The Logical Problem of Evil

Isabel Hu

Based on the old logical problem of evil which has been addressed since a long time ago, I have certain objection to its premise. Firstly, let me lay out the argument as follows:

1. If God exists, then
a. God has the power to eliminate all evil.
b. God knows how to eliminate all evil.
c. God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
2. If anyone has the power/knowledge/desire to eliminate all evil, then evil does not exist.
3. Therefore, if God exists, then evil does not exist.
4. Evil exists.
5. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

My rejection has regards to premise 1c. I think it is reasonable that God has the power and also knows how to eliminate all evil since he is considered to be the Creator of everything in the world. However, based on the study of Bible, I don’t think it’s the definite case that God has the desire to eliminate all evil, but God doesn’t favor all evil. Moreover, it seems to be very likely that God actually intends to put evil in the world as an intermediary to strengthen people’s faith and ultimately align with goodness. Based on Philemon and 1 Corinthians 7:17-24, it is clear that the institution of slavery is objected or at least not favored by Christian value, but there are no explicit words of objection delivered in Bible; instead, there is only conservative preaching such as what Paul writes in Philemon 1:14 when he tries to ask Philemon to free Onesimus (a slave of Philemon): “…so that any favor you do would not seem forced but would be voluntary.”

Here, it is clear that the evil is the institution of slavery and God doesn’t favor this evil; however, the text listed above also implies the idea that instead of forcing or coercing someone to do something, it is more of God’s will to give guidance and gradually lead someone to the good path, because making people voluntarily realize their sins and return to goodness is the more meaningful way which can truly defeat the evil and guide people to the goodness. Thus, ultimately, I don’t think God has the desire to eliminate all evil directly; instead, I think that despite he doesn’t favor evil, he somehow intentionally puts evil in the world and considers it as a method to strengthen people’s faith and guide them to ultimate goodness.

KerimF

Actually, when and where 'true' love is supposed to exist but fails to do, we may say evil replaces it.
Similarly, scientists define the notion of 'hole' in electricity. It replaces an electron during its move (electric current).

schopenhauer1

Here, it is clear that the evil is the institution of slavery and God doesn’t favor this evil; however, the text listed above also implies the idea that instead of forcing or coercing someone to do something, it is more of God’s will to give guidance and gradually lead someone to the good path, because making people voluntarily realize their sins and return to goodness is the more meaningful way which can truly defeat the evil and guide people to the goodness. Thus, ultimately, I don’t think God has the desire to eliminate all evil directly; instead, I think that despite he doesn’t favor evil, he somehow intentionally puts evil in the world and considers it as a method to strengthen people’s faith and guide them to ultimate goodness. — Isabel Hu

So then God puts people in a game where one must be harmed and go through trials and tribulations to prove their "goodness".
A) This seems petty-like the mindset of a petty human basketball coach or sports enthusiast. I guess the ole Bible says humans are made in God's image. It sounds like God is made in human's image here. God the grand inventor of the sport of overcoming evil and being good. Boring at the least.

B) God would be kind of a prick to put people through evil just so they can "realize" how to overcome it. Again, another case of God invented from human constructs of reality.

In a way, procreation is very akin to this. Have children, watch them go through the trials and tribulations of life, and overcoming various obstacles. Seems like a game that doesn't need to be foisted in the first place. But don't speak ill to your master, he is jealous, angry, and apparently his day job is cursing the ungrateful who don't respect or pray to him. Because again, this is apparently how an "almighty" being operates. I guess a petty jealous, angry cursing god is more interesting than an indifferent, deadbeat one.

KerimF

Therefore, God doesn’t exist. — Isabel Hu

Actually, a 'ruling' God doesn't exist :)

Otherwise, such god would look as a needy worldly king who has no choice but looking to have followers and slaves and limiting himself by a law which he should apply on them.

I am sure I didn't made myself, therefore I am created, but surely I am not created by a supernatural needy master... a ruling god.

About evil, I explained it already.

