieve real positions of power. On the other hand, fanaticism where the fanatic believes they're good and their (political, racial/ethnic or religious) opponents are evil seems like approximately one billion times more of a problem in modern human society. These are the people who hold actual positions of power at every level, in every country

pmoriarty 5y ago
The Problem of Evil is not really about "evil" people doing "evil" things... or at least only tangentially so. It's about why there is suffering (or imperfection even) in a world created by an ostensibly omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent god. Terrorism would qualify as being one of the causes of suffering, as would completely impersonal forces such as earthquakes, hurricanes, and diseases. If god exists and really is omnipotent (ie. of limitless power), omniscient (knows everything), and perfectly good, why does he/she/it allow suffering? That's the problem of evil.
- liberalbias998 5y ago
  This sort of discussion usually gets trapped in discussions about God allowing Evil in order to allow free will; but that is an evasion; especially since the universe is probably deterministic; and consciousness is probably an illusion. The problem of evil; is logically caused by the existence of life that strives and competes within an environment of finite resources. Give us a universe where all the beings are powered by an infinite source of energy so they don't need to chase, catch, kill and eat each other. Problem solved; would have expected God could figure this out.
  - pmoriarty 5y ago
    "especially since the universe is probably deterministic" Not at the subatomic level.. and the subatomic level may well have some significant impact on (or even be responsible for) consciousness. "consciousness is probably an illusion" This is an extremely controversial claim which is far from settled. We can't even settle on a definition of consciousness. "The problem of evil; is logically caused by the existence of life that strives and competes within an environment of finite resources. Give us a universe where all the beings are powered by an infinite source of energy so they don't need to chase, catch, kill and eat each other." Again, this explanation doesn't even attempt to account for sources of suffering that have nothing to do with human agency, such as hurricanes, earthquakes, and disease. But even were we to focus only on humans it doesn't explain why some people actually enjoy making others suffer or hate one anohter. No amount of resources would be sufficient to fix this. Finally, even were this a perfectly deterministic universe with no free will (which is contrary to the core beliefs of many of the major religions) in which there is suffering, then there's still the question of why a perfectly good, all-powerful, and all-knowing god made it that way.
    - liberalbias998 5y ago
      The hurricane events described are only natural in this Universe; there is no reason that another Universe would have harmful natural events; assuming it is created to be perfect by God.
      - pmoriarty 5y ago
        The Problem of Evil concerns this universe. Why is there suffering in this universe? Why is this universe imperfect? The possibility that another universe could be better actually argues against god being omnipotent, perfectly benevolent, or omniscient. The standard answer from theists is that this is "the best of all possible worlds" -- a position that Voltaire satirized in Candide.
  - throw0101a 5y ago
    > This sort of discussion usually gets trapped in discussions about God allowing Evil in order to allow free will; but that is an evasion; especially since the universe is probably deterministic; and consciousness is probably an illusion. If you actually think the universe is deterministic, then cross the street without looking both ways. If you were "meant" to get hit by a car, looking won't matter anyway; if you are not meant to, you'll be safe. Or perhaps play golf during a thunderstorm? > Give us a universe where all the beings are powered by an infinite source of energy so they don't need to chase, catch, kill and eat each other. "Man does not live by bread alone." There are needs besides beyond mere sustenance that people have: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs Your idea doesn't solve problems like jealousy and envy and a whole host of other problems people have between each other. In a performance of Swan Lake only one person can play Odette, the Swan Princess: you don't think that's not going to cause issues of jealousy?
- Zababa 5y ago
  I don't know much about theology but couldn't this be justified as punishment for the original sin, at least in the Christian/Catholic worldview? From what I understand, the real perfect world is in paradise, after you die. But during your life you have to """prove your worth""" in a world where evil exists. Maybe the problem is on the "benevolent" part.
  - pmoriarty 5y ago
    "couldn't this be justified as punishment for the original sin, at least in the Christian/Catholic worldview?" Then why did god create humans such that they could sin (and would sin, as an omniscient god knew full well they would) and then punish them for it? It seems sadistic and perverse, and yes, it leads one to question whether god is really benevolent after all (which, if he/she/it is not would likewise shatter most major religions). Of course religion has answers for all of these questions... mainly having to do with humans having free will or evil being a "privation of good" (ie. there's no such thing as evil, but only a lack of good), etc.. but that's where the arguments start.
    - Zababa 5y ago
      You're right, thanks for the explanation.
throw0101a 5y ago
> On the other hand, fanaticism where the fanatic believes they're good […] Everyone thinks they're doing good when they before an action; no need to be a "fanatic". Speeding? I need to get there on time. Lying? Don't want to hurt the other person's feelings. Stealing? I need this more than the rightful owner, and they won't miss it / insurance. Cheating? I have needs that aren't being met. Etc.

