In Philosophy of Religion — robbiefrost

Did your prof. or the textbook define for your purposes what a religion is? Or what (a) philosophy is? Or sin? Or even what the Greek term for sin means? - Why Greek? Because that's the language of the NT. Is evil, then, a sin? The notion that God is presupposed (implied by your OP) disqualifies your prof.'s discussion from serious consideration.

Or if presupposed, that alone suggests a whole semester's worth, and more, of separate problems to solve.

The "Problem of Evil" points towards the existence of evil and it being seemingly irreconcilable with the existence of God. However, in pointing out this "existence" of evil it glosses over the question of where exactly "evil" exists. Isn't evil but a mental label humans slap onto certain forms of behavior? Evil is illusory and it doesn't exist outside of our own minds. There is no problem of evil, since there is no evil (outside of our own minds).

The answer seems to be the horse, despite it's ability to sin, — robbiefrost

I didn't know that horses could sin. That just doesn't make sense to me within the (I assume) Christian framework you're employing.

God's pets. That's us.

If g/G always freely does good and refrains from doing bad and if g/G made mortals who have "free will" and if mortals occasionally, even often, do bad and refrain from doing good, then g/G made mortals who have "free will" which is too weak for them to always freely choose to do good and refrain from doing bad; therefore, given gratuitous suffering that's useless for suffering mortals, the only g/G-concept consistent with (such) reality is either sadistic or fictional - neither of which seems "worthy of worship" (or so the purported PoE's usually suspect "free will theodicy" seems). :eyes:

God's pets. That's us. — Ciceronianus the White

:pray: :sweat:

Problem of evil is answered by christians in four ways:

1- mans evil is caused by his freedom not by god
2- natures evil is necessary for creation or part of gods higher plan

3- god helps stop evil sometimes if you pray.

4- god gives justice in the afterlife

evil doesnt really refute the existence of a personal god. i never use that argument, i have much better refutations of theism

This checks out for me, and makes logical sense. However, in the moments of personal tragedy and evil, I cannot help but question why God couldn't make the simple exception to spare me from the pain. — robbiefrost

If God is omnipotent, then it must be possible for God to create a world that has free will, and no evil, no?

Evil is illusory and it doesn't exist outside of our own minds. There is no problem of evil, since there is no evil (outside of our own minds). — Tzeentch

It's sufficient for the evil to exist in our own minds. Whether or not the evil is illusory, the suffering it causes is real.

It's sufficient for the evil to exist in our own minds. Whether or not the evil is illusory, the suffering it causes is real. — Echarmion

:up:

If God is omnipotent, then it must be possible for God to create a world that has free will, and no evil, no? — Echarmion

creation is not omnipotent. it is finite and limited, and therefore may not be perfectible for that reason. material creation creates a bottleneck upon omnipotence.

It's sufficient for the evil to exist in our own minds. Whether or not the evil is illusory, the suffering it causes is real. — Echarmion

if god changed your thoughts then he would violate your freedom. you have to take responsibility for it yourself and learn and grow a person. which is part of gods plan for you.

------------------------------------

im not promoting theism im just saying your points are flawed

creation is not omnipotent. it is finite and limited, and therefore may not be perfectible for that reason. material creation creates a bottleneck upon omnipotence. — OmniscientNihilist

That's contradictory. If you argue that some things just cannot be done, you have to drop the "omni" in "omnipotent".

if god changed your thoughts then he would violate your freedom. you have to take responsibility for it yourself and learn and grow a person. which is part of gods plan for you. — OmniscientNihilist

God doesn't need to change my thoughts. God just needs to set up the world so that my thoughts cannot cause harm. God can make a plan that works without anyone suffering.

That's contradictory. If you argue that some things just cannot be done, you have to drop the "omni" in "omnipotent". — Echarmion

there is a difference between real omnipotence and magic

if you use magical thinking then god can do anything even make a square circle

if you use real omnipotence then he cant make a square circle because its illogical

even an omnipotent being would still be limited by the factors of the creation he setup, he cannot contradict his own creation. otherwise it just pure magic, which is just nonsense magical thinking

any creation, no matter which it is, will have limitations of some kinds somewhere. it can never attain the fake perfection of the idealist.

what your asking may be nothing more then words in your mind that are impossible in real existence. like a square circle, its just two words put together, it cannot exist outside of words.

also your wanting creation to be like heaven. creation is deliberately not heaven. (in the christian story)

god himself is said to be all-good. not things outside him, like you or creation etc... god himself will not directly do evil to you ever, or that would contradict his nature.

there is a difference between real omnipotence and magic

if you use magical thinking then god can do anything even make a square circle

if you use real omnipotence then he cant make a square circle because its illogical — OmniscientNihilist

So the first problem here is that "logical" is a property of propositions, not of things. Logic doesn't tell reality how to behave.

