Win Probability/Existence of Evil

Originally posted by twhitehead
So lets restart the thread and title it "Existence of 'bad things'." I am fairly sure that most people in the discussion thought that dying of a nasty disease or an earthquake was well within the definition of 'evil' that we were talking about.

I have heard it broken down into two different problems: 1) The Problem of Evil, referring to evil acts by agents, and 2) The Problem of Suffering, referring to suffering caused by natural acts, like tsunamis, famine, disease, etc.

The argument is basically the same in both cases, and gets around the objection that 'evil' can only be actions by agents. Needless suffering is the thing at issue in both 1) and 2).

Originally posted by twhitehead
What is a 'perfect God'? A loving God? A just God? An omnipotent God? A desirable God?
If he is a loving God, then what is love when applied to God? Must he love all living things? Only concious living things? What about inanimate objects, must he love those?
If he is a just God, what does that even mean? What is justice? I see justice as a human concep ...[text shortened]... t unless there is some universal law that means that happiness is not possible without evil.

Absolutely true.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Of course, as everyone knows, but has not yet been mentioned in this thread, the vast majority of evil is not initiated by humans. Nature kills more people than humans do. Nature causes more suffering than humans do. Its interesting that insurance companies call natural disasters "acts of God" not "acts of the Devil".

Similarly, why is Nietzsche not chided for insisting on the death of God and not bringing up the demise of the Devil?

I would strongly encourage insurance companies to take greater cognisance of the Devil and mention him in their contracts.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Wow. Have you actually studied the problem of evil at all? I am sorry to be so brutally honest, but you ought to be simply embarrassed that you presume to declaim on the argument while clearly having little or no familiarity with it.

Maybe you are the one who should bother to actually read those references you cite, since it is simply outrageously f ...[text shortened]... is plausible that all the evil that does exist is necessary for some greater good to obtain?

Within the argument 'problem of evil' such a broad brush is used, but it is the underlying and alleged failure on the part of the triad God to curtail any and all unfavorable situations which is construed as evil, the not-good. The normative use of the adjective (modified of nouns) is one of agency, of intent. Thus we hear of people labeling naturally induced destruction with words such as tragedy, disaster and the like, almost never is the word evil employed.

This is nonetheless addressed within the OP: the other team is allowed to score.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Within the argument 'problem of evil' such a broad brush is used, but it is the underlying and alleged failure on the part of the triad God to curtail any and all unfavorable situations which is construed as evil, the not-good. The normative use of the adjective (modified of nouns) is one of agency, of intent. Thus we hear of people labeling naturally in ...[text shortened]... employed.

This is nonetheless addressed within the OP: the other team is allowed to score.

You know what, I really think you just do not have any argument. I am just going to call your bluff: please actually present your argument. State the premises; state the conclusion.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I have heard it broken down into two different problems: 1) The Problem of Evil, referring to evil acts by agents, and 2) The Problem of Suffering, referring to suffering caused by natural acts, like tsunamis, famine, disease, etc.

The argument is basically the same in both cases, and gets around the objection that 'evil' can only be actions by agents. Needless suffering is the thing at issue in both 1) and 2).

Who do you think should decide what suffering is necessary and what
suffering is needless?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Within the argument 'problem of evil' such a broad brush is used, but it is the underlying and alleged failure on the part of the triad God to curtail any and all unfavorable situations which is construed as evil, the not-good. The normative use of the adjective (modified of nouns) is one of agency, of intent. Thus we hear of people labeling naturally in ...[text shortened]... ion with words such as tragedy, disaster and the like, almost never is the word evil employed.

I think I generally agree that 'evil' implies agency. However the 'problem of evil' asks the question: "If God created the universe, is omnipotent, and loving and good then why does he allow all this suffering, and why did he set up a system in which suffering is so common place?" The theist then answers "the devil", or "Adam" or "human nature" or some other agency gets blamed. Thus it is the theist that is effectively forced into a position where they must either admit agency (and thus label natural events 'evil'😉 or they must question Gods purpose in allowing such suffering. In a world without agency behind natural disasters, God may not be directly killing people, but it is really little different from him throwing a die and then killing someone whenever it lands on 'six' and saying 'but its not my fault, its just random nature'.