alex_young 5y ago

If you can get to the understanding that all of the outcomes in human thought and behavior are based on inputs of some level, be they genetic, or nurture, or through interaction with others or impacts from the natural environment, then it seem truly odd to believe in a concept like evil.

tovej 5y ago
Following this argument, nobody is culpable for any crime they may commit, because their behavior is fully determined by their biology and environment. Try that in a court. Evil is a perfectly straightforward concept. It may have many definitions but it's easy to conceive of one, e.g.: willingly making others suffer unjustly. The concept of evil is quite different from what is being argued in the source material. There, we are questioning whether the environment created by a proposed god systematically leads to situations that indicates that the creator is not benign.
- alex_young 5y ago
  > Following this argument, nobody is culpable for any crime they may commit, because their behavior is fully determined by their biology and environment. Try that in a court. I’m not sure I understand the contradiction there. Are you saying that a court doesn’t care enough about any mental disorder which may have led one to commit a crime to completely absolve them? That’s does indeed seem to be the case in many areas, and for good reason: one important function of our legal system is to prevent future harm.
  - tovej 5y ago
    I'm saying that determinism doesn't remove issues of ethics.
- david422 5y ago
  > Following this argument, nobody is culpable for any crime they may commit, because their behavior is fully determined by their biology and environment. Try that in a court. It's pretty simple. If you have no choice but to commit murder because your fate is predetermined, the court is also predestined to put you in jail.

breuleux 5y ago

It seems kind of presumptuous to think that God's conception of morality would bear any similarity with ours. Presumably God created what It considers to be the perfect world and therefore everything that happens in it is good according to God's own definition of goodness, including torturing babies (if and when it happens -- and when it doesn't happen, then it is good that it doesn't). Perhaps God never had any intention of telling any of Its creatures about the true nature of good and evil (what would be the point of that), so we're just completely off base, with no way of knowing besides the evidence that evil can't be what we think it is, because if it was, it wouldn't exist.

tovej 5y ago
If we limit god to any god worth worshiping, i.e. one that prescribes a set of morals on their followers and answers the prayers of those who follow the god's morals, you would expect that the god has the same set of morals as their followers. Unless the god is playing games with their creation, maybe studying them to see how they would respond. But even then, this would tell us something about the nature of a god. That they are not worth worshiping from a moral standpoint, since they aren't benevolent.
- nine_k 5y ago
  > maybe studying them to see how they would respond Have you ever looked at the Book Of Job [1]? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Job#Contents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Job#Contents
  - tovej 5y ago
    Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm talking about. I would argue that whether or not the set of morals that god expects Job to follow are the ones that god considers good and correct makes a difference here. If they aren't, god is not worth worshiping. If they are, at least god is consistent, and may be worth worshiping if he exists.
- breuleux 5y ago
  Right. And considering the existence of natural disasters and horrible diseases, which conventionally moral humans would prevent if they could, the problem of evil is really about arguing the possibility or plausibility that if you were omniscient and omnipotent, you would see that there are in fact good reasons to allow natural disasters and horrible diseases. And if there are, well, maybe there are good reasons to torture babies as well. Who's to say, except God? Plus, there is no real evidence that God rewards followers. A conventionally moral human, perhaps, would do so. But if you were omniscient, isn't it possible that you wouldn't? Instead, perhaps you would see that it is in fact best to reward sufferers and punish those who lived happy lives, regardless of their moral character. Or perhaps you would see that afterlives are entirely pointless. But it is difficult to take these considerations seriously without degrading one's motivation to worship, so they generally aren't.

dfilppi 5y ago

Yes but if Santa Claus exists, how can you explain the Easter bunny?

heythereguy 5y ago

This is how I see it. I’m actually open to a creator of our simulation or our reality simply because it’s the best explanation we have right now. Existence coming out of nothing is ridiculous. We really have no clue how we even got here. Maybe our existence could be proven scientifically down the line, but right now creation is actually the most feasible to my mind, strange enough. So with that the problem of evil comes up and I gotta give it up to the late great Epicurus. And I quote: “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?” The other stance you can have are God’s plan is unknowable to us. His mystical plan is not for us to know and grasp. Which is a huge leap of faith and so wishy washy I can’t bring myself to adopt it.

paulryanrogers 5y ago
> I’m actually open to a creator of our simulation or our reality simply because it’s the best explanation we have right now. This was my position as I was leaving Christianity. Now though I think it's more likely that matter and the laws of physics have just always existed, possibly an infinite amount or to an infinitely small scale. While that may seem difficult to comprehend I think it's much simpler than omnipotent turtles all the way down.
- smeej 5y ago
  It is omnipotent turtles all the way down, though. "Matter and the laws of physics" is "turtles" just as much as "God" is "turtles." Choosing to believe the turtles are impersonal doesn't alleviate the problem of the turtles.
  - paulryanrogers 5y ago
    Except the turtle of matter and physics aren't creators and don't need themselves to be created if they always existed. Mass and physics aren't sentient or acting with purpose.