The second problem is that you haven't established why it is illogical to have a world with free will but without evil.

even an omnipotent being would still be limited by the factors of the creation he setup, he cannot contradict his own creation. otherwise it just pure magic, which is just nonsense magical thinking — OmniscientNihilist

Everything that includes omnipotent gods is nonsense magical thinking. That's actually the reason the problem of evil is so intractable.

Anyways if the setup is too limiting, just create a different setup.

any creation, no matter which it is, will have limitations of some kinds somewhere. it can never attain the fake perfection of the idealist. — OmniscientNihilist

How do you know that?

what your asking may be nothing more then words in your mind that are impossible in real existence. like a square circle, its just two words put together, it cannot exist outside of words. — OmniscientNihilist

You have this backwards. If your words don't describe reality, your words are wrong, not the other way around.

The idea of free will and God’s will are contradictory — NOS4A2

gods plan is the bigger picture, it does not include every single little detail, it does not include every little choice you make down here on this tiny planet. and therefore they can be compatible in that way.

or it does include every possibility and accounts for it within the plan. so some variation is allowed and accounted for.

The idea of free will and God’s will are contradictory. If the universe is God’s will, God’s plan, we do not have free will. If we do have free will, the universe is not God’s plan, not God’s will. How can we be evil if God has a plan for us? Etc.

The forum seems to have eaten your answer to me, and your answer to Nosferatu is now actually in front of his post.

Ask your professor his personal views on omnipotence. And ask him if in history there were other theologians & philosophers who struggled with the concept of evil viz Omni-x3.

For example, theist/philosopher's St Thomas and Epicurus struggled with that very same reconciliation (of evil/omnipotence). Accordingly, modern-day Process Theology provides for a more plausible explaination.

As a Christian Existentialist, I certainly recommend you continue to ask questions and explore all information available to you in researching the topic. However, keep in mind that no one has a complete explaination relative to understanding God's nature.

As other's have suggested here, you don't have to believe in Omnipotence to be a Christian.

Omnipotent G/g (OG/g): The best of all possible worlds is one wherein each person's free will - imago dei - is strong enough for him or her to Always Freely choose to do good and refrain from doing bad.

Omnipotent G/g (OG/g): For Shits & Giggles as if I didn't exist or give a fuck, Let's Not create the best of all possible worlds. :fire: :eyes:

"Logically, I can see why evil exists and why free will is so valuable, but to the extent of gratuitous evil, one that is generous and without purpose, why would God, in His infinite power, make an exception and spare the sufferer. Surely this would not collapse the entire system of free will?”

From this, I recognize a response for the evidential argument from evil also discussed in class, which is to what extent God owes us anything. Also, the idea that if God where to stop a gratuitous evil, does a positive good ultimately stem from that, or does evil still occur. God could prevent that one gratuitous evil, but that does not mean that another evil slightly lesser or nearly equivalent would occur. Even if it where to occur, perhaps God had slightly more of a reason to allow the gratuitous evil, then to not allow it at all. From there, God could always prevent another evil from being slightly less evil, but then where would it end?

I believe your argument follows as :

1. God is the greatest possible being.
2. If one is capable they should ensure that gratuitous evils do not exist.
3. God is capable thus he should end gratuitous evils.

My argument : against premise 2

1. God allows gratuitous evils.
2. Gratuitous evils should be stopped if they emit a positive good.
3. There is no evidence that stopping a gratuitous evil emits a positive good.
4. God should not stop gratuitous evils (2,3).

I don't agree. Suffering likewise takes place in our minds.

I don't agree. Suffering likewise takes place in our minds. — Tzeentch

That doesn't help the people who are suffering.

2. Gratuitous evils should be stopped if they emit a positive good.
3. There is no evidence that stopping a gratuitous evil emits a positive good. — LizNH

Stopping a gratuitous evil "emits" a good by definition.

That doesn't help the people who are suffering. — Echarmion

Understanding the nature of something is the first step in overcoming it. If people do not wish to understand, that is their choice.

God allows Evil. There is no getting away from that.

The only plausible argument is that he made Evil for some unseen benefit - to us or God. The argument for the ‘pet’ is a little silly as far as I can see because it basically says ‘life is dull without evil’. So God was bored and sadistic by creating Evil.

If I was to argue for a ‘logical’ answer I’d go for Evil being a necessary contrast needed to feel Good. I still don’t see how that would excuse a child dying in agony of bone cancer though. If God preferred the Good why torture innocent children? Washing his hands of us is either due to his own short coming as a ruler of humanity or something done out of some twisted sadistic amusement.