Much of theology is an attempt to try and remove the blame from God for creating the world as it is and those attempts almost always look for agency. I have never heard any theist say "Well God set up the world in perfect order with no suffering and then due to random bad luck it got worse".

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Small scuttlebutt surrounding the Patriot's decision to allow the Giants to score in the final minutes of Sunday's Super Bowl got me to thinking how similar the situation is to the existence of evil in the world. Namely, how such a thing can be allowed to exist by a perfect God.

Any takers?

So everyone who wants to do evil, does God force them to not do evil or
allow them to do as they will? Should God have kept those thoughts out of
their heads or allow them to view all the possibitlies? Should God not hold
anyone accountable who had the will to do good and choose to do evil instead?
Basically, what would you do then apply it to God sets you up as God's judge
without having all of God's knowledge or understanding.
Kelly

Originally posted by LemonJello
You know what, I really think you just do not have any argument. I am just going to call your bluff: please actually present your argument. State the premises; state the conclusion.

I pretty much already did, on page two.

God created the universe and subsequent creatures perfect.
Existence is good.
God's intent for each creature is life and happiness.
Each creature possesses a will.
God's will and each creature's will are coterminous.
Within space and time, some of the creatures opted against God's will and system.
The alternative system is known as good and evil.
God allowed for the opted system to be played out.
In the system of good and evil, good both advances and retreats.
In the system of good and evil, evil both advances and retreats.
The system of good and evil cannot provide any meaningful significance to life.
God extends redemption for those in the system.
God extends that redemption within the parameters of that system's rules and parameters.
What appears as the advance of evil does not correlate to anything outside of the system.
What appears as the advance of good does not necessarily correlate to anything outside of the system, either, but it can.
God uses the system of good and evil for the greater good, i.e., His own glorification.
In the process of glorifying Himself, He allows all creatures life and happiness.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think I generally agree that 'evil' implies agency. However the 'problem of evil' asks the question: "If God created the universe, is omnipotent, and loving and good then why does he allow all this suffering, and why did he set up a system in which suffering is so common place?" The theist then answers "the devil", or "Adam" or "human nature" or some ot ...[text shortened]... rfect order with no suffering and then due to random bad luck it got worse".

That's kinda what I was driving at: that somehow God ought to be held as reprehensible, given either His failure or refusal to keep the not-good from ever happening.

I hope my post above this one sheds more light on the topic.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
That's kinda what I was driving at: that somehow God ought to be held as reprehensible, given either His failure or refusal to keep the not-good from ever happening.

I hope my post above this one sheds more light on the topic.

So how would you know (not good) is really not good? If God did that wouldn't
everyone wonder if (not good) is really better? Now, we see what each system
does as it is played out completely and once dealt with NO ONE will want it
back or ever care to play with it as far as they can go.
Kelly

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
That's kinda what I was driving at: that somehow God ought to be held as reprehensible, given either His failure or refusal to keep the not-good from ever happening.

I hope my post above this one sheds more light on the topic.

After a military training exercise as we simulated combat we would then gather
around and both sides would discuss the battle as it played out, this learning
exercise helped everyone see how they could have done it better. If you
screwed up everyone there would know it, and if you did well the same. Now
there are times in scripture where Jesus points out that some people in one
time frame and place were going to stand in judgment over another, because
what they did when confronted with something was different than the another.

I think when this plays out completely all the little nasty things we do will be
revealed, all the little hidden good things we did will be revealed, and all the
games we played when we knew better will be revealed too. God isn't going
to be shown as the bad guy here, but evil in all its forms will be, and God's
grace and mercy given will be shown it wasn't because we somehow earned
it, but through God's grace alone will anyone be saved.
Kelly

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I pretty much already did, on page two.

