(1) God alone is responsible for everything coming into being.
(2) If God is responsible for everything coming into being, then the freedom for creatures to choose to come into being is precluded.
(3) If the freedom for creatures to choose to come into being is precluded, then creatures were forced to come into being in a world that consists more of what one does not will.
(4) If creatures were forced to come into being in a world that consists more of what one does not will, then God is ultimately not desirable.
(5) Therefore, if God alone is responsible for everything coming into being, then God is ultimately not desirable. — Jjnan1

Your whole premise collapses when we apply the concept of free will in it:

Proverbs 16: 9
"The heart of man plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps."

The Universe was created by the "Logos" - John 1: 1-4
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men - and all moments from the past, to the present, to the future, have already been prescribed by the will of God - Logos, or as we translated it, the "Word" -. However, you - as an individual - have the free will to choose what is wrong - in terms of sin - and what serves God's will - what is right -. Of course, if you consider the scriptures as arguments.

The point is that, in christian theology, it does not matter whether or not you believe and/or desires God to exist, for he has always been, always is, and always will be.

(3) If the freedom for creatures to choose to come into being is precluded, then creatures were forced to come into being in a world that consists more of what one does not will. — Jjnan1

This premise seems problematic. Either creatures exist eternally or they come into being. Either way, it's impossible for God to force existence. In the former case, we already exist and in the latter case, creatures never existed.

Imagine this: There's an X that exists eternally and so, compelling it to exist makes no sense. There's a Y that previously didn't exist. Since there is no Y, forcing Y into existence makes zero sense.

Closer examination of this point reveals that the thought some people have - the thought that given a choice, a certain segment of the population would forgo the option of existence - is nonsensical because they want to be able to give consent on the matter of their existence but to do that they would have to, well, exist before they "exist". Two issues with this one. If at every point of this logic, one would like to be offered the option to exist or not then, we would have to exist eternally to make a choice. If, on the other hand, we come into existence at a certain point in space-time, it's impossible for our creator/god to ask us our preference on the matter.

@Jjnan1: in my opinion anyone who tries to make sense out of Christian philosophy, and succeeds in that endeavour, is either in self-denial, or has a very strong faith or else rejects the validity of all the basic rules of Socratean and Aristotelian logic.

:up:

I'm a Philosophy student so bear with me because I am new at this! From what I have read, it looks like the main conclusion of your argument is that we should not desire for God to exist. However, at the end of your post you also conclude that we should reject God’s existence entirely. Although I think the argument you laid out has the potential to support the former conclusion (barring any objections), I do not think that it can support the latter conclusion whatsoever. The actual existence of God is an entirely different topic than the desire for God to exist, I do not think it follows that if we do not want God to exist that he does not in fact exist. The same way that if we don’t want oxygen to exist, it does not mean that oxygen cannot or does not exist. I think you would need more support for the second conclusion if you were trying to give people a reason to reject God’s existence.

Disregarding your second conclusion, I do not see how the anti-theist response to the objection you laid out for premise four does away with the objection itself. I find it hard to believe that a world full of evils and horrors “dishonors” God. Satan is what is responsible for the evils and horrors, so at most it would be Satan that dishonors God, not the world. Furthermore, God made imperfect beings that he knew were “beneath” him. So, if God knew he was making imperfect humans, then how could he be dishonored by their actions or the world? And, even if God was dishonored by his creation, wouldn’t Jesus’s sacrifice have made up for that? Would it not have balanced out the scales the same way it did for our sins? This sort of “problem of evil” response, however, could be used in some sort of argument that there is not a perfect, all-knowing God and could aid you in supporting the second conclusion you mentioned in your post. Thanks for your time!

God would be ashamed to exist in this world, after how shitty work he did with humans.

I think you did a nice job Emma. Good luck in your pursuit of the degree!

