Why does God permit evil????

@Icon,

Icon;102056 wrote:

You are assuming my ethical reasoning matches yours. You'd be wrong.

It is not a bad thing if I do it to myself. It is a consequence. Do you not understand that action breeds consequence?

Sure I do. But isn't a consequence that is suffering and pain bad. I don't mean morally bad. I mean that it is just bad to suffer pain, It has nothing to do with morality.

Look at it this way: a bad meal is bad, but not morally bad. A bad wine which has turned is bad. And you send it back because it is bad. But that has nothing to do with morality. In the same way, a good baseball player plays well. But there is nothing moral or immoral about it. So, if a little child gets cancer and dies, that is a bad thing. But there is nothing immoral or moral about it.

0 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

God has created evil as well as all other things - there is nobody else with creative power.

Existence of evil allows us to make moral choices. Existence of evil makes us need love. Nobody needs your love in a care-free world. Overcoming evil by good makes you a better person. Not an infantile Adam in Paradise who uses his wife as a "human shield" to justify himself. Evil makes us need and remember God, as only He can deliver us from it. Evil, when it attacks us, reveals our weaknesses and thus shows us what we should improve in ourselves.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;102057 wrote:

Is this what the face-value of "perfectly good" means? You say that as if it is a common phrase, easily understood. It is not! Do you use this phrase in everyday language? I don't. It's a metaphysical property, as far as I know, and a vague one at that. Then again, most metaphysical properties are vague, as they require other metaphysical notions to be defined or understood.

Someone applied this property, interpreted it to mean as you say, and then listed the only logical conclusions that could come from a God having this property. So what? This can be done with nearly anything, and it doesn't mean the subject matter is important or meaningful.

I think this is when archaic comes into play, ken! These are archaic thoughts, or at least, I think, they should be. This silly contemplation of God and its metaphysical properties, then wallowing over the logical conclusions, as if it's some significant mystery. I think the contriving, and then focusing on, these sorts of "problems" is a paramount problem in philosophy. The fact that there have been so many who have wrestled with this "problem" is just astounding. I'm in awe.

But you are looking at the problem externally. Of course, if there is no God, then there is no problem of evil. That goes without saying. But suppose (arguendo) that there is a God. Then the problem of evil certainly exists. Importance is in the eye of the beholder. You just are not interested in the problem of evil. But even an atheist can be (and have been) interested in it. It poses an interesting logical problem of whether God's goodness and power can be reconciled with the existence of evil. Supposing that God exists. Hume's Dialogues on Natural Religion is largely about the problem, and Hume was an atheist. And of course, for the religious believer (of whom there are many) it is a great problem. Many religious Jews have asked others and themselves, "Why Auschwitz ?". And besides, atheists ought to be interested in the problem if only because it question of how there can be a God in the fact of evil has always been thought to be one of the main arrows in the atheist's quiver.

---------- Post added 11-05-2009 at 05:08 PM ----------

Shlomo;102064 wrote:

God has created evil as well as all other things - there is nobody else with creative power.

Existence of evil allows us to make moral choices. Existence of evil makes us need love. Nobody needs your love in a care-free world. Overcoming evil by good makes you a better person. Not an infantile Adam in Paradise who uses his wife as a "human shield" to justify himself. Evil makes us need and remember God, as only He can deliver us from it. Evil, when it attacks us, reveals our weaknesses and thus shows us what we should improve in ourselves.

Yes. The main way of trying to deal with the problem is to try to show that a world without evil would not be as good a world as a world with evil in it. As Leibniz argued, the best of all possible worlds must contain evil in order for many of its goods to exist. Thus all evils are necessary evils. And that is what you are arguing.

0 Replies

@Shlomo,

Shlomo;102064 wrote:

Overcoming evil by good makes you a better person. Evil, when it attacks us, reveals our weaknesses and thus shows us what we should improve in ourselves.

So you are stating that evil is necessary as a means for good?

