Evil means a Christian God cannot exist?

[jc104]

All knowing is a subset of omnipotent
.

This is not quite true as I attempted to explain in the OP. Omniscience implies that God is obliged to know everything, whereas omnipotence means that he has the ability to know everything. In the context of this agument, however, it can be considered that it is a subset of Omnipotence, since God would undeniably want to know.

Some of you are attempting to pass off our Human suffering as insignificant. The thing is though, it seems significant, and God knows that it does. He can prevent it with no effort, do why doesn't he?

Alltogether though, thankyou for contributing everyone. There is still no adequate explanation in my opinion, but I can now see how you might believe this without being stupid.

Unfortunately, however, this does seem to be straying somewhat from the original topic. For example, the much more complicated matter of whether a God exists. It is widely accepted that nobody is ever going to win that argument. Although we will never define omnipotence, certainly he is able to prevent natural disasters etc, which of course have nothing to do with free will

Finally, don't rise to that challenge for creativity. In reality, nothing more that cold, blunt logic is usually needed to refute such "creative" arguments.

 

[cantab]

No, he can't. The context is what is normally understood by the expected reader of a proposition, which should ideally match the intent of its writer. It is really just a "let's understand each other" issue. It is purely semantic and solely involves language and the people using it to communicate.

Let's put it this way: if, upon raising a point against a particular proposition, the proposition's author precises it to show that the point was based on a misunderstanding, then it should be obvious that the point is purely semantic. Its only effect is to force a disambiguation of the context.

Coming back to the idea that God cannot do the logically impossible: when any specific example of impossibility is given, that implies a logical and/or mathematical system - a 'context' - within which possible and impossible things can be defined. But there are a myriad, perhaps an infinity, of such systems.

Essentially, what I am saying is that an statement can be rendered void by showing it depends on a context that is not necessarily the case. Stating "square circles are impossible" depends on the context of Euclidean geometry. More fundamental than "to force a disambiguation of the context" is simply exposing the context. Once exposed, we can argue whether it is valid.

Now if you (reasonably so I feel) grant that we cannot know the logical system that applies to God (it need not be the same as that which applies to the Universe; even we have devised logical systems that are not those that apply to us), then while we may be able to make the statement that there are some things impossible for God, we can say nothing about what those things are. Which means we should be careful when trying to give examples.

This leads me to a conclusion that seemingly contradicts what I just said though. If we know that evil exists, and we assume that God is omnipotent within a logical system, and benevolent, then the existence of evil implies that it required in order for some good thing to also exist. This in turn gives us an angle to say something about the logical system that applies to God. It's not so unknowable after all. It remains, however, something that has to be determined based on evidence, and not one that can be defined a priori, unless you want to adopt as an article of faith that a given logic applies to God.

This doesn't of course mean we can pin it down to one logical system though. The arguments in this thread have assumed conventional logic, and I'm not sure we've even had a fully valid one. Both here and in general, I think there's been no exploration of explanations for evil in alternate logics for God.

 

[Deck Knight]

Evil exists because humans are fallible.

Suffering exists because humans are capable of experiencing it.

One can suffer with or without any evil being inflicted on them. One can suffer because they make themselves suffer with no outside influences. One can suffer because they and their ancestors have been sufficiently incompetent in maintaining their affairs to defend against probable catastrophe.

The amount of suffering is irrelevant to these premises. God doesn't become any more or any less likely depending on the human perception of suffering in the world. Many more people would "suffer" as we define it today during the time of Jesus and the early Church than they do today. We have merely increased our baseline expectations of comfort since those times.

People learn from suffering. Why is it we hear so much about the destruction of Haiti, yet it's neighbor country on the exact same island, The Dominican Republic, is largely unmentioned? Because unlike Haiti, The Dominican accounted for more potential natural disasters in the construction of their buildings than Haiti. This does not mean charitable efforts to Haiti are undeserved or improper, or that Haiti "brought it upon themselves" or as Pat Robertson stupidly commented, "angered God."