Hi Jjnan1,

As you well anticipated, my objection is aimed at Premise 4. It seems as though your support for the consequent of this premise is “A supreme being who is benevolent, all-power and all-knowing is a sacred concept that anyone should truly want to be true. Though if this is the case, then perhaps one should not desire that God exists then since the world with all its evils and horrors would be a dishonor to such a perfect being”. I think that by this you mean to say that if God, who is supposedly benevolent, all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfect created a world that dishonors Him, then such a God would not be desirable. And in support for the claim that the world we live in dishonors Him, you ascribe all of its evils and horrors to Him, as if God was the one that created them. My objection is against the underlying assumption that the world’s evils and horrors are God’s creation. Obviously, my objection comes from the role free will plays in the equation that results in the presence of evil in the world. It seems as though if we grant that free will is in fact given to us by God and allows us to make our own decisions and thus manifest a life that we choose, then this implies that, even if its tiny, we are thus handed the power to manifest/create things into existence, even if our manifestations/creations are temporary. If we are capable to creating/manifesting things into existence by the gift given to us by God in the form of the power to co-create our reality with Him, then it is possible that the evils and horrors present in our reality were created by us, human beings, and not by God. And it seems to me that if God would have stopped us from manifesting anything in our lives, then he would have failed at giving human beings the gift of free will, which in essence is good. I say that the gift of free will is intrinsically good because it seems to me that what it is, is ultimately the gift of choosing who we want to be as our own entities, our freedom to be. Although the gift of free will carries the potential to bring about evil in the world, the realization of the evil in the world was not in God’s hands, it was in ours. God sharing his power to manifest things into existence seems to me to speak highly of who God is, while our manifestation of evil in the world seems to speak poorly of who we are when we don’t choose to manifest in accordance to God’s will. For this reason, the presence of evil and horrors in the world are not a good reason to not desire God. They are, in my humble opinion, proof of what happens when we don’t create/manifest our lives in accordance to God’s will. And therefore, good reason to desire God.

Pleasure discussing with you! Tell me what you think :)

I find it hard to believe that a world full of evils and horrors “dishonors” God. Satan is what is responsible for the evils and horrors, so at most it would be Satan that dishonors God, not the world. Furthermore, God made imperfect beings that he knew were “beneath” him. So, if God knew he was making imperfect humans, then how could he be dishonored by their actions or the world? — Emma

God would be dishonoured by having created inept creatures. The Hebrew bible, the Old Testament, says "God created ...... and he saw that it was good." If that's what God calls good: Satan, pedophiles, and other evil-doers, then god needs no dishonouring... he is dishonouring himself himself.

You would see this if you were not deluded by your faith.

And, even if God was dishonored by his creation, wouldn’t Jesus’s sacrifice have made up for that? Would it not have balanced out the scales the same way it did for our sins? — Emma

No, because in the case an actual Jesus who was an actual god sacrificed himself, then all sins would have been stopped... but they did not, evil, wickedness, in the Christian sense, continues in the world.

Another God poster who makes a thread and doesn't interact with it. This is a violation of the rules for posting.

God sharing his power to manifest things into existence seems to me to speak highly of who God is, while our manifestation of evil in the world seems to speak poorly of who we are when we don’t choose to manifest in accordance to God’s will. — Joaquin

God created us, according to Christian mythology, with ALL the attributes we have. Evil in the world is done by humans, but the original cause of Evil is the Original Cause of everything... wouldn't you say? I mean, if there was nothing but god, and after a while there were trees, doggies, caves, fluffy clouds and Evil, then all these must have been created by someone, which is god. So why do you not blame your god for the Evil in existence?

I don't condone Evil, but I do object to the notion that god is not at all responsible for it. Sure it is. Fully. (Accroding to the teachign of Chrisitanity, and Christians would see this if they could think straight.)

Premise 4 does seem like the most objectionable premise. I have something to add on to the objection you had mentioned though. It depends on what you mean by “being in a world that consists more of what one does not will.” I’m assuming that you mean that creatures were brought into this world against their will and being in this world entails experiencing additional events that are against their will. In that case, I think that it’s true that being in this world entails experiencing additional events that are against one’s will, but I think these events are because of each person’s free will.