This does not follow. Make an analogy to mountains and valleys. Mountains are required in order for there to be valleys. Likewise, you are stating that evil is necessary in order for there to be good.

But God is omnipotent, and thus there is no limit to what God can do. Sure we cannot think of a way for valleys to exist without mountains, but we are not omnipotent, so there is no logical paradox if we can't do it. On the other hand God is omnipotent, so it is not completely obvious why God couldn't think of a way for evil to exist without good, if God's omnipotence holds.

So as Kennethamy points out, if evil is necessary, just stating it won't do because prima facie it does not follow. There has to be an additional explanation, or theodicy for why such evil is permitted.

1 Reply

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;101956 wrote:

Justin and All

Is man the only entity in existence capable of evil?

If by evil you mean sadistic, then no. Humans aren't the only animals that are capable of sadistic behavior, as I believe sadism has been observed in many other species.

0 Replies

@stew phil,

stew;102069 wrote:

So you are stating that evil is necessary as a means for good?

This does not follow. Make an analogy to mountains and valleys. Mountains are required in order for there to be valleys. Likewise, you are stating that evil is necessary in order for there to be good.

But God is omnipotent, and thus there is no limit to what God can do. Sure we cannot think of a way for valleys to exist without mountains, but we are not omnipotent, so there is no logical paradox if we can't do it. On the other hand God is omnipotent, so it is not completely obvious why God couldn't think of a way for evil to exist without good, if God's omnipotence holds. The same goes for the existence of good and evil.

This takes us to a new stage in the argument. God is omnipotent, but that does not mean that He can do what is logically impossible. Now, if some evils are logically necessary for some compensating goods, then even God cannot produce these goods without the evils logically necessary for them. So the defense is that every evil is logically necessary for some good which would not exist if not for the evil, and, also, that the good more than compensates for the evil logically necessary for the good to exist. This is essentially Leibniz's theodicy. The justification of God's actions.

2 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;101985 wrote:

Natural disasters cause evil. That is, suffering and pain. I did not say that they were evil.

Natural disasters are not evil. Evil is a misfortune that is inflicted on one being by another. A natural disaster is just another type of misfortune. Natural disasters are, however, a part of the broader question of why a God would permit any type of misfortune.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

hue-man;102072 wrote:

however, a part of the broader question of why a God would permit any type of misfortune.

I think this was covered in post #106 . . . .

kennethamy;102071 wrote:

This is essentially Leibniz's theodicy. The justification of God's actions.

Does God justify His actions, or do we justify God's actions in His absence?

I've not studied Leibniz, so forgive me if he has addressed this.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;102071 wrote:

This takes us to a new stage in the argument. God is omnipotent, but that does not mean that He can do what is logically impossible. Now, if some evils are logically necessary for some compensating goods, then even God cannot produce these goods without the evils logically necessary for them. So the defense is that every evil is logically necessary for some good which would not exist if not for the evil, and, also, that the good more than compensates for the evil logically necessary for the good to exist. This is essentially Leibniz's theodicy. The justification of God's actions.

Which is to say goods and evils are stratified. 1st order evils exist in order for 2nd order goods to come about. In this sense, this is how greater goods come about.

But does that even follow? Sure, on its face it seems coherent, but is it? If I pose the question, why has God set it up this way rather than another, what kind of answer do I get? It just becomes a circular argument without any proof.

Leibniz theodicy, as you so describe it, only shows what would need to logically follow if evils are necessary. But it only begs the question as to why such evils, are in fact logically necessary. Until a proof is given, the problem stands.

0 Replies

@TickTockMan,

TickTockMan;102073 wrote:

I think this was covered in post #106 . . . .

Does God justify His actions, or do we justify God's actions in His absence?

I've not studied Leibniz, so forgive me if he has addressed this.

In the Book of Job, God tries to do so. But it isn't a very convincing job. It is essentially the argument that might is right. Leibniz tries to argue that all evils are logically necessary evil, and does a presentable job of it.