It was the same with Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans compared to the surrounding three states. Had NO bothered to maintain its levees, it could have prevented a large portion of the disaster Hurricane Katrina inflicted. Or perhaps the original founders of NO could have built their settlement above sea level. In either case, a macro argument can be made that this suffering is not the work of an unjust God but rather the consequence of human laziness over generational timespans.

Mao ran China into the ground with centralized planning. India had it's caste system. There are an infinite number of examples where human activity and relationships can be held to account for mass poverty, starvation, etc. Humans have the power to address these concerns and ought to do so. Salvation comes not from avoiding evil but from doing good. Anyone can avoid evil, avoiding evil is the lowest baseline of civil human engagement.

Evil is human-caused, and humans have free will. There is no context of evil without an absolute moral standard to go by that does not change based on the vanities of humanity. Is building substandard housing evil? It caused so much suffering, didn't it? It's an example of sloth, is it not? There is nothing evil about tectonic shifts and hurricanes, it's all in how we have prepared for them. We have the capacity to do so and should have, and we would have avoided the recent surplus in suffering had we followed through.

 

[eastamazonantidote]

The above post is very well written.

However, I am going to point out that the Christian God made man in his own image, and so as a result we're both fucked up. Either the Christian God doesn't exist or he made us during his teenage years.

 

[Brain]

Coming back to the idea that God cannot do the logically impossible: when any specific example of impossibility is given, that implies a logical and/or mathematical system - a 'context' - within which possible and impossible things can be defined. But there are a myriad, perhaps an infinity, of such systems.

Essentially, what I am saying is that an statement can be rendered void by showing it depends on a context that is not necessarily the case. Stating "square circles are impossible" depends on the context of Euclidean geometry. More fundamental than "to force a disambiguation of the context" is simply exposing the context. Once exposed, we can argue whether it is valid.

No, you can't. The context is a semantic tool. Once it's exposed, the idea that is being communicated has been made clear. There is absolutely nothing more to do after that. The point of language is to communicate - to argue about the context is to argue about word meaning, which is pointless unless that's exactly what you are trying to do.

Now if you (reasonably so I feel) grant that we cannot know the logical system that applies to God (it need not be the same as that which applies to the Universe; even we have devised logical systems that are not those that apply to us), then while we may be able to make the statement that there are some things impossible for God, we can say nothing about what those things are. Which means we should be careful when trying to give examples.

I think you're doing exactly what I warned against: conflating reality with semantics. As you use it, "the logical system that applies to God" is nonsense, it doesn't even mean anything to say that. Truth itself is defined relatively to a precise (conventional) logical system, it's not magical. Different systems of logic define different concepts of truth. If you use paraconsistent logic, for instance, you are not working with "truth" in the conventional sense of the word, you are working with "para-truth", a different concept with different properties, and so on. When you say "God can do X", you aim to refer to a particular action that you claim can be done by God, and you aim to communicate to others this concept, assuming an implicit context: typically, conventional logic, Euclidean geometry, and so on, are assumed. If "X" is unintelligible, then the proposition is false, because you failed to associate "X" to something meaningful. It has nothing to do with what God can or cannot do in reality - it has to do with semantic failure. Using the English language, one can engineer propositions that are self-inconsistent, and none of these propositions can obtain - they are meaningless, and any extended proposition that relies on them is equally meaningless.

When you change the logical system, you need to realize that you are not making a philosophical point, you are merely arguing for the redefinition of truth (perhaps for good reason, such as usefulness, but you have to be aware that it's a redefinition).

This doesn't of course mean we can pin it down to one logical system though. The arguments in this thread have assumed conventional logic, and I'm not sure we've even had a fully valid one. Both here and in general, I think there's been no exploration of explanations for evil in alternate logics for God.