danuker 5y ago

> How would one go about establishing via a purely deductive argument that a deer’s suffering a slow and painful death because of a forest fire, or a child’s undergo lingering suffering and eventual death due to cancer, is not logically necessary either to achieve a greater good or to avoid a greater evil? Gods can't make a square circle, even if they're omnipotent? They could rewrite our brains to just make the words mean the same. Logic problem solved. The more complex a situation, the more opportunity for this supposed omnipotent being.

pmoriarty 5y ago
"Gods can't make a square circle, even if they're omnipotent?" I'm not really seeing what this has to do with what you quoted about the existence of suffering. Still, to go on that tangent about God being unable to make a square circle... God's omnipotence (ie. being all-powerful) means they can do anything... even things that might appear contradictory to the puny human intellect. And what seems contradictory to the puny human intellect and the entire universe being such that squares aren't circles are themselves supposedly due to God's will.. which could be otherwise. So we could very well live in a world of square circles if God wished it so. It might not make sense to us, but God is not limited to only doing what makes sense to us.
- smeej 5y ago
  The flaw here isn't in God's omnipotence. It's in the nonsensical question formulation. I can make up whatever words I want and put them in a syntactically correct structure, but that doesn't mean the sentence means anything. "Can God tell a true lie?" No, of course not, not because God isn't omnipotent, but because it's a nonsense question. There can no more be true lies than four-sided triangles or objects that are immovable in the face of an irresistible force. The flaw is in the question.
  - pmoriarty 5y ago
    Claiming that a question is nonsensical doesn't make it so. Such questions are meaningful to the people that ask them. Someone who asks "can God make a square circle?" is unlikely to consider it to be equivalent to asking "gjqrio jtioajfs dklfjl?" (ie. a sentence made of words which really are meaningless) You can claim that these questions are meaningless, but then you have to prove why.. and there's been no such proof, just an assertion. Maybe you intended a proof by definition? That is to say that you want to maintain that any question that involves a contradiction is meaningless by definition? Well, that's an assumption, and the person you're speaking with doesn't have to grant that assumption or agree to that definition.

deertick1 5y ago

Just wanted to chime in here with a book suggestion : "The Problem if Pain" by C.S. Lewis. Tackles this problem from a christian apologista perspective. Its about as intellectual an analysis as you are going to get on this subject matter. I personally don't agree with 100% of it, but Lewis always presents arguments I never would have considered otherwise. Worth a read. Also, listening to scientists and engineers discuss issues of morality (e.g. this comments section) is always a painful experience. The analytical mind is not often applied appropriately to matters of philosophy. At least thats my impression.

exo-pla-net 5y ago
The linked article presents the theistic counterarguments to The Problem of Evil, such as those espoused by C.S. Lewis. Here is an example of what C.S. Lewis has to say in his book: "If the universe is so bad… how on earth did human beings ever come to attribute it to the activity of a wise and good Creator? Men are fools, perhaps, but hardly so foolish as that." Perhaps I am a small-minded engineer, but that seems like an incredibly weak argument. The linked article, on the other hand, presents the best of the counter-arguments; I don't think C.S. Lewis adds anything of value.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  That's taking one sentence from one argument from the book, and finding it weak. You should compare the strongest arguments from the article to the strongest arguments from the book, not to the weakest.

NotSwift 5y ago

Something that I find extremely disturbing about this entire discussion is the implicit assumption that there is only one god. Some religions assume that there are many gods, e.g. Hinduism and most African religions. Other religions do not really assume the existence of gods, e.g. Buddhism or Taoism. Of course all atheists believe that there are no gods at all.

exo-pla-net 5y ago
You find it "extremely disturbing"? The Problem of Evil is an argument explicitly against a loving, omniscient, omnipotent god. The god that appears in various monotheistic religions. We're not discussing religion at large.
archduck 5y ago
The problem of evil arises when all three of the following are true: 1) the deity is omniscient; 2) the deity is omnipotent; 3) the deity is omnibenevolent. If God knows all, can do all, and is all good, why does evil exist? If any of those conditions is not true, the existence of evil is a lot easier to explain: - omniscient and omnipotent, but not 100% morally good - omniscient and omnibenevolent, but has limited power to change the bad things - omipotent and omnibenevolent, but isn't aware that evil exists It's only when someone's making the claim that all three are true at the same time that it starts to get interesting, because some of the arguments get really hokey. So to address your observation that there's an implicit assumption that one god exists, I would wager a guess that it's because polytheistic religions don't wade into the waters of theodicy much (if at all), as they don't deal in "omni-'s" to the same extent as monotheistic religions tend to.