It seems that the problem of evil is the most powerful argument against the theist argument. — tryhard

There is no such thing as evil. It is a fictional idea which human beings have created. God determines what is good, but human beings suggest what is evil. If the human suggestions prevail, and good is made to be the opposite of the proposed evil, then this good is just as fictitious as the proposed evil, and evil prevails over the true good.

Not as evil, I think, as the Abrahamic God must be for giving us a form of "free will" too weak for us to freely – easily – choose in every instance not to make others and ourselves suffer needlessly (i.e. "making us sick but commanding us to be well"). Thus, the argument from poor design. — 180 Proof

Ok, so its the lesser of two evils? There are degrees of evil? How does it work, does all the good things count at all in our moral judgement of this god?

Yeah, of course. I do. — 180 Proof

Well this is a matter of internal consistency. We agree on the non-sensical nature of god but if there was a god, omnipowerful but not omnibenovolent, there are possibilities other than god being wholly evil.

In this context, "other possibilities" such as?

Well the suffering might indeed be part of a greater good, a necessary evil. Thats at least possible, isnt it?
What about the evils that stem from free will being balanced out with greater goods? Do we know the balance? How sure can we really be that those free will evils arent well worth the price?
You could be omnipotent and remain neutral like nature is oft imagined to be, taking no ones side.
What about an omnipotent being who is so far beyond us it is analogous to a human to an insect. Have ever killed a bug? Were you wholly evil when you did?

.If God exists, he would remove evil from the world — tryhard

Why? Everything has a purpose, especially evil. The assumption that God (if such exists) would remove evil (because we don't like it?) has always appeared to be preposterous to me.

What exactly is "the problem with evil"? That it exists?

Ever turn out the light? Would that be the problem with darkness, or the problem with the bright-ass light that is keeping me awake?

God can't show his omnipotence. So he's not omnipotent — EugeneW

Alternately, God doesn't give damn about your belief in him, and proving his ability is pointless, he would have to do it all the time to convince some ass-hat that he is real. Endless nonsense.

Rage at the Sun all day and command it to appear no more; however the Sun doesn't do requests, so it will carry on as usual.

God doesn't give damn about your belief in him, — Book273

Agreed

, and proving his ability is pointless — Book273

At least he has to proof it to himself. How else does he practically know he is omnipotent? By his omniscience? Does his omnobenevolence forbid him to try? Or is it his omnipresence?

Every O, or OO, or OOO, undermines an O. OOO&O criples to the bone. OOO&O is equivalent to NONONO&NO. Like infinity and zero lay sleeping peacefully front to back.

he would have to do it all the time to convince some ass-hat that he is real. — Book273

No he wouldn't. Only to himself.

Endless nonsense. — Book273

Agreed.

Rage at the Sun all day and command it to appear no more; however the Sun doesn't do requests, so it will carry on as usual — Book273

You never know. One day she goes bezerk. Or maybe the Moon falls down, causing the Sun to stop rotating around the Earth.

Well the suffering might indeed be part of a greater good, a necessary evil. — DingoJones

For an "omnipotent deity", only itself is "necessary", not the rules of the game it set up (e.g. "necessary evil") or the game itself (e.g. "creation") for that matter. "Theodicy" isn't for anyone's "greater good" other than "God's", after all, just like arson isn't for any burned alive sleeping victim's pleasure, only the arsonist's. Vapid sophistry, DJ: give it up and these tendentiously silly out-of-context-questions. Either knock down my "omnibenevolence" argument directly or concede the point even if it doesn't persuade you. I'm off to bed now. :yawn:

God exists. Stupid, ignorant immoral people exist. A dangerous world exists. God would not create stupid, ignorant immoral people and create a dangerous world and plonk the stupid ignorant immoral people in it, would he? — Bartricks

God would. Operating from an existential developmental/experiential cycle. We are currently in this cycle, in whatever form we elected to engage it (the cycle) in to further our understanding and experience of, eventually, everything from the single perspective of each thing. As there are a nearly infinite number of things, we will take an equal amount of time to garner the experience of said things from its perspective. In order to become fully cognizant of every possible experience all experiences must be available, eventually, to every being; even pissed on burnt toast, by far not the least horrid thing out there. That which is created the ultimate learning environment for those of us which are.

God would — Book273

No he wouldn't. You've said nothing in support of your claim. Why on earth would God - an all powerful, all knowing, all good person - create ignorant, morally bad people and then dump them in a dangerous world? That's not remotely like anything even someone half-way decent would do!

He wouldn't and hasn't.

It is hard to experience a punch in the face unless one is punched in the face. Therefore in order to experience it, it must be available. In order to experience anything, and everything, all must also be available.

Unless you have another all-encompassing theory to explain everything? I would be interested in hearing it.

Pascal's wager, does God have a free will, the root of all evil, the problem of evil, omnipotence and free will, can theists reject dualism... lot of God talk going on. Is the end near, will the Sun be turned off soon, are we witnessing the end of modern civilization?

Why on earth — Bartricks

Why is your philosophy limited to earth and that which is limited to this reality? It seems, well, limited.

God as an entity does not exist. God as encompassing energy, I believe, is a certainty. God exists because I exist. That which animates my body cannot die, where as the death of the body is certain. There will be another body, and another, and another, (etc.) and further experiences will be had.

Perhaps the end of modern civilization is close at hand. No worries. There will be another.

They aren’t out of context, those questions illustrate the possibilities you asked for.

Can anyone provide an argument that provides justification for the existence of evil while taking into account the unnecessary evils, or gratuitous evils, that we seem to observe throughout our life experiences?

Your objection is a good one, but I think we do have reason to believe God might create the sort of world where gratuitous evils are possible. When we consider this problem I think we ought to be wary of placing direct blame for the existence of these evils on God. God may have created a world where these evils are possible, but that does not entail that he is directly responsible for their existence. For example, if I sell you a car and you crash it, it's true that without me you wouldn't have gotten into a car crash, but it is not true that I am to blame. In the same way, I am suggesting that God made gratuitous evils possible, but that does not mean we should blame him.

My argument is as follows:

1. If God exists, then he might create the best possible world.
2. The best possible world would include the potential for gratuitous evil.
a. The best possible world would include the potential for genuinely good actions.
b. If an action is genuinely good, then it was performed by an agent acting freely.
c. So, the best possible world would contain agents acting freely.
d. Agents who act freely have the potential to commit gratuitous evil.
3. If God exists, then he might create a world with the potential for gratuitous evil.

All my conclusion states is that a world with gratuitous evil is not inconsistent with the existence of a God. So,

could that being exist without having created anything? For instance, is the following scenario coherent: God exists and billions of other minds exist that God did not create?

^ This may also be the case, but it could also be the case that both gratuitous evil and God exist. My argument relies heavily on free action being required for genuine good. I think this is an intuitively appealing view though. How could there be courage without the possibility of cowardice, or generosity without the possibility of greed? Certainly, God could've created a world where gratuitous evil was impossible, but it seems like genuine virtue would also be impossible and such a world would be no better, if not worse, than our own.

Post 1 : A response to Tryhard’s post regarding his/her/their argument against the objections of the problem of evil. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12666/the-problem-of-evil

Hi, tryhard,

First of all, your arrangement of the PoE seems a little problematic. I realized that you have explained your rationale for your premise 1 “If God exists, he would remove evil from the world” in the second paragraph, maybe you can list a sub-argument to clarify it. I suggest you change it into a more propositional logical form, such as “ If God exists, there is no evil.”

As for your own argument, I find the second premise to be objectionable.

“There are cases where evil does not lead to the fruition of some greater good”

I guess you mean “ there is gratuitous evil.” But a skeptical theist could say that it is impossible for we as humans to know whether something is gratuitous evil, because we aren’t omniscient, and we will always miss some information when making a moral claim. When we think something is gratuitous evil, it could just be the case that we haven’t recognized the positive part of it. For example, you might think that the fact that there are starving children is gratuitous evil. But it might be the case that the starvation of these children is a necessary process for them to gain a better future, and God will make up for their suffering in heaven.

I am not saying that I recognize the holocaust or children's starvation to be good things by any means. I intuitively think these things are really really bad as you do, and it is also hard for me to come up with a proper explanation to justify those tragic events. However, I also realize that ethical problems can be really obscure, and we humans have constantly made wrong moral judgments in our history. And it is possible that we are simply incapable to be certain about whether something is absolutely a gratuitous evil. Therefore, your premise 2 is, maybe not totally proven wrong, but at least significantly weakened by the skeptic theists' argument. Please reply if you found a solution for this skeptic theists' argument.

Evidential Problem of Evil

In this post, I will develop some of my thoughts surrounding the debate on the problem of evil.

To start, I will outline the Evidential Problem of Evil. It seems to go something like this.

