"Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent...

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;116786 wrote:

Why isn't pain intrinsically evil?

I would have to really give this some thought though I still agree with what I said. Perhaps I'll have to edit this post with my answer but for now the best I can come up with is that pain isn't real. Pain varies from person to person and on your state of mind. The same thing you "found to be" painful one day could be pleasurable the next day. Some people don't even feel pain.

As I said I'm probably going to have to come back and edit this post once I get some time to think on it but as of this second the only thing I might be able to consider evil is intent. Motives can be evil and intent can be evil. Someone can want to inflict pain on someone(which I would consider evil) but they have no way to control if they actually will

1 Reply

@Amperage,

Amperage;116790 wrote:

I would have to really give this some thought though I still agree with what I said. Perhaps I'll have to edit this post with my answer but for now the best I can come up with is that pain isn't real. Pain varies from person to person and on your state of mind. The same thing you "found to be" painful one day could be pleasurable the next day. Some people don't even feel pain.

As I said I'm probably going to have to come back and edit this post once I get some time to think on it but as of this second the only thing I might be able to consider evil is intent. Motives can be evil and intent can be evil. Someone can want to inflict pain on someone(which I would consider evil) but they have no way to control if they actually will

1. Why isn't pain real? I don't know what you mean by, "it varies from person to person", but even if it does, why does that mean it is not real. Height "varies from person to person" too. But height is real.

2. There are intentional evils, and there are non-intentional evils. The evils that earthquakes cause are, of course, non-intentional, since earthquakes have no intentions. They are not intentional beings. But that does not mean that they do not cause great evils. Death and injury.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;116800 wrote:

1. Why isn't pain real?

Well sir I guess for now I can only quote someone you may find familiar:

"What seems or feels real need not be real."

"Peter Viereck the late American poet, said that what is real is what remains when you have stopped believing in it. That's not bad." Which would be used to say that if I start deriving "pleasure" from something I believed was "pain" it will be so.

""Real to me" and "real" are very different. Really."

"
Vividness is subjective. what is real is objective. A sensation(like a dream) may be frighteningly painful(or vivid). But it is still but a sensation(or a dream)."

--like I said I'm going to have to think about this a bit further but I'll stick with what I've said so far.........for now--

1 Reply

@Amperage,

Amperage;116810 wrote:

Well sir I guess for now I can only quote someone you may find familiar:

"What seems or feels real need not be real."

"Peter Viereck the late American poet, said that what is real is what remains when you have stopped believing in it. That's not bad." Which would be used to say that if I start deriving "pleasure" from something I believed was "pain" it will be so.

""Real to me" and "real" are very different. Really."

"
Vividness is subjective. what is real is objective. A sensation(like a dream) may be frighteningly painful(or vivid). But it is still but a sensation(or a dream)."

--like I said I'm going to have to think about this a bit further but I'll stick with what I've said so far.........for now--

Yes. Very familiar. But why are you quoting it?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;116812 wrote:

Yes. Very familiar. But why are you quoting it?

to draw a parallel between the feeling of pain and the experience of a dream(something you hold as not real) I reckon.

1 Reply

@Amperage,

Amperage;116813 wrote:

to draw a parallel between the feeling of pain and the experience of a dream(something you hold as not real) I guess.

What is the parallel?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;116814 wrote:

What is the parallel?

that just because they "feel" real doesn't mean they are

1 Reply

@Amperage,

Amperage;116816 wrote:

that just because they "feel" real doesn't mean they are

I agree with that, of course. But that does not mean that pain not only feels real (whatever that is) but is real. But what happens in a dream feels real, but is not real. It did not happen. You agree with that, don't you? The pain is not imagined, but the dream is.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;116819 wrote:

I agree with that, of course. But that does not mean that pain not only feels real (whatever that is) but is real. But what happens in a dream feels real, but is not real. It did not happen. You agree with that, don't you? The pain is not imagined, but the dream is.