I think the situations that people end up are a combination of the consequences of our own actions, whether these consequences were our aim or not, and the consequences of other people’s actions. Sometimes we end up in undesirable situations, but it is a consequence of free will. Having free will also seems preferable to not having free will and living in a world where everyone has free will seems preferable to living in a world where not everyone has free will. One could still say that God should not have brought us into existence at all, but God could have His own benevolent reasons for bringing us into existence that we may not understand.

A supreme being who is benevolent, all-power and all-knowing is a sacred concept that anyone should truly want to be true. Though if this is the case, then perhaps one should not desire that God exists then since the world with all its evils and horrors would be a dishonor to such a perfect being. It is out of reverence for the concept of God that one should rightly reject God’s existence. — Jjnan1

I think here you meant that it is out of reverence for the concept of God that one should not want God to exist. I don’t think that would lead to rejecting that God does exist. I don’t think we should not want God to exist based on that though. I think this means we should want God to exist because if God does exist, there would be a foreseeable end to all the evils and horrors. If God didn’t exist, our lives would be pretty meaningless. Everything we would all be working towards would ultimately be for nothing. Life would seem to consist of just trying to survive or wondering why we should even want to survive. Then, bringing children into the world would also seem like a morally bad thing to do if living in the world is so terrible. Do you believe that parents are undesirable? I️ think there is a significant amount of good in the world though and that we should want God to exist because without Him, life seems pretty pointless.

Furthermore, if He does exist, that means we should try to limit the evils and horrors of the world to the best of our ability in an attempt to honor Him, not that we should not want Him to exist because the world would dishonor Him. I think of it like a parent and child. I think if God exists, He just wants us to try our best, and that honors Him. Children inevitably do things that could dishonor their parents and what these parents wanted their children to be like, but parents usually just want to see their children trying their best.

Hi Naomi, thanks for your response. You made quite a few points, so I am going to restrict my response to just one of them. In your third paragraph, I think you are claiming that while indeed there are defects in this world, you think that their presence should actually incline one to believe in God. I think you’re trying to make this argument:
(1) If existentially threatening states of affairs obtain in the actual world, then these existentially threatening states of affairs make any non-theistic world undesirable since they may never be eradicated.
(2) If existentially threatening states of affairs make a non-theistic world undesirable since they may never be eradicated, then a theistic world is more desirable since God, who is benevolent, will eradicate these existentially threatening states of affairs.
(3) Therefore, if existentially threatening states of affairs obtain in the actual world, then a theistic world is more desirable since God will eradicate these existentially threatening states of affairs.
The problem with this argument lies with premise one. In both a theistic and non-theistic world, existentially threatening states of affair do obtain, so both the theist and the non-theist have to work with this data. However, perhaps it might be more desirable for the world to be non-theistic, even with the possibility of never having existentially threatening states of affairs eradicated, since in such a world it would seem to make the goods of the world all the more valuable. Good acts, for instance, become more valuable because one is not forced to do them in any ultimate sense. One is good in an absurd sense, like a doctor, who knows that she and her patient will be bombed to death in the next few minutes, trying with all her powers to save her patient. This sense of good seems to be a better kind of good than any alternative. Of course, one could argue that this sense of good seems to depend on some notion that there is some higher, transcendent and vague good that one seeks or tries to conform their life to; an absurdist might say that they do good because it is good, suggesting a kind of goodness expressed in the previous sentence. Still, the absurdist might object that it makes more sense to say that goodness originates from within themselves and the things of the world that do cause one to have a sense of goodness. No such speculation of a transcendent good is really necessary.