God created the universe and subsequent creatures perfect.
Existence is good.
God's intent for each creature is life and happiness.
Each creature possesses a will.
God's will and each creature's will are coterminous.
Within space and time, some of the creatures opted against God's will and system.
The altern ication.
In the process of glorifying Himself, He allows all creatures life and happiness.

No, you did not pretty much state any argument on page 2. At any rate, thank you for presenting it now.

If this is your argument, I am afraid it has little to do with meeting the problem of evil. Your premises only raise more questions than they address. And it's not clear your conclusion (what is your conclusion, btw, exactly?) addresses the problem of evil. Here would be some questions you would need to address, to have any hope at actually bringing something to bear on the problem of evil:

(1) You state that God created the universe and creatures in a perfect state. Well, if they are perfect, then why the problem? Clearly evil successfully came about. You have not addressed how this eventuation is consistent with God's being all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good.

(2) "Existence is good"? I do not know what that means. If existence itself is good, then I guess it should follow that everything that exists is good? But the whole point of the problem of evil is that there exist some things that are evil. So, there must be counter-examples to this claim of yours. Please retract this claim, or clarify.

(3) "God's intent for each creature is life and happiness." Well that's bizarre, given that many creatures do not experience a fulfilling life, or much happiness. Is not God supposed to be all-knowing and all-powerful? If so, one would think that he could successfully fulfil his intentions for his creatures. For example, consider some neonate who is inflicted with a disease and who suffers badly and withers away and dies (this is something that has in fact played out numerous times). Such occurrences require some explaining, given that -- according to you -- God's intent for this neonate is life and happiness. Please explain this.

(4) "Each creature possesses a will." This is just demonstrably false. There are many supposed creatures, many of whom qualify as moral patients by any reasonable standard, who fail to have the mentality required for a will. Please retract this claim, or clarify.

(5) "God's will and each creature's will are coterminous." Honestly, I am not sure what this means. Again, though, it is false that each creature (or even each moral patient) has a will in the relevant sense.

(6) "Within space and time, some of the creatures opted against God's will and system." But I thought you claimed above that all creatures are brought about by God in a perfect state. See, now you are committing yourself to a bunch of seemingly conflicting claims. They are the following: that every creature is brought about in a perfect state; that every creature has a will (from the conjunction of which it presumably follows that every creature has a perfect will; after all, how would a perfect creature have an imperfect will?); that God also has a perfect will; but, that God and his creatures wills (both of which you are committed to as being perfect) are nevertheless in conflict. Please explain this apparent contradiction within your premises.

(7) "God allowed for the opted system to be played out." Again, supposing this is true, this only raises the question of how God was justified in doing so, or how this allowance is consistent with His being all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good. Your general theodicy is based around God's allowing human free will to make allowance for greater goods. But, this argument fails for a number of obvious reasons. First, you are still in need of explaining the apparent contradiction in your argument mentioned in (6). Second, it is demonstrably false that the existence of human free will in any way necessitates the degree of evil that exists. As trivial examples to demonstrate this, God could simply have created more beneficent creatures such that they freely choose to perform fewer evil acts; also, one's free will is not infringed upon if they are simply successfully prevented from being successful in the pursuit of what they freely will (thus you would need to explain, for example, why God would not simply prevent one from being successful in his freely choosing to rape a girl); also, this theodicy simply has nothing whatsoever to do with explaining the plethora of natural evils that exist, which is something that I have already brought to your attention and you have simply failed to address it in any way.

(8) You say that "in the system of good and evil, good/evil both advances and retreats." I do not know what you are trying to say here.

(9) You say "the sytem of good and evil cannot provide any meaningful significance to life." First, I am not sure exactly what that means. Second, if I take it at face value, then it only creates a contradiction within your argument. You stated very clearly before that God allows this system of good/evil to play out. The whole point of meeting the problem of evil is that there needs to be some compensating good or significance that plays out from God's allowance of such systems that involve evil. Now, however, you are flat stating that there is no compensating significance to it. So, you need to explain this apparent contradiction within your argument. You do understand, right, that if you admit there is no compensating signficance to God's allowing evil, then you have pretty much just defeated the point of theodicy?