---------- Post added 11-05-2009 at 07:53 PM ----------

stew;102074 wrote:

Which is to say goods and evils are stratified. 1st order evils exist in order for 2nd order goods to come about. In this sense, this is how greater goods come about.

But does that even follow? Sure, on its face it seems coherent, but is it? If I pose the question, why has God set it up this way rather than another, what kind of answer do I get? It just becomes a circular argument without any proof.

Leibniz theodicy, as you so describe it, only shows what would need to logically follow if evils are necessary. But it only begs the question as to why such evils, are in fact logically necessary. Until a proof is given, the problem stands.

Yes. It is ultimately a matter of faith that all evils are logically necessary evils. However, Leibniz does show how it might be possible to reconcile God's goodness and power with the existence of evil. That is, how there might be no logical contradiction. Whether, of course, it is in fact true, is a different matter. But Leibniz does show how it need not be a logical contradiction if certain other plausible assumptions are made.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

All of this talk of evil being logically necessary for good is ridiculous. Maybe I missed it, but I have yet to hear an argument based on formal logic that proves that evil is necessary for good.

The argument that evil is necessary for good fails for a number of reasons. For example, let's be hypothetical and say that evil is, in fact, necessary for good. Now the story goes that god created the universe and everything that exists. Therefore, god predetermined the conditions of the universe that he created. God could have created a universe that would not have necessitated evil, so why didn't he? Was it for kicks or entertainment, because I have to admit that a universe with suffering and conflict is way more entertaining than a universe that is always in a steady state of joy and peace. Imagine a television show or a movie with no conflict or significant change; boring. Of course television shows and movies are fiction, but the universe is non-fiction, and I would have to be a sadistic a-hole to enjoy the actual suffering of living beings.

Secondly, there are many misfortunes in the world that, without affects whatsoever, serve no greater good.

Last but not least, good and evil can be looked at as two distinct properties of objects and actions, and so removing all of the evil in the world would not remove all of the good. This is like saying that if you made it so that all of the murderers would not exist, you would also have to make all of the boy scouts who help old ladies cross the street not exist.

2 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

The notion that god is responsible for the evil and suffering in the world
as oppossed to
The notion that god is responsible for the order and possiblity in the world
all hinges on
The notion that god is omnipotent (could design any kind of world that he/she/it wants) and that it is possible to construct a world with meaning but without risk.
My noton of the divine involves real worlds, real risk, and real possiblities.

In the Book of Job, Job suffers becaused god and satan are having a bet, when Job complains and asks why God? God basically says you would not understand.

Well I am not happy to give up transcendent values and resort to moral and aesthetic relativism or nihiliism. I am more than happy to abandon creation ex nihilo and divine omnipotence to solve the problem of evil. God istruggles to mpose order,value and meaning on the chaotic and formless void and risk, evil and suffering are inherent in the world. I am not able to understand or accept it any other way. Just my personal solution.

Give up divine omnipotence and creation ex nihilo and the theological problem of evil (theodicy) goes away. You are left with process and open theology. Which turns out to be the theology of many twentieth century religious philosophers.

0 Replies

@hue-man,

hue-man;102091 wrote:

All of this talk of evil being logically necessary for good is ridiculous. Maybe I missed it, but I have yet to hear an argument based on formal logic that proves that evil is necessary for good.

The argument that evil is necessary for good fails for a number of reasons. For example, let's be hypothetical and say that evil is, in fact, necessary for good. Now the story goes that god created the universe and everything that exists. Therefore, god predetermined the conditions of the universe that he created. God could have created a universe that would not have necessitated evil, so why didn't he? Was it for kicks or entertainment, because I have to admit that a universe with suffering and conflict is way more entertaining than a universe that is always in a steady state of joy and peace. Imagine a television show or a movie with no conflict or significant change; boring. Of course television shows and movies are fiction, but the universe is non-fiction, and I would have to be a sadistic a-hole to enjoy the actual suffering of living beings.