Actually, when and where 'true' love is supposed to exist but fails to do, we may say evil replaces it.
Similarly, scientists define the notion of 'hole' in electricity. It replaces an electron during its move (electric current). — KerimF

schopenhauer1

Actually, when and where 'true' love is supposed to exist but fails to do, we may say evil replaces it.
Similarly, scientists define the notion of 'hole' in electricity. It replaces an electron during its move (electric current). — KerimF

What is 'true' love? How does 'true' love logically entail evil replacing it an immediate consequence? Is evil that which is not 'true' love? That's a broad definition of evil at the least.

KerimF

What is 'true' love? — schopenhauer1

Very good question indeed.
But I am afraid that if someone cannot perceive it by himself, he has no choice but seeing it as fiction and what I said about it and evil would sound to him as non-sense.

schopenhauer1

Very good question indeed.
But I am afraid that if someone cannot perceive it by himself, he has no choice but seeing it as fiction and what I said about it and evil would sound to him as non-sense. — KerimF

Sounds Neoplatonic in some way or Augustinian. Evil is defined as the absence of good. Good here is similar to 'true love' I guess. But even this still has to be explained.

Certainly what matters is people's social relations, and how one fits in the context of a human society. All this other speculation is secondary. If you are living off nothing but dirt, speculation on "true love" or holes filled in the crystal lattice structure of an electron band, don't mean a thing. One's thoughts are roughly compared to how many needs are already being met in the realm of survival and comfort. Then one can have time for speculations on abstract things. Ascetics try to do all at once. Survival, comfort, and contemplation are tied into all of life. A truly true ascetic would be somehow desireless and starve to death with no care in the world. Impossible, sure. Every mythos needs a heroic journey of the participant. The grand nirvana of the Buddha or Bodhisattva, the Saint, the Mystic, the adherent, etc.

Of course, for the ascetic to be desireless, they have to have lived the construct of a desiring human. They had to have been built up by social construction in order to deconstruct through ascetic practice and contemplation. Even turning away from the desiring itself is conceptual. But Buddhist philosophy tries to get to the non-conceptual and get "beyond" concept. Zen, is especially fond of this idea. However, is it possible to get non-conceptual? Not sure. That is an interesting concept.

KerimF

↪schopenhauer1

Well said, if we presume that the today's human beings are all made of the same structure, hence having somehow the same priorities in life in order to satisfy it (their being... their structure).

Typically, a new comer to life likes believing that all other humans are made like him. So he tries his best to find out the logical reasons for which other's beliefs sound different from his, if not opposite
I lived this state of confusion till age 30 :( Then, I realized that I had seeing/discovering the world as it is and not as I like it to be. By following this path, my knowledge started to be realistic and now, no one surprises me including my dear atheists and formal theists.

sarah young

↪Isabel Hu

As god is described in the christian bible, he is omnibenevolent, or all loving, it can be inferred then, that it would pain him to see evil, cruelties, and pain in the world. He is also described as being omnipotent, or all powerful, so it can be inferred that he has the power to remove the want to do evil from mankind. Furthermore he is described as omniscient, or all knowing, if this is true then he knows that the evil is happening, and how to use his power to simply remove the will to do evil and cause pain from humanity. Yet he doesn't, and Occam's razor my friend, it requires less logical leaps to say that a god, as described in the christian bible does not exist, than to say that he'd rather put humans through trials to test their faith.

I do not state that no god can exist, I simply propose the question: do you really wanna worship a guy who lets all the wrong in the world happen knowingly? Or one who is unaware of the wrong in the world? Or one who is powerless to stop the wrong in the world? Or perhaps, worst of all, a god complicit in it as you have described him to be?

Down The Rabbit Hole

It is possible for an all-loving god to allow evil, despite having the power to stop it. However, considering that people suffer in hell for eternity for finite offences, it does seem improbable that they would allow this.

Olivier5

↪Isabel Hu

Old argument, but a logical one. The existence of evil pleads for manichaeism rather than monotheism. Hence the character of the Devil, as the god of evil.

Olivier5

I find the existence of evil hard to explain in an atheist framework, by the way. Does anyone have a theory? I think Freud's Thanatos is perhaps the begining of an idea.