In many sad events, we can’t see what good features would outweigh the bad features. There are some apparently gratuitous evils.
Therefore, it’s likely that there are unjustified sad events (the good features do NOT outweigh the bad). Probably, there ARE gratuitous evils.
Therefore, it’s likely that: if God exists, then he allows unjustified and sad events, or gratuitous evils.
God would never allow unjustified sad events, or gratuitous evils.
Therefore, it’s likely that God does not exist.

I think premise 1 is sound. There are quite clearly some “apparently gratuitous evils”. This would reasonably lead one to question why God would allow these things to happen or at least why so creully.

On one hand, I believe an argument could be made against premise 4, arguing that a God would allow “unjustified sad events, or gratuitous events”, because it is the only way to preserve the consequences of human free will. There are obviously some gratuitous evils that are caused by humans, the Holocaust being just one example. If God were to intervene in this event and forbid consequential suffering from happening, He would be preventing the natural consequence of human free choice. It would essentially be God saying, “you humans can do whatever you want, but I control the consequences of your actions. Only positive consequences can materialize, even if the action is evil.” I think we can all agree that this would be quite strange. Thus, God does allow (human caused) gratuitous events to happen; otherwise, it would be infringing on human free will.

Now, even if this is true, one might ask, “what about the evil that is not caused by humans–natural disasters for example?” Let me first state that no one can definitively say that there even exists a sort of evil that humans did not cause. Humans can cause evil even if they do not intend to; even pure intentions can result in evil consequences. It is possible that an earthquake may be caused by the imperfect way humans have interacted with the world for thousands of years. Of course, this seems outrageous to say, but it is possible.

Nonetheless, let us say that there are indeed evils that are solely caused by the hand of God–that even if humans were perfect and lived just like Christ, there would still be gratuitous evils.

Let us, for a moment, consider a hypothetical world where God does not permit gratuitous evils. This means every event must produce more good than bad or simply be purely good without any bad. This is important to point out because this means a world of purely good is possible in this hypothetical. If there are no events where the bad outweighs the good, and only events where the good outweighs the bad, then the spectrum of possible worlds include only worlds that have more good than bad, or worlds that are only good. Thus, a perfect world is possible without gratuitous events. Of course, this possibility would only materialize if humans lived as perfect images of Christ. Nonetheless, this perfect world is still possible. What if God never intended for this world to be even possibly perfect? What if that would actually be counterintuitive to human purpose. If God wanted humans to be perfect, this world would not be necessary. Humans would simply exist eternally in heaven. Thus, it is possible that God would allow gratuitous evils.

Van Inwagen’s “Rescue Operation"
The purpose of this post is to support Van Inwagen’s “Rescue Operation”.

Below is a link to some of Inwagen’s ideas:
https://www.scielo.br/j/man/a/y7sLnLDW6xzwh7d8FYrH8Gz/

In summary, Van Inwagen argues that “since love essentially involves free will, love is not something that can be imposed from the outside, by an act of sheer power. Human beings must choose freely to be reunited with God and to love him, and this is something they are unable to do by their own efforts. They must therefore cooperate with God. As is the case with many rescue operations, the rescuer and those whom he is rescuing must cooperate. For human beings to cooperate with God in this rescue operation, they must know that they need to be rescued. They must know what it means to be separated from him. And what it means to be separated from God is to live in a world of horrors. If God simply "canceled" all the horrors of this world by an endless series of miracles, he would thereby frustrate his own plan of reconciliation. If he did that, we should be content with our lot and should see no reason to cooperate with him.”

Here is the link to the quote:
https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/1025532-the-problem-of-evil-the-gifford-lectures-delivered-in-the-university-of

The argument would go as follows:

If God ended suffering, humans would not know what it means to be separated from Him.
If humans did not know what it means to be separated from God, they would not know that they need to be rescued.
If humans did not know they needed to be rescued, they would have no reason to cooperate with God.
Suffering is necessary for humans to cooperate with God.

I believe this is an extension of my previous post. In my previous post, I briefly mentioned that a world where gratuitous evils do not exist would be quite weird because it would eliminate the purpose of the world. I strongly believe God would not want a perfect world, or even one where a perfect world exists. I believe that it is possible that God created forms of gratuitous evil to prevent this very case. If it was the case that humans could attain perfection, they might as well live in Heaven. There is a very real and concrete purpose for being in this world: to suffer, and in a world where suffering ceased to exist or there was even a possibility to end all suffering, all meaning would be lost. In the Christian doctrine, there is a very apparent call to suffering. A call to fast, a call to participate in lent, a call to reject one’s internal desires, a call to “pick up one’s cross daily”. This suffering brings the individual to a state of dependence–a state of reliance on God, and it is only when one is brought to this state that they can learn to comprehend the necessity of the offering that God has made.

Romans 5:3-4 says, “we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope.”

The Bible encourages Christians to “rejoice in our sufferings,” because the unavoidable nature of suffering is a blessing in two ways. When Christians are brought to a state of dependence, it lures them towards the grandeur of God, inspiring us to find Him and develop a relationship with Him. And this is the only moral way God can offer this gift; He cannot force this gift upon us, or else it would not be a gift. Acceptance of this gift is an act of humility, not only bringing human “character” closer to the image of God, but also giving us “hope”: hope that the sacrifice of our fleshly desires, will lead us somewhere greater. And this is the beginning of faith.

Let it not be confused that humans should then create evil to cause suffering. I believe this would be imitating God–attempting to take away the power that is meant for God. The mission to end suffering is obviously a righteous cause, one that ought to continue being pursued. However, the point is, despite human effort, suffering is inevitable: and our mission on an individual level ought not to be to suffer as little as possible, but instead to choose to suffer in the hope that it develops character and brings us closer to God. If this opportunity is available, it ought to always be chosen. I will continue this discussion in my next post.

Defense for Soul-Making Theodicy

Western culture has made the mistake of glorifying comfort. Progress in life is simply a means to increase ease and comfort–in other words, to escape discomfort. What kind of life is this? Is this a truly fulfilling life?

These are the questions that St. Irenaeus and John Hick attempt to answer with their “Soul-Making Theodicy”.

Their argument goes something like this:

The world is designed by God as an environment in which people, through their free choices, can undergo spiritual growth that will ultimately fit them for communion with God.
Soul-making is a great good, and God would therefore be justified in designing a world with that purpose in mind.
Our world is very well designed in that regard, and thus that, if one views evil as a problem, it is because one mistakenly thinks that the world ought, instead, to be a hedonistic paradise.

Opponents to this argument can foolishly take the argument out of context and argue that the Soul-Making Theodicy posits that suffering ought to be encouraged and even produced if it is good.

This might be true, but I am not concerned with defending against such arguments. I am only concerned with attempting to find what is true. In the case of suffering, there is almost no definitive way one ought to approach suffering. Of course, one ought to endure the suffering of losing weight if they are overweight, but no child ought to experience the suffering of starvation. However, I do believe that there is something to be said about the importance of suffering and how it can bring one closer to God–something that seems to have been lost in modern society. So, that is exactly what I will do.

Roosevelt Montas, Professor at Columbia University, writes in his book Resurrecting Socrates,

“...the idea that a long life of comfort and ease should be the ultimate goal for a human life is atheism–the denial of God.”

Montas argues that the life God calls people to live is one of vows to God. And in the Christian view, vows to God involve continual suffering. Citing the work of Gandhi, Montas mentions that “in order to ‘see God,’ to know Truth, one must be prepared to die in the effort. A vow is an explicit declaration of this intention. It’s as if only by committing to a value that is higher than life itself does one meet the condition for a revelation of God. God enters a human life through the opening created by settling on terms with death.” There is certainly something about suffering that connects humans to God on a deeper level. One that cannot be explained, but only experienced. However, I will do my best to rationalize through this connection.

Suffering, in some sense, is the purest form of truth. Even happiness can be faked. Suffering cannot. Suffering is the only undeniable truth of the world–it will occur no matter what and one's willingness to accept this suffering defines the character of the individual. Montas continues with Gandhi’s philosophy of suffering saying, “the acceptance of suffering in upholding a just cause unleashes an irresistible power, the very moral force that…sustains the universe.”

It is hard to experience a punch in the face unless one is punched in the face. — Book273

You're just saying stuff. Again: as is blindingly obvious to virtually everyone bar the psychopathic and morally bankrupt, an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person would not decide to create some idiot immoral people and then dump them in a dangerous world to live among each other. That's the act of a sadist. So, God - not being a sadist - didn't do it. That's not what is going on. If you think it is what is going on - that God loves idiot immoral people and then letting them languish in ignorance in a dangerous world - then you've gone one totally messed up idea about what being morally good involves.

Suffering, in some sense, is the purest form of truth. Even happiness can be faked. — Jonah Wong

Huh? Both happiness and suffering can be faked. Suffering especially because it is so often seen as a symbol of authenticity and worthiness. Sounds to me more like you have particular fondness or bias for suffering as a sign of integrity. That is common with some philosophically inclined folk and pessimists who often assume happiness is either inappropriate or delusional while suffering is genuine. :wink: Of course Christians have fetishized and made a cult of suffering for centuries, so in Western culture suffering is synonymous with sanctification.

Western culture has made the mistake of glorifying comfort. — Jonah Wong

No, capitalism, marketing and advertising have done this. What's left of culture after this onslaught is incoherent and broken.

If God ended suffering, humans would not know what it means to be separated from Him.
If humans did not know what it means to be separated from God, they would not know that they need to be rescued.
If humans did not know they needed to be rescued, they would have no reason to cooperate with God.
Suffering is necessary for humans to cooperate with God. — Jonah Wong

This sounds like a twisted way of thinking and a good example of how a Christian might work really hard to overlook the fact that god (based on the stories and what we see in nature) is an abject cunt who treats creation with disrespect and malevolence.

However, the point is, despite human effort, suffering is inevitable: and our mission on an individual level ought not to be to suffer as little as possible, but instead to choose to suffer in the hope that it develops character and brings us closer to God. — Jonah Wong

The thing is, this is exactly the kind of thinking that I heard in Baptist church sermons in the 1970's and 80's and is a common Christian refrain. Suffering is a form of blessing that makes us better people.

God as an entity does not exist. God as encompassing energy, I believe, is a certainty. — Book273

What the hell does that mean? God is an energy? Oh, I thought he was a gas. Or a potato. Silly me. So, just to be clear, when you hear 'the problem of evil' you think this is a problem that arises for those who believe in energy?

The word 'God' denotes a person who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. And it is for the putative existence of a person like that, that the problem of evil emerges. And it's not about religion - the problem of evil was first articulated by Epicurus hundreds of years before Christianity was on the books.

If one is using the word 'God' differently, then you are just not engaging with the problem.

Why is your philosophy limited to earth and that which is limited to this reality? It seems, well, limited. — Book273

It isn't. What are you on about? I believe in God. I also believe that no good, all knowing, all powerful person would create some evil, ignorant idiots and then create a world it would be dangerous for evil, ignorant idiots to live in and place them in it. That seems patently obvious: that's not how good people behave and if you think otherwise, then you have some screwed up ideas about what being morally good involves.

So, I draw the only reasonable conclusion one can draw: God did no such thing. God did not create me and you.

That contradicts what some religious types believe. So what? What's that got to do with anything?

The only question is whether it is consistent to suppose that there exist billions of ignorant, evil idiots and that God exists as well and had nothing whatsoever to do with their existence. And the answer to that question is a big fat 'yes'. Being omnipotent does not involve having to create anything - if it did, it wouldn't be omnipotence worthy of the name. Thus, there is no contradiction involved in supposing there to exist an omnipotent being and lots of other beings that the omnipotent being had nothing to do with creating. And the same goes for being omniscient. And certainly being morally good doesn't, for it'd be positively bad to create such creatures. Thus, God's existence is entirely compatible with the existence of billions of evilly disposed ignorant idiots that God did not create. And that seems to be the situation, yes?

If you say so.

an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person — Bartricks

Person, likely not. People are weaklings and lack insight. The anthropomorphic version of God should n't be a weakling, so your description of God isn't applicable.

The word 'God' denotes a person who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent — Bartricks

Now you are describing me. Thanks. Although, to be clear, I don't actually need the support.

I find your version of God as limited as your willingness to consider alternate viewpoints on the subject. Therefore, to acknowledge exactly what you have claimed, I agree, your version of God would not do such a thing. However, as I do not find your version of God to be remotely accurate, the assumptions based on it are equally invalid.

Person, likely not. People are weaklings and lack insight. The anthropomorphic version of God should n't be a weakling, so your description of God isn't applicable. — Book273

A mind. A person is just a mind. If you are using the word 'God' to mean something other than a person, then you're just not talking about what others are talking about.

Look, I can prove God. God is a peanut. Here is a peanut.

That's stupid, yes? So, God is a person who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. Note, 'knowledge' is something only a person can have. So if someone believes in an omniscient 'thing', then that thing is a person or that the believer is an idiot.

I believe in God. I also believe that no good, all knowing, all powerful person would create some evil, ignorant idiots and then create a world it would be dangerous for evil, ignorant idiots to live in and place them in it. — Bartricks

Again, your version of God, your definition of all the aforementioned "evils". All according to your viewpoint. Limited, limited, and oh yes, very limited.

Look, I can prove God. — Bartricks

Excellent! Do it my friend.