No, and for very good reason: using alternate logics is nothing more than clever word play. Going that path, you essentially stop talking about conventional benevolence: you end up saying God is benevolent, for a contrived definition of benevolence... or for a contrived definition of truth itself. Don't get me wrong, alternate logics are powerful tools for those who know how and when to use them, but your prospected use of them seems more in line with semantic obfuscation than anything else.

Solving the problem of evil is about selling ideas and concepts to other people. It is a communication effort. God is utterly irrelevant here - you use whichever logical system is generally understood to be appropriate, or any alternate system that you can sell to others. In any case, it is nice if everybody is on the same page as to what words mean, what logical system is used, what concept of truth is used, what concept of existence is used, and so on.

 

[J-man]

The above post is very well written.

However, I am going to point out that the Christian God made man in his own image, and so as a result we're both fucked up. Either the Christian God doesn't exist or he made us during his teenage years.

Problem there is that you're defining God. When you do that, that's where the danger starts... I love Decknight's explanation for suffering, you hit the bullseye. Suffering isn't the result of God, it's the result of our fallible mistakes. Just because God doesn't stop suffering now doesn't mean he's a bad guy and can't exist. What people fail to understand is that Sin will get it's just reward during punishment. Suffering WILL end when God's children, which i daresay i wish that many people i know would be, are brought to heaven. It's not now, it's the future.

 

[Zach]

can i just ask j-man, how you know that you are truly god's 'favorite', and not the jews, or the muslims, or the mormons? Or peoples of any religion for that matter? How do you know your religion is 'correct' when all religions claim so as well

 

[Lusit]

This all falls back to the belief that god exists, and that's an entirely different argument...

 

[Obsessed]

What people fail to understand is that Sin will get it's just reward during punishment.

Wait. Do you honestly think eternal hellfire is a just punishment? Something tells me you have no idea how long an eternity actually is. Nobody deserves eternal suffering. Meanwhile liars, adulterers, unbaptized babies, aborted babies, and non-Christians get the same punishment as Hitler, Stalin, and suicide bombers.

 

[cantab]

Many more people would "suffer" as we define it today during the time of Jesus and the early Church than they do today.

Actually, many more people suffer today simply because the population is so much greater. Proportionately, the suffering is probably less though.

People learn from suffering. Why is it we hear so much about the destruction of Haiti, yet it's neighbor country on the exact same island, The Dominican Republic, is largely unmentioned?

Because the earthquake was 50 kilometres away from the border, and over a hundred from major population centres in the Dominican Republic. The quake was strong but not extreme magnitude (in 2009 there were 16 quakes of equal or greater magnitude), and was shallow - such quakes produce severe damage in a localised area. The USGS's 'Shakemap', http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/shakemap/global/shake/2010rja6/ shows clearly that the highest magnitude shaking is confined to Haiti.

 

[Luduan]

People learn from suffering. Why is it we hear so much about the destruction of Haiti, yet it's neighbor country on the exact same island, The Dominican Republic, is largely unmentioned? Because unlike Haiti, The Dominican accounted for more potential natural disasters in the construction of their buildings than Haiti. This does not mean charitable efforts to Haiti are undeserved or improper, or that Haiti "brought it upon themselves" or as Pat Robertson stupidly commented, "angered God." [. . .] Is building substandard housing evil? It caused so much suffering, didn't it? It's an example of sloth, is it not? There is nothing evil about tectonic shifts and hurricanes, it's all in how we have prepared for them. We have the capacity to do so and should have, and we would have avoided the recent surplus in suffering had we followed through.