I agree that it did not physically happen yes. But I wonder why it is that war vets who lose an arm still think they can ''feel pain'' where there arm used to be? And I would wonder why the same person receiving the same stimulus can have 2 opposite responses to it(pleasure/pain). It would seem to me that if pain were "a real thing" then it would be a constant or at least be measurable in some meaningful way. I'm not certain but I think the way pain is mostly measured is by asking someone if they feel pain and how bad it hurts and also they look to see which area of the brain lights up. But then again I'm pretty sure dreams are measured the same way and we all know your stance on those....

2 Replies

@Amperage,

Upon reflection of my arguments and reading back through the thread a bit I noticed that we've gotten a bit sidetracked, and I've decided that the bigger issue is not whether pain is real or not but rather how we are defining evil.

I now contend that nothing that is not alive(or I should probably say only beings which are alive) can be evil and only things that are alive are capable of evil(perhaps only those beings which possess free will). By that I mean pain is not evil, hurricanes are not evil, suffering is not evil.

Evil is often a desire to cause pain or suffering, but that pain or that suffering is merely the means to an end. The end being to injure someone, break someones spirit, to control someone, or belittle someone.

I guess for lack of being able to come up with a better definition myself that I will borrow(and then change) a definition from a man named Henri Blocher who defines evil as an "unjustifiable reality" and "something that occurs in experience that ought not be".

I think I will change that a little and say that evil is a morally unjustifiable motive or intent. Or the desire to that which is not good. Note: It might be better to say "ethically unjustifiable" vs "morally unjustifiable" because I don't want to leave room for someone to say well because of x they think it's morally justifiable to, just for example, ram a plane into a building. I think ethically might be better because despite what ones morals may tell them I think any objective person can look at that and say things "ought" not be that way.

So for now(and I'm sure there are still holes in this) I will define evil as an ethically unjustifiable motive or intent. Or the desire(intent or motive) to do that which is not good.

So in this way it would make sense to me that, for example, "the pain of getting a root canal procedure" is in no way evil because there is a morally justifiable intent to the act.

Natural disasters are neither good nor evil because they have no motive nor intent.

In any rate the two main distinctions I'm trying to make are: 1. That evil is a human condition not something that a rock or a hurricane "can do" and 2. That neither pain nor suffering are evil but they are often used as a means of carrying out an evil intent.

This brings us back to the question of whether God permits evil to which I can only answer, yes, I suppose He does, but I will point out again that, IMO, He did not create evil, rather, that evil exists only as a byproduct of free will.

For example(and this was an analogy I just read tonight which I thought at least showed kind of what I was trying to point out before), consider the question 'does cold exist?' You may say yes but the answer is that cold is merely the absence of heat(or darkness which is not a thing but merely the absence of light). In the same way evil exists due to an absence of God from a place.

The only way for God to prevent evil would be to remove our free will and by doing that we would becomes slaves. God, IMO, granted us the gift that is free will but by doing so, obviously, a byproduct would be the option to something other than that which is good.

1 Reply

@Amperage,

It all becomes silly when you extract one concept of this god and ignore all the other relevant questions. He makes us imperfect and he, we, expect perfect creatures. If you make a product imperfect, it wont work properly , so whose to blame, the imperfect products or the manufacturers? On occassions the faithful say if you ask your creator to help intervene through prey he will help you with your imperfections. Now with this analogy, how does that describe this creator, who makes us imperfect , with all the consequences, and sets us free to display these imperfections but will interfere with our free will on request. None of it makes sense, if he exists he some weird guy.

0 Replies

@Amperage,

Amperage;116820 wrote:

I agree that it did not physically happen yes. But I wonder why it is that war vets who lose an arm still think they can ''feel pain'' where there arm used to be? And I would wonder why the same person receiving the same stimulus can have 2 opposite responses to it(pleasure/pain). It would seem to me that if pain were "a real thing" then it would be a constant or at least be measurable in some meaningful way. I'm not certain but I think the way pain is mostly measured is by asking someone if they feel pain and how bad it hurts and also they look to see which area of the brain lights up. But then again I'm pretty sure dreams are measured the same way and we all know your stance on those....

That is called "referred pain", and it shows that a pain and the damage that causes the pain may not be in the same place. It is a well-known and understood physiological phenomenon, and you can find out how it occurs easily by looking it up under "phantom limb" or "referred pain". It does not indicate that pain is imaginary. The person is in pain, but it is not where he believes it is. I don't know that persons can have opposite responses, but sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between pain and pleasure. There are various ways to measure pain, but I don't see what you describe shows pain is imaginary (if that is what it is supposed to do).

0 Replies

@Nitish,

if anyone brings up a creator, i cant help but go back to the idea of being a parent. if a parent wanted to protect their child and keep them happy all their life, they would choose their friends, their spouse, not allow them to see the outside world or watch television or hear the news, and possibly, though allowing them choices, would restrict them to only what the parent believed to be beneficial. if it were possible they would substitute robots for other human beings, because they could be programmed never to oppose the child, always to be loving and helpful, etc. they would be giving an illusion of freedom of choice or free will to the child, but sooner or later the child will wonder what is on the other wide of the wall, and when the parent says 'nothing' or 'you cant go there' the child will no longer be happy. in fact all hope of happiness for him is now gone. so what to do?

a parent tries to teach them, to guide them, to show by example what the parent has learned through experience, and encourage them to make good decisions, supporting them in what they choose unless it is dangerous, and trying to aid them when they take a direction that is futile.

i think lord buddha was raised that way...and one day he went out and saw the real world. it isnt all fun and games, but it gives us a chance and it is reality.

being perfect isnt possible for human beings...that is for divinity.

1 Reply

@salima,

salima;116887 wrote:

if anyone brings up a creator, i cant help but go back to the idea of being a parent. if a parent wanted to protect their child and keep them happy all their life, they would choose their friends, their spouse, not allow them to see the outside world or watch television or hear the news, and possibly, though allowing them choices, would restrict them to only what the parent believed to be beneficial. if it were possible they would substitute robots for other human beings, because they could be programmed never to oppose the child, always to be loving and helpful, etc. they would be giving an illusion of freedom of choice or free will to the child, but sooner or later the child will wonder what is on the other wide of the wall, and when the parent says 'nothing' or 'you cant go there' the child will no longer be happy. in fact all hope of happiness for him is now gone. so what to do?

a parent tries to teach them, to guide them, to show by example what the parent has learned through experience, and encourage them to make good decisions, supporting them in what they choose unless it is dangerous, and trying to aid them when they take a direction that is futile.

i think lord buddha was raised that way...and one day he went out and saw the real world. it isnt all fun and games, but it gives us a chance and it is reality.

being perfect isnt possible for human beings...that is for divinity.

Of course, parents are not omnipotent, so they cannot protect their children forever. Therefore, they have to teach them to take care of themselves. God is omnipotent, and is under no such burden. The analogy is not a good one.

0 Replies

@Amperage,

Amperage;116745 wrote:

I think you raise some good points without a doubt but I would just say this. Keep in mind that God isn't the one doing the evil nor condoning the evil in fact He want's people to do the opposite. Can you call someone evil when they themselves did not do the evil deed and in fact beg people not to?
I don't disagree that God could stop all evil from happening but not without breaching our free will something He doesn't do IMO. And God remains where He always is, but it is us who remove ourselves from Him.

With this all in mind, let us go back to my original story:

Suppose you and I are chatting over a cup of coffee, sitting in the window overlooking a park. In the park, we see a group of people brutally assaulting someone. You say, "Hey, we better do something about that (like call the police)", to which I respond, "no, we can't interfere with their free will!"

Now, really, what would you say of me if I acted that way? Would you say that I was a good person for refusing to do anything to help the person being brutalized? Is it good to do nothing to help people in need?

Furthermore:

Now, of course, we can see that calling the police does not negate the existence of "free will" (whatever that is), but I am in the position of the supposedly all good, all knowing and all powerful god in my imagined reaction to the brutal assault. Of course, this supposed god could take care of the assault without calling the police, but it does not even do that much to help.

If I call the police, does this negate free will? If not, then how would it negate their free will if God called the police? And if the police came and subdued the perpetrators, would that action negate free will? If not, then how would God subduing them negate free will?

God does nothing. Is that the example we should follow?

Amperage;116745 wrote:

God could help everyone but not everyone wants Gods help; a decision He obviously grants. No doubt bad things happen to believers but they also are aware that their life were never intended to be a bed of roses [emphasis added] and they also have the comfort of knowing God is with them, but other than that I have no answer other than to say we do know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love Him(Rom 8:28)

In other words, God intends to cause suffering, instead of acting like a good being would act. Your vision of God puts him in the position of sadist; a being that wants others to suffer.

1 Reply

@Pyrrho,

Pyrrho;116922 wrote:

With this all in mind, let us go back to my original story:

Suppose you and I are chatting over a cup of coffee, sitting in the window overlooking a park. In the park, we see a group of people brutally assaulting someone. You say, "Hey, we better do something about that (like call the police)", to which I respond, "no, we can't interfere with their free will!"

Now, really, what would you say of me if I acted that way? Would you say that I was a good person for refusing to do anything to help the person being brutalized? Is it good to do nothing to help people in need?

Here's why I don't think this analogy applies. God would be more akin, in this analogy, to someone who was not there to witness what was going on. I would be like the US police crossing over into Mexico, it's not in their jurisdiction. These people through their actions obviously are not under the presence of the Lord. However, as one who is called to carry the Light wherever we go, I would try to stop them. Or even further anyone with a moral compass would probably try and do the same if they were a witness to what was happening

Pyrrho;116922 wrote:

Furthermore:

Now, of course, we can see that calling the police does not negate the existence of "free will" (whatever that is), but I am in the position of the supposedly all good, all knowing and all powerful god in my imagined reaction to the brutal assault. Of course, this supposed god could take care of the assault without calling the police, but it does not even do that much to help.

If I call the police, does this negate free will? If not, then how would it negate their free will if God called the police? And if the police came and subdued the perpetrators, would that action negate free will? If not, then how would God subduing them negate free will?

God does nothing. Is that the example we should follow?

I suppose if you had to forcibly stop them, then yes, you are negating their free will. Choices carry consequences and through their actions I suppose the only way we as humans could deal with them is for them to temporarily lose their free will. That is if their will was to continue the fight.

**EDIT FOR ADDITION COMMENT**
I wonder which could(hypothetically speaking) be considered more morally praiseworthy: negating someones free will to get them to do what you want, or getting someone to do what you want whilst not negating their free will(aka someone making a free will choice)? I'm not sure but perhaps therein lies the answer
** **

Pyrrho;116922 wrote:

In other words, God intends to cause suffering, instead of acting like a good being would act. Your vision of God puts him in the position of sadist; a being that wants others to suffer.

You are making the assumption that ALL pain and ALL suffering are evil which clearly, and according to my definition and my understanding of evil which I explained on the last post of page 7, they are not.

1 Reply

@Nitish,

You know...

Seriously...

I don't think any Christian or religious person has any imagination. Do not take that too insultingly, as I will explain...

The apologetic(s) in this thread are trying to make the case that we need the things we perceive as "evil" in some way to help us. Or we need "pain" or "suffering" to appreciate the "good". That is a shallow view to take of God, I think.

That is also an obvious human-born idea of God, as it is limited. Limited by our own logic. We understand that, in the world we live in, and the way we feel about things, that we need shitty things to appreciate good things. Ugliness for Beauty, Laziness for hard-working, evil for good.

But, two things:

1) God created a "perfect" Garden, and a "perfect" Heaven. God, nearly at the same time, according to the monotheistic interpretation, created humans for the purpose of benevolence, to "share his love", etc. If that was his purpose in our creation, and he obviously had complete control over the entire universes creation, including 2 perfect places for us, and the laws of "logic" itself, as before the universe there was no logic....

Then why create us as "flawed" or tempted by "evil" and why create "evil" to be tempted by in the first place. Why? God is responsible for EVERYTHING as he/she/it came before the entire universe. Therefore he could have created us happy, and loved, and caring, etc without the need for evil, etc. God created evil, and the humans that would be tempted by it, and then blames it on us, even as we're just born (original sin).

And you still worship that piece of ****? Get real.

PS: In the "good book", would be Satan rebelled in perfect Heaven (must have an imperfection), and God, for some reason, of all the places, cast him down to Earth knowing that he was going to be able to be understood by humans, tempted by them with evil, by a tree God put there as well, and then blamed for it. And God created it all (omnipotence) and let it all happen (omniscience) anyways.

2 Replies

@bmcreider,

bmcreider;116942 wrote:

Then why create us as "flawed" or tempted by "evil" and why create "evil" to be tempted by in the first place. Why? God is responsible for EVERYTHING as he/she/it came before the entire universe. Therefore he could have created us happy, and loved, and caring, etc without the need for evil, etc. God created evil, and the humans that would be tempted by it, and then blames it on us, even as we're just born (original sin).

Please explain to me how one "creates" evil. Evil is not a thing. Evil is not a creation. Evil is the absence of something. According to gotquestions.org and I think they said it nicely Evil is no more a creation than a hole in the ground. Holes exist but only when you a remove part of what's already there, in this case dirt. A hole is the absence of dirt from a place.

Quote:

Perhaps a further illustration will help. If a person is asked, "Does cold exist?" the answer would likely be "yes." However, this is incorrect. Cold does not exist. Cold is the absence of heat. Similarly, darkness does not exist; it is the absence of light. Evil is the absence of good, or better, evil is the absence of God. God did not have to create evil, but rather only allow for the absence of good.

I would probably change that last sentence to say ....but rather only allow for the absence of Himself, since I will agree that people can do "good" even without God.
All God did was allow people to do something other than what He wanted.

Putting the tree there was meaningless, it was symbolic. I can assure you they did not gain some special new knowledge once they ate from it. He could have said anything. He could have said don't walk backwards for 50 yards on Tuesdays. The point of the tree only served to give them a way to do something other than what God wanted. At that time I guess you could say they were given the world(minus 1 tree) as incentive to hang out with God yet they chose to do otherwise.

Without some way to do something other than what God wanted, they would have essentially been slaves to Him.

Question: Which is better? Forcing someone to love you by leaving them no other choice or earning that persons love to the point that they no longer want to choose anything else?

1 Reply

@Amperage,

Amperage;116930 wrote:

Here's why I don't think this analogy applies. God would be more akin, in this analogy, to someone who was not there to witness what was going on.

If God does not witness the event, then God is not omniscient. If there is anything that happens anywhere in the universe that God does not know about, then God is not omniscient. You appear to be denying both the goodness and the omniscience of God. And a being that is neither all good nor omniscient is not the subject of the argument that started this thread. As noted before, the argument does nothing to disprove the existence of beings that are not omnipotent, omniscient, and all good, such as Zeus.

Amperage;116930 wrote:

These people through their actions obviously are not under the presence of the Lord. However, as one who is called to carry the Light wherever we go, I would try to stop them. Or even further anyone with a moral compass would probably try and do the same if they were a witness to what was happening

So you believe that doing as God does is wrong?

Amperage;116930 wrote:

I suppose if you had to forcibly stop them, then yes, you are negating their free will. Choices carry consequences and through their actions I suppose the only way we as humans could deal with them is for them to temporarily lose their free will. That is if their will was to continue the fight.

**EDIT FOR ADDITION COMMENT**
I wonder which could(hypothetically speaking) be considered more morally praiseworthy: negating someones free will to get them to do what you want, or getting someone to do what you want whilst not negating their free will(aka someone making a free will choice)? I'm not sure but perhaps therein lies the answer
** **

You now appear to be questioning whether or not you should help someone being attacked. Do you seriously believe that not interfering with someone attacking someone else is better than doing something to help the victim?

Amperage;116930 wrote:

You are making the assumption that ALL pain and ALL suffering are evil which clearly, and according to my definition and my understanding of evil which I explained on the last post of page 7, they are not.

It would be best for you to provide a link to the specific post you have in mind, or at least refer to the post number, as there are different options for how many pages a person sees. For example, in my case, all of the posts of this thread are contained on two pages (each page, obviously, containing more of the posts than in each of the pages you are viewing). Presumably, you mean this post:

http://www.philosophyforum.com/philosophy-forums/secondary-branches-philosophy/philosophy-religion/1103-god-willing-prevent-evil-but-not-able-then-he-impotent-2.html#post116845

Is that the post you mean?

If so, it would be good if you defined your phrase, "ethically unjustifiable motive or intent".

In any case, your analogies do not hold. When a root canal is done, it is done because God did not make teeth strong enough to hold up to common use, and the pain is caused by the way teeth and nerves and such are "designed" (if, that is, that they were made by God). You see, if God made everything, then God set things up such that people would suffer. When a good dentist causes pain, it is not because the dentist set things up that way, but because it cannot reasonably be helped given the way people are put together and the technology available to the dentist.

If God made people, then God made people such that they would suffer. God must have known that some people would suffer excruciating pain, because of the way people are made. So God intended for people to suffer, which, of course, is not a good intention at all.

Additionally, if the world is made by God, then God causes all natural disasters. Earthquakes are the result of the way the earth is made. So we have intent, with God knowing in advance that these things would do damage (unless you are now going to tell us that God is an idiot who could not predict that these things would cause problems, in which case, again, your God is not omniscient, or even as smart as the average person, and therefore is not the subject of the argument that started this thread).

And even if God did not create the earth, if God is omnipotent, God would have the power to change the earth to not have earthquakes and such problems, and if God were omniscient, God would know how to make the changes. Yet God does not make these changes; these things are left by God to be as they are. So God intends for them to occur, and God knows the terrible results of this (unless, of course, God is not omnipotent and omniscient).

Amperage;116845 wrote:

...
The only way for God to prevent evil would be to remove our free will and by doing that we would becomes slaves. God, IMO, granted us the gift that is free will but by doing so, obviously, a byproduct would be the option to something other than that which is good.

If that is true (which is something that you have not demonstrated), then there can be no heaven with people living there with no evil. Also, God must not have free will, if evil is a necessary result of having free will and if God is all good. And that would seem to indicate that having free will is worse than not having free will, as, surely, it is better to be like God than to be like a person. Or, rather, that is the normal way of thinking, but in your case, your God appears to be more of a sadist than the average person, so you may well regard people as better than God.

0 Replies

@Nitish,

You lack imagination.

God created everything.

Before the universe there were no holes. There was no cold. There was no hot. God could have created a universe where matter, or space, or the dimensions, or anything else was completely different. If his purpose was benevolence, and he knew that we would all perceive a lack of "good" "evil" as you say it, then he should have recognized that outcome before creation of anything and corrected it. Why create Hell, why punish people indefinitely for finite sins? How is Heaven perfect if you can rebel, how does it have free will?

Like the Matrix, God could have created it any way he wanted - and he knew the outcome of each - so he knew he would need to flood the Earth, or create Hell, etc...

If so, and his objective was benevolence, why create us in the first place just to punish a size-able chunk?

1 Reply

"Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know