Emma

↪Isabel Hu

From what I have read it looks like your conclusion is that God intentionally put evil in the world to help us develop some sense of ultimate goodness. Because of this you think the logical problem of evil is not in fact a problem at all for Christianity. First, I think it directly contradicts the Christian faith to claim that God intentionally put evil into the world. From what I understand, according to the Bible, Satan is the root of all evil, not God. If that is the case, then claiming that God placed evil in the world intentionally creates just as big of a problem for the Christian faith as the logical problem of evil does since it would directly contradict the book in which the Christian faith is based on. Second, it seems a bit silly to think that a being wouldn’t favor a behavior He created and that He has the power to destroy. Certainly any sane being who didn’t like something would just destroy it if they had the power to and they certainly wouldn't have created it to begin with if they knew they would hate it (which the Christian god would since He is omnipotent). Furthermore, if a being who is supposedly good in every way were to exist, how could that being create evil? It seems to contradict the very nature of the Christian God to be able to create something that is His complete opposite. Last, even if God intentionally put evil into the world for us to learn, wouldn’t He have told us that? There’s an entire book about how we are supposed to live our lives and the mistakes other humans have made along the way. I think God would have included this very important piece of information in the Bible rather than blaming it on Satan?

Isaac242

it seems to be very likely that God actually intends to put evil in the world as an intermediary to strengthen people’s faith and ultimately align with goodness. — Isabel Hu

Although this may be true, who knows, I believe it's safer to argue that god did not actually intend to put evil into this world, but rather it was a product of many of the good things he brought into the world, i.e. free will. If God truly meant to put evil in the world, then he most definitely isn't all loving and all good. If you were to say that it was rather a product, as I stated previously, it opens the door to God still being good and evil still being present in the world.

To go into further depth on this, God may have viewed free will as a necessity. If there wasn't free will, then, once again, it would seem that God isn't all good and he would seem more like a puppeteer messing around with his puppets. Given that free will exists, we might as well be led to assume that it brings around more good than bad, because an all good God would never do the opposite, but also gives a place for evil things to happen without god impeding upon them. If God were to stop evil, then, in many cases, it would directly be interfering with the notion of free will.

This seems like a good place to tie in the soul-making theodicy as you mentioned in your last paragraph. These "evil" things, as many others have mentioned, could be described as genocide, murder, rape, etc., but not all evil takes place as an extreme. Many evils, like ice on the roads in winter, can be painful and yet most people, emphasis on most, learn to drive more carefully in general whether it's icy or not after going through an experience such as sliding through a red light. Nothing happened after sliding through the red light, but you definitely learned something beneficial. Many of the evils we face are not as extreme as the ones I mentioned before; rape, murder, etc., but I suppose it's easier to look at those and say "Yeah, there's definitely nothing good there and nothing good will every come out of that." Seems like an issue with perspective.

Mijin

To go into further depth on this, God may have viewed free will as a necessity. If there wasn't free will, then, once again, it would seem that God isn't all good and he would seem more like a puppeteer messing around with his puppets. Given that free will exists, we might as well be led to assume that it brings around more good than bad, because an all good God would never do the opposite, but also gives a place for evil things to happen without god impeding upon them. If God were to stop evil, then, in many cases, it would directly be interfering with the notion of free will. — Isaac242

This is the standard solution to the problem of evil, but it doesn't actually work.

How do I make decisions? I make decisions based on prior experiences and the kind of person I am. Well, God made all of those things. God knew, when he created me, that I am X type of person and my environment Y would lead to the end result Z. What other inputs could there be?

Furthermore, we can ask questions like Is there free will in heaven? If there is free will and no suffering in heaven, then why didn't God just make heaven only and call it a day? At the least it would show God's hands were not tied, as it is possible to make an environment with free will and no suffering.

god must be atheist

From what I understand, according to the Bible, Satan is the root of all evil, not God. — Emma

God created everything. That includes evil, Satan,everything. He is the origo. The bible says that too.

So what do you believe, Emma; that god did not create everything, and therefore there are things in the world which god did not create; or else that evil was created by god. there are no other choices.

god must be atheist

I believe it's safer to argue that god did not actually intend to put evil into this world, but rather it was a product of many of the good things he brought into the world, i.e. free will. — Isaac242

As a belief, it works, because you beleive whatever you want. But if you want us to see your point and accept it, then you have to show how all good things can eventually come up creating a bad thing, if only as a by-product.