On the contrary, you seem to be arguing exactly that: that human beings bring everything upon themselves. This is little more than a subtle way to blame the victim. I doubt that the average Haitian, who is unemployed, lives on around a dollar a day, and is dependent on foreign aid, can afford adequate housing. US-UN policies over the past two decades have ensured that the neutered Haitian government cannot provide it. You seem to not notice that government buildings, the headquarters of MINUSTAH, and World Bank offices were also destroyed in the earthquake. Somehow I doubt they were built to the same substandard level as shanty-towns in Cite Soleil, Cap-Haitian, or another of Port-au-Prince's slums. The reason the Domican Republic was not as heavily affected is because, guess what, the epicenter was in Haiti

Strong shaking associated with intensity VII–IX on the Modified Mercalli scale (MM) was recorded in Port-au-Prince and its suburbs. It was also felt in several surrounding countries and regions, including Cuba (MM III in Guantánamo), Jamaica (MM II in Kingston), Venezuela (MM II in Caracas), Puerto Rico (MM II–III in San Juan), and the bordering country of the Dominican Republic (MM III in Santo Domingo). According to estimates from the USGS, approximately 3.5 million people lived in the area that experienced shaking intensity of MM VII to X, a range that can cause moderate to very heavy damage even to earthquake-resistant structure.

So, yes, let's compare the MM III of Santa Domingo to the MM IX-X of Port-au-Prince and surrounding areas.

III. Felt quite noticeably by persons indoors, especially on upper floors of buildings. Many people do not recognize it as an earthquake. Standing motor cars may rock slightly. Vibrations similar to the passing of a truck. Duration estimated.

IX. Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well-designed frame structures thrown out of plumb. Damage great in substantial buildings, with partial collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations.

X. Some well-built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations. Rails bent

Clearly it is entirely the Haitians' fault for not building good enough housing!

 

[J-man]

Wait. Do you honestly think eternal hellfire is a just punishment? Something tells me you have no idea how long an eternity actually is. Nobody deserves eternal suffering. Meanwhile liars, adulterers, unbaptized babies, aborted babies, and non-Christians get the same punishment as Hitler, Stalin, and suicide bombers.

It's not yours to decide if one is deserving of eternal punishment or not. In fact, Hell isn't much of a punishment, rather Hell is the place you go to if you don't want to have anything to do with God. Which brings us back to the point that sin does not come from God but it was us who brought it upon ourselves for disobedience to God

 

[Melodrama Man]

It's not yours to decide if one is deserving of eternal punishment or not. In fact, Hell isn't much of a punishment, rather Hell is the place you go to if you don't want to have anything to do with God. Which brings us back to the point that sin does not come from God but it was us who brought it upon ourselves for disobedience to God

After reading the thread that chaos posted in firebot, I'm convinced you're either a magnificent troll, or an idiot.

In case of the latter, you will not be saving souls with this kind of jargon. You could at least bring a metaphor to the table to give some sort of tangibility to your argument. Quoting the bible by itself will never work, especially not on the internet.

Also, this whole thread, specifically the OP, seems like a huge troll to me. Not a funny one either.

*I'm not a christian*

 

[ivar]

God chose the best of all possible worlds, hence why evil and a benevolent and omnipotent God are compatible.

 

[Brain]

God chose the best of all possible worlds, hence why evil and a benevolent and omnipotent God are compatible.

That's all fine and dandy until you realize that making a world that's better than this one is a trivial exercise. The only situation where this world would be the best of all possible worlds would be under heavy metaphysical restrictions, all of which would go against God's omnipotence. You don't have to compromise if you are not restricted - God's choice isn't restricted to killing one man or killing two men, it isn't restricted between having earthquakes and hurricanes or even worse natural disasters. It isn't restricted between evil and an absence of free will either.

 

[Melodrama Man]

That's all fine and dandy until you realize that making a world that's better than this one is a trivial exercise. The only situation where this world would be the best of all possible worlds would be under heavy metaphysical restrictions, all of which would go against God's omnipotence. You don't have to compromise if you are not restricted - God's choice isn't restricted to killing one man or killing two men, it isn't restricted between having earthquakes and hurricanes or even worse natural disasters. It isn't restricted between evil and an absence of free will either.

Did you just miss the troll factor of his statement(and name) or are you just trolling his troll.

 

[DIABLO69]

Each of us could post millions of posts hear, but we won't solve anything. Every good point here will have an equally good argument.I think the best thing we can do in our short lives is to accept that we will never know everything, especially how we arrived on "Earth" and what we are supposed to do here.