Or maybe God isn’t the creator and ruler of everything. Maybe God did create humanity and the universe but sadly God was naive/arrogant in assuming Evil was Good for us. Of course anyone could simply say ‘have faith’ and be done with it. Fair enough. Personally I don’t buy into it but I certainly cannot see how anyone can logically say Evil is good AND God is all powerful - if so then God is necessarily Evil (knowingly creating and torturing lesser beings).

Understanding the nature of something is the first step in overcoming it. If people do not wish to understand, that is their choice. — Tzeentch

Oh, so what are the other steps towards overcoming, say, loosing your family in an earthquake?

The loss of a family member is an event, and an event cannot be overcome, only accepted. But I am assuming you meant to ask "how to overcome the grief of loosing your family in an earthquake?", which I will simplify to "how to overcome the grief of losing a loved one?"

Since one cannot change past events, the only rational mental end state is acceptance, which coincidentally is also commonly seen as the last stage of grief. The faster we can accept past events, the faster the grief they inflict can be overcome. However, in situations like these our emotional responses often interfere with the process of acceptance. The loss of a loved one can come as a great mental shock. Why?

Because of one's attachment and one's perception of loss.

Attachment to material things, including people and indeed one's own life, is the source of most if not all of man's suffering. Since all that is material is fleeting, loss of these things is unavoidable, and attachment to these things is irrational. By attaching ourselves to things which one will unavoidably lose, one is setting themselves up to suffer. Sadly, we live in a world in which a deeply materialistic worldview is almost universally perpetuated.

Furthermore, when one loses a loved one many will, consciously or unconsciously, make the assumption that they will never see them again. This assumption, whatever the basis may be, is irrational, since no one knows what happens after a person dies. Making the assumption that death is the end, regardless of how well-informed one thinks it is, is a choice, and once again one has created their own suffering.

Take a child's toy and it may cry, for it was attached to the toy. It therefore suffers.
Skip forward one hour and look at the child. It is no longer crying. Why? The past hasn't changed and its toy was still taken. The child has moved on and is thinking about something else. It no longer suffers.

I'd like to add that we are now talking about natural events, like earthquakes and death, which cannot be considering evil, which was the original topic. I don't mind the detour but I still wanted to acknowledge that.

2. Gratuitous evils should be stopped if they emit a positive good.
3. There is no evidence that stopping a gratuitous evil emits a positive good.
— LizNH

Stopping a gratuitous evil "emits" a good by definition. — Echarmion

Not necessarily. Some methods of ‘stopping evil’ contribute greatly to suffering. War, for instance, does not ‘emit a good’.

Not necessarily. Some methods of ‘stopping evil’ contribute greatly to suffering. War, for instance, does not ‘emit a good’. — Possibility

One could argue that war contributes to evil instead of stopping it. Fighting suffering with suffering does not stop suffering, fighting fear with fear does not stop fear, ..., love does. Good spreads as evil shrinks and vice versa.

:up:

Attachment to material things, including people and indeed one's own life, is the source of most if not all of man's suffering. Since all that is material is fleeting, loss of these things is unavoidable, and attachment to these things is irrational. By attaching ourselves to things which one will unavoidably lose, one is setting themselves up to suffer. — Tzeentch

That’s the one thing I disagree with in Buddhism. While I agree with the idea that attachment to desire leads to suffering, how can there be love without attachment to life? If some powerful force wants to cause suffering and destroy all life, are we supposed to watch it happen and be content that we are not suffering because we are not attached to anything? And then beauty and love and happiness will be gone, is it worth it to give up all that just to avoid suffering?

And then, isn’t it that the root cause of suffering is not attachment to desire, but loss itself, separation? Becoming detached is a way to cope with loss, but what if loss is not a fatality but something caused by an evil that really exists beyond one’s mind? Then seeing loss as an unavoidable fact of existence would be blinding ourselves to this evil and be left with two options: suffer, or be detached from love and from life.

Whether there can be love without attachment is a valid question, to which a Buddhist would answer in the affirmative. To explain how and why is perhaps better left to actual Buddhist teachers and not me.

To the question of how to deal with destructive forces, I would tend towards a "turn the other cheek" approach. The assumption is that all men are Good in essence, but are corrupted by their material existence. By giving the right example one may cause them to see the error of their ways. An "eye for an eye" or "fight fire with fire" approach are fundamentally flawed as solutions, though.

However, understanding attachment and the cause of suffering doesn't mean one may never act to preserve something, like in the act of self-defense. One would simply have to accept the suffering that may come along with such an act.

Lastly, I would disagree that loss or separation is the root cause of suffering, since without attachment there is no sense of loss or separation.