Hi Emma, thanks for your response. You made a few points, but I want to focus on just one of them. You said in your second paragraph that it would not be God that would be dishonored by the wrongs of the world since one could shift the blame to the beings that actually commit the wrongs like Satan or humans. I think you are attempting to formulate the following argument:
(1) If intentional agent S is a sufficient cause for event x such that event x would not have obtained had S refrained from acting to cause event x, then S, and only S, was responsible for the actualization of x.
(2) Intentional agent S is a sufficient cause for event x such that event x would not have obtained had S refrained from acting to cause event x.
(3) Therefore, S, and only S, was responsible for the actualization of x.
The problem with your argument lies with premise two. It seems that premise two commits one to libertarian free will. If so, then you have to try to give an account of how to reconcile libertarian free will and God’s foreknowledge, a herculean task that remains controversial and unresolved in the relevant literature. However, even if you are able to give an adequate account for the above problem, this still does not seem to rebut my original point, namely, that the current world is such that it dishonors God. I can point to many instances of natural evils in the world, such as hurricanes, tsunamis, etc. that seem to lack any agent causation yet cause untold amounts of suffering. Such evils are not covered by your argument, and they seem to support my claim. Of course, you could possibly argue that those natural evils actually do have some agent causation history. Demons or malevolent spirits perhaps are the cause of them. While this is a possible route to take, I think you run the risk of multiplying your ontology beyond what may be necessary. In other words, simplicity may demand you to just say that natural evils are caused by natural causes, no evil spirits necessary.

I’ll just start with a thought.. Maybe after looking at all the ways the world could be, God decided that the best possible world, for us, was one that contained some level of evil. A perfectly good world, which includes anything and everything you ascribe to being good, never teaches us what is right and wrong. There would be no personal development from negative aspects of the world, and only development from positive aspects. The saying “learn from your mistakes” might as well not exist. A perfectly evil world, which includes anything and everything you ascribe to being evil or bad, never teaches us anything about joyful emotions such as being happy or excited about people or things in our lives. If this is the case, then God is left with a decision that makes him either desirable, as you describe in your argument, undesirable, or somewhere in between.

This is where the concept of free will seems to grab my own attention.. If God truly made the world to be in between perfectly good and perfectly evil, then it seems as though he left us our own choice. We can choose to look at all the good in the world, and the fact that God made those “good” things makes him at least a little bit desirable. We can also choose to look at all the evil things in the world, and the fact that God made those “evil” things makes him at least a little bit undesirable. Our perspective on God being desirable or undesirable seems to be changing all the time. If I’m in a bad mood, assuming I’m a theist, then I’m going to be curious as to why God made these bad things and I’ll think less of him for it and vice versa. If God truly exists, it seems as though he’s taking a slight blow from our own opinions surrounding the evil in the world in order to make the world an overall better place for everyone.

Hello,

First off, thank you for raising this objection. I do not have a set answer to the problem you pose, however my intuition leads me to a different conclusion, and I would appreciate your thoughts on it. Secondly, I do not entirely disagree with your claim that “the original cause of Evil is the Original Cause of everything…” since, like you said, “God creates us,” and seems to be responsible for “ALL the attributes we have.” I believe here you are attributing God His decision to give us the power to bring about evil in the world (correct me if I’m wrong). In other words, if He decided to give us the power to bring about evil, then He is “fully” responsible for the evil we can and do bring about. I believe your argument takes this form:

1. If God is responsible for all the attributes we have, then He is responsible for our attribute to bring about evil.
2. God is responsible for all the attributes we have.
3. Therefore, He is responsible for the evil we bring about.

I guess what my intuition I mentioned before leads me to object is Premise 1. I disagree the evil us humans can bring about is something of an attribute we have. In fact, I believe it might actually be the opposite, a lack of attribute. Specifically, a lack of attribute to bring about good. Of course, this leads to asking “Why did God not make us good all around?” Why did He not make us wholly good since there seems to be parts missing?” But these are not the questions I was aiming to try to answer in this comment. Looping back, it seems to me as though God is definitely responsible for ALL of our attributes, but He cannot be responsible for what He does not give us. And the evil we bring about is caused by our lack of attribute, as opposed to being caused by some attribute God creates us with.

Please let me know what you think :D !