(10) "God extends redemption for those in the system. God extends that redemption within the parameters of that system's rules and parameters." This has nothing to do with meeting the problem of evil. God could still of course extend redemption, or what-have-you, while allowing less evil to play out in the world.

(11) "What appears as the advance of evil does not correlate to anything outside of the system. What appears as the advance of good does not necessarily correlate to anything outside of the system, either, but it can." Honestly, I do not know what you are trying to say here.

(12) "God uses the system of good and evil for the greater good, i.e., His own glorification." I see. So, then, can you please explain how, for example, the suffering and death of the neonate I described above glorifies God? If such things bring satisfaction and glory to God, then all the more reason to doubt your claim that His glorification equates to the "greater good".

(13) "In the process of glorifying Himself, He allows all creatures life and happiness." Well, if you want to claim that God's allowance of evil is for the express purpose of bringing glory to Him, then I would have to conclude that in the process of glorifying Himself, He also allows a lot of death and unhappiness and suffering, too. That's what you actually need to explain, remember? The part about his allowing creatures life and happiness is not the problematic part, remember?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Who do you think should decide what suffering is necessary and what
suffering is needless?

For the sake of argument, "needless suffering" is usually defined as "suffering not logically necessary for the greater good".

Originally posted by LemonJello
No, you did not pretty much state any argument on page 2. At any rate, thank you for presenting it now.

If this is your argument, I am afraid it has little to do with meeting the problem of evil. Your premises only raise more questions than they address. And it's not clear your conclusion (what is your conclusion, btw, exactly?) addresses the proble ...[text shortened]... fe and happiness is not the problematic part, remember?

Well, if they are perfect, then why the problem?
Will of God and the will of His creatures are running conterminously.

"Existence is good"? I do not know what that means.
Creature seek to remain existent.

"God's intent for each creature is life and happiness."
Because each category of will is sovereign, there are bound to be differences.

"Each creature possesses a will."
While I concede that some creatures fail to reach a level of conscious accountability, the same still possess a will, a desire to be.

"God's will and each creature's will are coterminous."
The proverbial rock created bigger than can picked up. God created a sovereign will in each of us, in each of the angels. He does not violate that will; instead allows each to choose their own path.

But I thought you claimed above that all creatures are brought about by God in a perfect state.
Originally, yes. But when some of the creatures chose against His system, the state became less than perfect. All other creatures since then have been born into the less than perfect state.

Again, supposing this is true, this only raises the question of how God was justified in doing so, or how this allowance is consistent with His being all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good.
I don't have all the facts, but I have enough of the pertinent ones to surmise this: He thought the argument presented was compelling enough to warrant discovery of the issue.

You say that "in the system of good and evil, good/evil both advances and retreats." I do not know what you are trying to say here.
In this alternative system, neither has the upper hand.

You do understand, right, that if you admit there is no compensating signficance to God's allowing evil, then you have pretty much just defeated the point of theodicy?
Within the system of good and evil, there is no redeeming significance for either. There is great significance in His allowance of the system to be played out, however.

This has nothing to do with meeting the problem of evil. God could still of course extend redemption, or what-have-you, while allowing less evil to play out in the world.
He could also do the same with less good, presumably.

"What appears as the advance of evil does not correlate to anything outside of the system. What appears as the advance of good does not necessarily correlate to anything outside of the system, either, but it can." Honestly, I do not know what you are trying to say here.
The good that is in the system isn't intrinsic good, but rather, a facsimile or poor substitute of the good of intrinsic value outside of the system.

So, then, can you please explain how, for example, the suffering and death of the neonate I described above glorifies God? If such things bring satisfaction and glory to God, then all the more reason to doubt your claim that His glorification equates to the "greater good".
In what way was it a good strategy to allow the other team to score?