I said "things" but since evil presupposes intention, it is humans who commit evil acts. So you have to show how people who only do good things produce eventually evil as a bi-product. Evil as a noun does not exist, it is only an attribute to actions by people. Satan exists, and he is evil (the predicate here is not a noun but an adjective), but evil as an existing, physical or spiritual, entity, does not exist, it is always an attribute to an action, to a personality, or to intention.

god must be atheist

It is possible for an all-loving god to allow evil, despite having the power to stop it. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Not if you take your own words by what they mean. All-loving excludes ill-willed; all-powerful excludes inability to act. God has no ill will, and has all the power. So there is nothing to stop him from eradicating evil and suffering. yet he does??? then he is either not benevolent, nor powerful, or else he does not exist in the first place, at least in a form of existence which have the attributes ascribed to him.

Down The Rabbit Hole

↪god must be atheist

I was pre-empting an argument that any finite suffering will always be outweighed by the infinite joy of the afterlife.

By the same token, it would not be all-loving of an all-powerful god to allow eternal suffering [in the afterlife] for a finite offence.

Ljkp

The problem of evil may depend on there being evil in the first place so as to judge and say what God is doing is wrong, but without the existence of God how would you have a definite standard to judge evil and if you did, where would it come from?

god must be atheist

without the existence of God how would you have a definite standard to judge evil and if you did, where would it come from? — Ljkp

You give very, very, very little credit to the human mind, to humanity as a viable vital life existence capable of thought, emotions, will, and imagination.

god must be atheist

I was pre-empting an argument that any finite suffering will always be outweighed by the infinite joy of the afterlife. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Okay, thanks. You could have preempted that argument also by saying that little forbidden pleasure in this life would precipitate an endless, enduring, horrible painful state for all eternity by an all-loving, all-powerful god... Christianity and in fact all religions are riddled with self-contradictory philosophy. That's what attracts the followers... the crazier the dogma, the more numerous the fellowship.

Book273

↪Isabel Hu

Good and Evil are a matter of perspective, neither can exist without the contrast of the other. As with light and darkness. If there is no darkness there can be no light, as light is most easily defined as the absence of darkness. Without contrast there is simply being. Through the elimination of all contrasts there would be an exceedingly boring state of being. On the upside, as there would be nothing to contrast with that state, no one would know anyway. Sounds fairly hellish in truth.

TheMadFool

If god is omnipotent then nothing can compel him to act in a certain way, not even his nature and that includes his omnibenevolence. Ergo, omnibenevolence doesn't necessarily translate into a desire to end evil.

Another matter is god's omniscience. Could it interfere with his omnibenevolence? I've heard that the wise prefer to live in seclusion, and prefer not to interfere in the affairs of ordinary folk. Wisdom leading to a strict no interference policy. Does it add up?

Partinobodycular

1. If God exists, then
a. God has the power to eliminate all evil.
b. God knows how to eliminate all evil.
c. God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
2. If anyone has the power/knowledge/desire to eliminate all evil, then evil does not exist.
3. Therefore, if God exists, then evil does not exist.
4. Evil exists.
5. Therefore, God doesn’t exist. — Isabel Hu

Excuse me for jumping into this discussion without first familiarizing myself with what has already been discussed. But I think that you may have overlooked something, and that's the law of unintended consequences. Your premise seems to be that God could eliminate evil without eliminating something even more desirable in the process.

That's the unknown, does evil allow for the existence of something even more valuable then the cost of evil itself?

Just as God cannot create a square circle, there may be consequences involved in eliminating evil that even God cannot avoid.

Think of it this way, as deplorable and cruel as it may seem at times, survival of the fittest ensures that life survives. And it's only through the existence of the former that one ensures the existence of the latter. Could this be the case with evil? That eliminating it would entail the elimination of something even more precious?

god must be atheist

If god is omnipotent then nothing can compel him to act in a certain way, — TheMadFool

Nothing? NOTHING?

Not anything.

Not his will, not his intentions, not his desires, not his motivations.

In fact, you are saying he acts randomly, as nothing is causational in his behaviour.