Hello,

First off, I appreciate this objection as a ramification of the problem of evil. I truly have not thought about the problem of evil in this way before. By saying this I mean, I have not thought that we as “inept creatures” dishonor God and in so doing present a problem for the truth of the Christian God since it is reasonable to assume such a God would not dishonor himself. I want to begin by addressing your citing of the Old Testament. You quote, “God created…. and he saw that it was good.” I claim that everything God had created was indeed good. Notice that at the point where this quote takes place in Genesis 1:31, God had created man in his own image and had even spoken purpose over man “Be fruitful and increase in number…” in order for man to live according to the will God had for him. However, it is not until Genesis 2:7 that God “formed the man from the dust of the ground…” I believe the order and use of words is crucial in this part. I believe when the Bible says “God created man in his own image” in Genesis 1:27 it does not mean God physically formed man in the flesh just yet. I would go as far as claiming that by “created”, the Old Testament refers to the creation of the soul, prior to the formation of the flesh. And so, it is not until Genesis 2:7 that God forms man out of dust. And I believe I good indication that this formation does indeed talk about forming in a physical sense, is the fact that it mentions “dust”, which is a physical element.

Besides the technicality and timing of when God calls his creation good, I also want to address the fact that it is also not until Genesis 2:7 that God “breathed into his [man’s] nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” God calls his creation good before he brings man to life, and even before he forms him. Not only that, but also from Genesis 1:28 until 1:30 God speaks about the purpose He has for man, “Be fruitful…, fill the earth and subdue it…, I give you every seed-bearing plant, etc.” However, man is not yet formed at this point. So, it must be that God is speaking to a part of man that is not its physical form yet (whether you call it mind or soul I leave up to you). It is not after God had formed and breathed life into man (Genesis 2:7), and until Genesis 2:16 that God speaks to man in his physical and live form and the first thing He says is “You are free… but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil…” My point here is the following: By the time God tells man he is free and also tells him what he must not do, God had already spoke to man the purpose He had for him (Genesis 1:28-30). So, while man has freedom to follow God’s command or not, God had already spoke man’s purpose into his soul. God did create man good, but it was not until after man was formed, given life, and given freedom that we may call man “evil-doer”.

Just offering an interpretation of the Old Testament here. Please let me know what y’all think! (kindly pls) Pleasure talking philosophy with yall :D

Looping back, it seems to me as though God is definitely responsible for ALL of our attributes, but He cannot be responsible for what He does not give us. — Joaquin

1. Humans are capable of evil doing. (True or false?)
2. An ability to do evil is an attribute. (Joaquin, you deny this.)
3. An ability to do evil is due to the lack of an attribute. (Joaquin, you assert this.)

My answer to 2 and 3: the way a creation is made, makes all its or his actions performed by it or him due to an attribute.

A computer can't eat a bowl of soup. It is not its attribute.

A human is not capable of doing good. Doing good is an attribute that is lacked by humans.

But a human is capable of doing good. So it is an attribute to be able to do good.

To be able to do the opposite of good is not a lack of an attribute, because the only attribute to lack has been accepted as having been given.

Therefore the ability to do the opposite of good is an attribute.

--------------------------

Your argument fails, I beleive, because doing evil is not the lack of an attribute, since humans are capable of doing good. To do something which is not due to a lack of something, is due to the presence of an attribute.

Therefore evil or the opposite of good in man's actions is an attribute god has given to humans.

Therefore, Q.E.D., god is ultimately responsible for all evil, sinc god is the origo, the alpha, the creator of everything existing, including attributes.

Hello,

First off, I appreciate this objection as a ramification of the problem of evil. I truly have not thought about the problem of evil in this way before. By saying this I mean, I have not thought that we as “inept creatures” dishonor God and in so doing present a problem for the truth of the Christian God since it is reasonable to assume such a God would not dishonor himself. I want to begin by addressing your citing of the Old Testament. You quote, “God created…. and he saw that it was good.” I claim that everything God had created was indeed good. Notice that at the point where this quote takes place in Genesis 1:31, God had created man in his own image and had even spoken purpose over man “Be fruitful and increase in number…” in order for man to live according to the will God had for him. However, it is not until Genesis 2:7 that God “formed the man from the dust of the ground…” I believe the order and use of words is crucial in this part. I believe when the Bible says “God created man in his own image” in Genesis 1:27 it does not mean God physically formed man in the flesh just yet. I would go as far as claiming that by “created”, the Old Testament refers to the creation of the soul, prior to the formation of the flesh. And so, it is not until Genesis 2:7 that God forms man out of dust. And I believe I good indication that this formation does indeed talk about forming in a physical sense, is the fact that it mentions “dust”, which is a physical element.

Besides the technicality and timing of when God calls his creation good, I also want to address the fact that it is also not until Genesis 2:7 that God “breathed into his [man’s] nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” God calls his creation good before he brings man to life, and even before he forms him. Not only that, but also from Genesis 1:28 until 1:30 God speaks about the purpose He has for man, “Be fruitful…, fill the earth and subdue it…, I give you every seed-bearing plant, etc.” However, man is not yet formed at this point. So, it must be that God is speaking to a part of man that is not its physical form yet (whether you call it mind or soul I leave up to you). It is not after God had formed and breathed life into man (Genesis 2:7), and until Genesis 2:16 that God speaks to man in his physical and live form and the first thing He says is “You are free… but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil…” My point here is the following: By the time God tells man he is free and also tells him what he must not do, God had already spoke to man the purpose He had for him (Genesis 1:28-30). So, while man has freedom to follow God’s command or not, God had already spoke man’s purpose into his soul. God did create man good, but it was not until after man was formed, given life, and given freedom that we may call man “evil-doer”.

Just offering an interpretation of the Old Testament here. Please let me know what y’all think! (kindly pls) Pleasure talking philosophy with yall :D — Joaquin

To call this sensible, one must believe in the bible. Otherwise it's mere superstition, and tales written by dilettantes a long time ago, which can be and must be discarded as irrelevant to reality.

I, for one, do not believe the bible; even just one word in it. So please forgive me, but the hermeneutics within your post sound to me like idle mind exercises, which I do not wish to participate in.

One of the main reason for my not believing the bible is the fact that 1. to believe it, you must interpret it, that is, go away from its text to make sense of it; and 2. by doing so, there are different, non-congruent explanatory interpretations, which not only cause confusion, but supply a proof for the nonsensical content of the bible. If I need to interpret, and whether I use logic or not, how can it be interpreted in more than one way, if the bible says the truth? There is only one truth. Truth can't be two different things at the same time and in the same respect, yet the bible demands analysis, which yields differing results. And if it does not says the truth, then why believe in it?

I take your argument and think you are right that humans’ ability to do good is in fact an attribute. I still want to push back on your original argument for I sense my intuition now leads me to object to a different premise. Your original argument had this form:

1) If God is responsible for all the attributes we have, then He is responsible for our attribute to bring about evil.
2) God is responsible for all the attributes we have.
3) Therefore, He is responsible for our attribute to bring about evil. (MP 1, 2)
4) If God is responsible for our attribute to bring about evil, then He is ultimately responsible for the evil we bring about.
5) God is responsible for our attribute to bring about evil.
6) Therefore, God is responsible for the evil we bring about. (MP, 4, 5)

Instead of objecting to premise 1, I actually think premise 2 is problematic. For it seems to me the reason we grant God is responsible for all the attributes we have is because we are granting, He creates us. However, what about the attributes we pick up on the way. It seems forceful to say God is responsible for my attribute to know how to sharpen a pencil. In the same way, I argue that if I pick up an attribute to bring about evil, then it is equally forceful to say God is responsible for me picking up such an attribute. I expect you to argue that in that case, God would have been responsible for my attribute to be able to pick an attribute to bring about evil in the first place. However, if God provides me with certain attributes to bring about good but I instead use them to bring about evil, then it He is hardly responsible for the evil I bring about. In other words, if you lend me your broom because I lost mine and I need to sweep the floor of my house, but I instead use the stick of your broom to stab someone, it is hardly your responsibility what I did with the broom you lent me.

Let me know what you think!! I want to keep the conversation going : ) Pleasure to discuss with you.