The best thing we can do is try to be the best person we can be, because, surely helping our fellow man, and animals shows (if you beleive in any type of) G-d that we should be shown the truth? THAT IS THE BEST ANSWER WE WILL EVER GET! I needed to put that in caps because it is the only answer which can be entirely accepted by everyone, and surely this shows more will power than worship? Being entirely kind, giving and forgiveful...is impossible, but we should all try.

This argument has been going on since the dawn of man, and we should all know that some Pokemon community will NOT end it, unless, we be the best person we can be...

 

[cookie]

Because life is a test and without evil there is no problems and therefore no challenge.

"Life is a test"

Consider someone born in Ethiopia or Haiti or whatever and dies within a couple weeks from starvation. What kind of 'test' has his life been? Does he go to heaven because he hasn't sinned (or has otherwise met the conditions required to enter heaven) or to hell because he wasn't a christian or has otherwise not met these conditions, even though he hasn't had time to meet them in the mean time? If the former, it creates a loophole for getting into heaven: just slay any child as soon as it's born, and this test that is life is a sham if it can be cheated so easily; and if the latter, then you have people being condemned to eternal damnation in a way that is out of their control - something that if god is happy with then I'm not sure he satisfies the benevolence condition.

 

[jc104]

Also, this whole thread, specifically the OP, seems like a huge troll to me. Not a funny one either

This is not a troll, and it is an important question, which is difficult to present without seeming contraversial (I should've made more effort not to be so - it's a difficult balance between promoting discussion, whilst being contraversial, and being boring) Anyway, since this is going nowhere, I see no point in further discussion.

In response to below, I did not think I would change anyone's mind if they were already convinced about Christianity - the idea is to make those who aren't think a little. The question is important, but the thread isn't. Also, if I had spent more time on the OP (ie more than 5 minutes,) I'm sure I could have made my case much better. I thought that possibly I or someone else could respond to questions as they were asked. Also, I somewhat enjoy this as a topic for discussion, as clearly do many others.

Curiously, the only exam I ever really failed (by that I mean not the very top grade) was largely on this subject. In a way I am actually looking for understanding myself rather than to influence the opinion of others. As you have probably gathered, I am quite dismissive about anything that is not logical, and believe that sometimes the shortest answer is best on these issues. It only takes one counterexample to disprove something, and therefore it is up to the others to criticise my example, as far as i am concerned. If this seems to brief or blunt then I apologise.

I would now actually be quite happy if this were locked - there is no longer any real discussion of note.


Deck knight's post is an excellent explanantion of the free will argument (although it still does not explain why we have free will), and is in no way offensive or trolling, so it it clear that at least some people took this seriously.

There is also nothing funny about any of this, as you said. (apart from the post about God as a teenager)

 

[Melodrama Man]

This is not a troll, and it is an important question, which is difficult to present without seeming contraversial (I should've made more effort not to be so - it's a difficult balance between promoting discussion, whilst being contraversial, and being boring) Anyway, since this is going nowhere, I see no point in further discussion.

Deck knight's post is an excellent explanantion of the free will argument (although it still does not explain why we have free will), and is in no way offensive or trolling, so it it clear that at least some people took this seriously.

There is also nothing funny about any of this, as you said. (apart from the post about God as a teenager)

Are you really that naive to think that raising a question like this is important, or that it'll somehow change people like J-Man's mind. You cannot deal with any christian like that because they believe that if they start re-evaluating their opinions on the Bible that it will keep them from, or lower their standing in paradise. It's a mindset that isn't broken with an internet forum. Another thing to think about, I used to be a hardcore evangelical and believe me, it wasn't arguments like this that broke my faith. If you were really serious about this yourself, you'd have at least taken the time to play their own game against them and given them a few sickly bible verses that nobody talks about because they give a completely different image of god than the one they have. They usually just throw jargon at them as explainations but it gnaws at the ones that have hearts.

The point is, I don't think you explained your case well enough to be considered serious and threads like this are usually always aggressive which is big red light when it comes to recognizing trolls.

 

[ivar]

That's all fine and dandy until you realize that making a world that's better than this one is a trivial exercise. The only situation where this world would be the best of all possible worlds would be under heavy metaphysical restrictions, all of which would go against God's omnipotence. You don't have to compromise if you are not restricted - God's choice isn't restricted to killing one man or killing two men, it isn't restricted between having earthquakes and hurricanes or even worse natural disasters. It isn't restricted between evil and an absence of free will either.

Who is to say God is being restricted when choosing the best of all possible worlds? God chooses, from an infinite set of possibilities, the best world, hence why there is no compromising.

We say since there is evil this best possible world must be chosen from a finite set of possible worlds (with the infinite set including a world without evil) but that is not true. God intended the world to be as is, for reasons beyond our understanding. This evil feels senseless, but who is to say that it is even evil?

Not trolling but playing devil's advocate, the difference being I'm not trying to anger Brain but instead see what sort of argument he will respond with. Plus, I'm getting bored of this whole God thing and want to try the other side for a change.

 

[Melodrama Man]

Not trolling but playing devil's advocate, the difference being I'm not trying to anger Brain but instead see what sort of argument he will respond with. Plus, I'm getting bored of this whole God thing and want to try the other side for a change.

So you want to make an irritating argument to raise the attention of someone so that you don't have to be bored anymore???

 

[cantab]

Who is to say God is being restricted when choosing the best of all possible worlds? God chooses, from an infinite set of possibilities, the best world, hence why there is no compromising.

We say since there is evil this best possible world must be chosen from a finite set of possible worlds (with the infinite set including a world without evil) but that is not true. God intended the world to be as is, for reasons beyond our understanding. This evil feels senseless, but who is to say that it is even evil?

None of this actually explains the reason for evil. You are simply taking as an article of faith that the world we know is the overall 'best' possible world. Your answer amounts to saying that a world without evil would be a worse world overall, but you do not seek to explain why that would be the case.

And an infinite set of worlds need not include any that lack evil.

 

[ivar]

It's not meant to be irritating; I stole it from Leibniz. Just because you do not find it agreeable or it does not fit according to your "everyone arguing for God is either a moron or a troll" mantra does not mean it is designed in anyway to incite anger. Unless you think Leibniz wrote the Monadology to troll people. So ummm... pull your head out of your ass.

cantab, all the best possible world hypothesis entails is that there can be both evil and a benevolent God. Evil need not be explained, nor must there be an explanation as to why a world with evil is the best possible world.

The purpose of the argument is to demonstrate that a benevolent God and evil are logically compatible. This does not necessitate God's existence, but it does answer the thread question: evil does NOT mean the Christian God CANNOT exist (doesn't mean he DOES exist either). And last I checked the thread question is the most pertinent point of discussion.

Without the best world hypothesis I cannot imagine the concept of God not resulting in a contradiction: either he is malevolent and omnipotent (can stop evil but chooses not to) or he is benevolent but cannot stop evil (thus not omnipotent). Both options are incompatible with the Christian God.

 

[Melodrama Man]

It's not meant to be irritating; I stole it from Leibniz. Just because you do not find it agreeable or it does not fit according to your "everyone arguing for God is either a moron or a troll" mantra does not mean it is designed in anyway to incite anger. Unless you think Leibniz wrote the Monadology to troll people. So ummm... pull your head out of your ass.

It's not arguing about god, it's arguing about god on the internet. You won't change anyone's mind and it just turns into a locked, dead thread, with angry people on both sides. It's like people never learn this simple fact. You can't change anyone's beliefs without knowing them personally. I know this from the crazy amount of years I've done it. So yes, everyone who argues about god on the internet is either an idiot or a troll. Or just trying to pass time for no real reason. In any case it's completely unproductive and a waste of energy.