Secondly, there are many misfortunes in the world that, without affects whatsoever, serve no greater good.

Last but not least, good and evil can be looked at as two distinct properties of objects and actions, and so removing all of the evil in the world would not remove all of the good. This is like saying that if you made it so that all of the murderers would not exist, you would also have to make all of the boy scouts who help old ladies cross the street not exist.

I will give the standard (Leibnizian) answers to your objections:

1. As I said, God could have created a world with no evil. But had He done so, he would not have created the best of all possible worlds, since the net amount of good would not have been as great as the actual world.

2. Your second objection just assumes that there are some logically unnecessary evils, and so, begs the question.

3. See number 1. Reducing all the evils would not reduce all the good, but a world in which there was no evil would contain as much good as the actual world which contains evil

Leibniz invented the calculus (So did Newton). For Leibniz, this what what mathematicians call a "minimax" problem in the calculus. God, the supreme mathematician, created a world with the maximum amount of good logically compatible with the minimum amount of evil.

2 Replies

@hue-man,

hue-man;102091 wrote:

All of this talk of evil being logically necessary for good is ridiculous. Maybe I missed it, but I have yet to hear an argument based on formal logic that proves that evil is necessary for good.

hue-man:

You demand formal logic which has only TRUE without FALSE. As lie is one of the evils, there would be no need even in logic in the world you order.

hue-man;102091 wrote:

God could have created a universe that would not have necessitated evil, so why didn't he?

Do you want man to be a vegetable never choosing to do something good and not even having a slightest idea of morality?

hue-man;102091 wrote:

Imagine a television show or a movie with no conflict or significant change; boring. Of course television shows and movies are fiction, but the universe is non-fiction, and I would have to be a sadistic a-hole to enjoy the actual suffering of living beings.

You criticize TV without evil as boring. (By the way, not all things there are fiction). But reality is not TV - let it be boring? Would not you be the first to criticize such a reality? And honestly, would it be good? Boredom seems to be one of the evils. Where is so coveted formal logic?

hue-man;102091 wrote:

Secondly, there are many misfortunes in the world that, without affects whatsoever, serve no greater good.

I would like to see a proof of that statement based on formal logic

hue-man;102091 wrote:

Last but not least, good and evil can be looked at as two distinct properties of objects and actions, and so removing all of the evil in the world would not remove all of the good. This is like saying that if you made it so that all of the murderers would not exist, you would also have to make all of the boy scouts who help old ladies cross the street not exist.

It's like saying Northern and Southern poles are two distinct properties of earth. Why God did not create if with only one pole? Yes, without murderers out there, boy scouts could be still imagined, but without aging (which is also an evil, alas) they would not need to help the "old ladies".

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;102102 wrote:

1. As I said, God could have created a world with no evil. But had He done so, he would not have created the best of all possible worlds, since the net amount of good would not have been as great as the actual world.

yes & no. It is true that the net benefit's of good in this world are the greatest in comparison with other possible worlds, but I'don't think you quite flesh out Leibniz reasoning for it, and some of the problems it imples.

His basic reasoning can be stated as such: ""If God is doing his(her) best, then this must be the best God can do."

The problem is, to say that this is the best possible world, is only true a-priori. No matter how you try and reason against the definition you can't because it holds true analytically.

Think about the real world now. There seems like plenty of things we could make better, how about curing aids or cancer for starters or preventing monsoons, earthquakes etc. Leibniz theodicy is so broad to the point of almost lacking any distinguishing criterion whatsoever that it becomes meaningless. Leibniz theodicy only holds, if an omni-everything God in fact exists. Otherwise, it is just another analytically true argument.

2 Replies

@stew phil,

stew;102109 wrote:

The problem is, to say that this is the best possible world, is only true a-priori. No matter how you and try and reason against the definition you can't because it holds true analytically.

Why this world should be the best one? The best is yet to come.

1 Reply

@Shlomo,

Shlomo;102111 wrote:

Why this world should be the best one?

Are you sure you have a grasp of the problem of evil? If God is omni everything, then it is a reflection of God's power to create the best possible world. If not, then this implies a contradiction with God's abilities.

Shlomo wrote:

The best is yet to come.

Yet when you refer to the best, you are still ostensibly referring to this world, the one you exist in. Whether you are around or not to experience whatever goods you think are in store for us later, new worlds are not being created every split second.

But if what you mean by best is that things are merely getting better (the possible), more evils = more goods, then you are still referring to this one world (the best). If that is your reasoning then I have no clue what you are adding to the present discussion.

2 Replies

@stew phil,

All these opinions are based on the average expectations of life and its consequences. No one wants a perfect existance but then what is perfect? for many just managing to stay alive is perfect. Its the excuse of the faithful who can not give adequate reasons for this imperfect world.

What we should be asking is the ultimate question.WHY, why are we here, for his benefit or ours?

0 Replies

@stew phil,

stew;102112 wrote:

Are you sure you have a grasp of the problem of evil? If God is omni everything, then it is a reflection of God's power to create the best possible world.

That is exactly what He is doing. We are being perfected in this imperfect world and the evil has a role in this process. Yes, I am sure I have a grasp of that problem as I live accordingly, and it works.

stew;102112 wrote:

Yet when you refer to the best, you are still ostensibly referring to this world

Let me be absolutely clear: I refer to the next world, not to this one.

stew;102112 wrote:

new worlds are not being created every split second.

Sure. The new world needs to be populated by morally perfect creatures. They are still under production in this workshop

stew;102112 wrote:

If that is your reasoning then I have no clue what you are adding to the present discussion.

That is not my reasoning. I hope the above clarifications provide the clue.

1 Reply

@stew phil,

stew;102109 wrote:

yes & no. It is true that the net benefit's of good in this world are the greatest in comparison with other possible worlds, but I'don't think you quite flesh out Leibniz reasoning for it, and some of the problems it imples.

His basic reasoning can be stated as such: ""If God is doing his(her) best, then this must be the best God can do."

The problem is, to say that this is the best possible world, is only true a-priori. No matter how you try and reason against the definition you can't because it holds true analytically.

Think about the real world now. There seems like plenty of things we could make better, how about curing aids or cancer for starters or preventing monsoons, earthquakes etc. Leibniz theodicy is so broad to the point of almost lacking any distinguishing criterion whatsoever that it becomes meaningless. Leibniz theodicy only holds, if an omni-everything God in fact exists. Otherwise, it is just another analytically true argument.

I think you are confusing two different things. 1. Whether it is actually true that this is the best of all possible worlds, and 2. How it could be true that this is the best of all possible worlds despite the manifest amount to evil in it. I don't believe that even Leibniz believed he had shown this was the best of all possible worlds, although Voltaire in Candide, supposes he did. Leibniz (as I said before) clearly thinks faith is needed to believe it is true that every evil is a necessary evil. But, whatever Leibniz really believed, it is pretty clear that his theodicy only shows that it is not impossible (self-contradictory) for this world to be the best of all possible worlds along with evil. That is what is called the logical problem of evil. The argument had been that there was a logical contradiction in the supposition that a good, and all powerful God could create a world with evil. Leibniz shows only that there is no logical impossibility in this supposition. Not that it is in fact, true. Whether it is, in fact, true, is a different question. David Hume clearly made this distinction in his critique of the problem. So, it seems to me that you are not distinguishing between the logical problem of evil, and something else, namely, the empirical problem of evil. Between whether it could be that way, and whether it actually is that way. It is important to distinguish those two issues. (That is why Leibniz really by-passes the question of whether God does exist. It is not relevant).

1 Reply

Why does God permit evil????

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know