Interesting proposition.

god must be atheist

That's the unknown, does evil allow for the existence of something even more valuable then the cost of evil itself? — Partinobodycular

C'mon. Even a five-year-old child can conjure up a Utopian world in which everything works, and yet it lacks evil and suffering.

Why couldn't god? He could not, despite his INFINITE wisdom and knowledge? That's too rich.

In my beliefs god simply could not because the world is not a thing God created, as he has the potential to not even to exist.

god must be atheist

Just as God cannot create a square circle, there may be consequences involved in eliminating evil that even God cannot avoid. — Partinobodycular

You are simply providing here an elegant proof of others' proposition, that god is either not omnipotent, or not omnibenevolent. You are not refuting this proposition, but help it. "God cannot create (a certain thing)..." means he is not omnipotent. Period.

god must be atheist

Ergo, omnibenevolence doesn't necessarily translate into a desire to end evil. — TheMadFool

It does not "translate". It "means".

If you are omnibenevolent, you are incapable of seeing, creating, or tolerating suffering. This is the meaning of the word, not the interpretation of its meaning.

The sad truth is, omnibenevolence, omnipotence, and the state of the physical world point logically at a discrepancy that can't be explained.

You are resorting to the old "interpretation" tactic of philosophy of Christians and of other religionists, in which you claim that what you see and hear is not what you see and hear but something else, which is in fact different from what you see and hear.

TheMadFool

does not "translate". It "means".

If you are omnibenevolent, you are incapable of seeing, creating, or tolerating suffering. This is the meaning of the word, not the interpretation of its meaning.

You are resorting to the old "interpretation" tactic of philosophy of Christians and of other religionists, in which you claim that what you see and hear is not what you see and hear but something else, which is in fact different from what you see and hear. — god must be atheist

There's that compulsion thing going on between "omnibenvolent" and "incapable of seeing, creating, or tolerating suffering" which doesn't gibe with omnipotence (nothing can compel an omnipotent being) and free will (again, nothing can compel a being that has free will).

I haven't said anything that hasn't be assumed by the OP. In short, I'm playing the game by the OP's rules.

xinye

God actually intends to put evil in the world — Isabel Hu

Firstly, evil isn’t put to the world by God. Borrowing from the free will defense, evil is the result of human free will, and it has nothing to do with God’s intention. Back to the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve could have avoided the sin as they were warned by God, but they chose to follow their free will, which then caused evil. God didn’t put the fruit into Adam’s mouth.

as an intermediary to strengthen people’s faith and ultimately align with goodness. — Isabel Hu

Evil isn’t an intermediary to achieve good. Evil is just evil, which is the opposite of good, and no matter what it does, it can never morph into goodness. You may say that tests and temptations work as intermediaries to strengthen people’s faith.

1 Corinthians 7:17-24, it is clear that the institution of slavery is objected or at least not favored by Christian value, — Isabel Hu

In fact, what this passage means is that, even if you are called to be a Christian as a person who’s enslaved, you won’t be thought less of in the eyes of God, because although you are physically not free, you’re totally spiritually free to follow Jesus. Therefore,
“let it not be a grief to you(7:21)”, and “if you have a chance to become free, make use of it. (7:21)”, but there’s no need to worry about the current situation, for God is always with you. These verses are used by Paul to teach and console the Christians who were not free, they are not the most direct evidence of God’s objection to slavery.

but there are no explicit words of objection delivered in Bible; instead, there is only conservative preaching such as what Paul writes in Philemon 1:14 — Isabel Hu

Philemon isn’t about Paul, or God’s opposition to slavery. The Gospel, also, is not about social reforms. In the historical context of the New Testament (OldT as well), slavery was a social phenomenon, and the purpose of the Gospel is not to teach people to break this social system, but to spread the words of salvation in such a society. Does God see slavery as a sin/evil that He wants it to be eliminated so bad? Perhaps not, because there were more important things needed to be done, which I suppose was individual salvation.

don’t think God has the desire to eliminate all evil directly; — Isabel Hu

Actually, there are a lot of evil that God wants to eliminate directly, such as all of the healings and exorcisms Jesus performed.

The Logical Problem of Evil

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions