Problem of evil is a bad argument for atheism, it has been defeated and therefore using it just makes atheism look wrong. So if you want to win debates don't use it. Find better ones.

Why does evil exist? Well there is two kinds of evil: Evil done by humans happens because of free-will and there is justice in the afterlife. Evil done by nature happens because this is creation not heaven. Any physical creation is going to contain good and bad. Changing it will just create a new set of goods and bads.

And don't assume god does not feel every bit of pain we feel along with us. Life without pain does not work. Nobody would do anything.

An argument against 'divine providence', or for 'divine indifference' (and NOT necessarily - decisively - an argument for the nonexistence of 'the divine') ... — 180 Proof

(Click on my handle for more.)

Life without pain does not work. — Miller

What would be in heaven then? That is, by definition, a life without pain. But such a life should not be possible => You have contradicted yourself.

What would be in heaven then? — SolarWind

"Heaven" is only as real as Narnia or Middle-Earth. So to answer: anything you can imagine whether or not it makes any sense. :sparkle:

But was forced in religion due to my family. — lice

Forcing anything on anyone tends not to endear them to it.

Evil done by nature happens because this is creation not heaven. — Miller

If creators do not bear responsibility for the harm caused by their creations then God's off the hook, granted, but so is all humanity.

Epicurus was not completely right and he's becoming less and less right as time flies but, I fear, he'll be right on the money all at once again.

When the mood strikes you, Fool, show us how "The Riddle of Epicurus" goes wrong. Thanks.

Epicurus was not completely right ... — TheMadFool

From two years ago:

(a) Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

(b) Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

(c) Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

(d) Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

'The Riddle of Epicurus' (~300 BCE) — 180 Proof

Epicurus is not claiming "god doesn't exist", only calling into question that such a malignantly indifferent and/or impotent "god" is not worthy of being worshipped (or called "god"). So what is "not completely right" with this riddle?

indifferent — 180 Proof

The opposite of that would be a nosey parker. We might wanna use the expresssion "mind your own business".

impotent — 180 Proof

Are you wishing for a celestial dictator? Thanks Christopher Hitchens for coining that phrase.

So what is "not completely right" with this riddle? — 180 Proof

What's "not completely right"? Lemme see...that it's good that God leaves us alone and can't do jack shit about how we do things.

Hey 180 Proof, please bear with me if I make silly mistakes. You know me, I'm mad and I'm a fool.

You know me, I'm mad and I'm a fool. — TheMadFool

You don't seem mad and you're definitely not a fool.

:smile:

What would be in heaven then? That is, by definition, a life without pain. But such a life should not be possible => You have contradicted yourself. — SolarWind

Heaven is just another utopic fantasy, like communism.

If creators do not bear responsibility for the harm caused by their creations then God's off the hook, granted, but so is all humanity. — Cuthbert

No matter what creation is created it will contain pain and "evil". You can change the position of it but not the fact of it.

Problem of evil is a bad argument for atheism, it has been defeated and therefore using it just makes atheism look wrong. So if you want to win debates don't use it. Find better ones.

Why does evil exist? Well there is two kinds of evil: Evil done by humans happens because of free-will and there is justice in the afterlife. Evil done by nature happens because this is creation not heaven. Any physical creation is going to contain good and bad. Changing it will just create a new set of goods and bads. — Miller

And then, of course, there's the option that what some people believe is "evil", is actually good.

And then, of course, there's the option that what some people believe is "evil", is actually good. — baker

Indeed.

If we believe in an omniscient God (which I do not) would it not be the case that human understanding of good and evil is severely limited and that our attempt to pin what we think of as evil onto God's list of responsibilities is a fraught and shallow affair?

That's why I say that if God exist, God is a Trumpista. It's the simplest explanation.

I can see that.

And then, of course, there's the option that what some people believe is "evil", is actually good. — baker

I hate my parents, because they made me eat vegetables.

This thread would be easier to deal with if you had posted the Epicurean paradox, for reference.

For reference, it goes like this.

- Evil exists.
- Therefore...
and it ends with a statement that any God tolerates evil.

The solution is simple - it is a false premise.

Evil does not exist.

If we assume there is a God, then God decides what is good for God.

People have their own opinions about what is good and evil - for them. The Epicurean paradox, then, boils down to - "Daddy, why can't I just have everything I want, all the time?"

God, not you, would be the moral center of the universe. God, not you, would be good. You would, in fact, according to normal religious philosophy, be a sinner, or evil. So, any "evil" happening to you would just be Evil, happening to itself, which would be just, so it would be good.

If there is a moral center to the universe, God in that sense, all is good, there is no evil, and so these words don't mean much. If there isn't, then these words also don't mean much.

The problem of evil is often given in the form of an inconsistent triad. For example, J. L. Mackie gave the following three propositions:

God is omnipotent

God is omnibenevolent

Evil exists

Mackie argued that these propositions were inconsistent, and thus, that at least one of these propositions must be false. Either:

God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and evil does not exist.God is omnipotent, but not omnibenevolent; thus, evil exists by God's will.God is omnibenevolent, but not omnipotent; thus, evil exists, but it is not within God's power to stop it (at least not instantaneously). — Wikipedia

It's a work in progress. Doesn't it look like one? The graph of morality shows a trend that could be described as improvement, no?

Only an "omnibenevolent" deity seems worthy of worship, therefore ...

The PoE is only a "problem" for the existence of an omnibenevolent deity — 180 Proof

(Link to old post for context.)

I was specifically trying to avoid that horn of the triceratops.

I want to ask you something. Taking a consequentialist point of view, given that consequences have consequences (chain of causation), how does a moral consequentialist know s/he's done good? Consider the hypothetical that I give a beggar some money. The beggar than buys some food with it from a eatery (good consequences). The owner of the eatery, who now has your money, goes on to hire a hitman to kill his estranged wife (bad). However, the hitman also kills a man who was with the wife who was planning a bomb attack at a busy city center (good), so on and so forth.

Could God be a consequentialist? Evil is part of the scheme but only in an instrumental way and not as an end in itself, something many courts around the world have excused as not an/a lesser offense.

Taking a consequentialist point of view, given that consequences have consequences (chain of causation), how does a moral consequentialist know s/he's done good? — Agent Smith

If she is a negative consequentialist, she knows she's done good by mitigating or eliminating an injustice (without causing more injustice).

Could God be a consequentialist?

"God" could be anything you like because it's imaginary.

If she is a negative consequentialist, she knows she's done good by mitigating or eliminating an injustice (without causing more injustice).

Could God be a consequentialist?
"God" could be anything you like because it's imaginary. — 180 Proof

Perhaps relevant to the mind-body problem is ghosts. People who believe in these imaginary things report breaking into a cold sweat, hearts going thumpity-thump, and much more, basically adrenaline-induced physical responses. How does a nonphysical mind interact with a physical body? Ghost in the machine.

Maybe he sees evil as not evil, but just a lesser good? Then in His non-interference he would be considered omni-benevolent, because He would not suppress "good" actions.

:heart:

Why don't you state what is the "Epicurean paradox"? For one thing, so that we can all understand and talk about the same thing ...

Anyway, Wikipedia describes it as follows:
"God, he says, either wishes to take away evils, and is unable; or He is able, and is unwilling; or He is neither willing nor able, or He is both willing and able. If He is willing and is unable, He is feeble, which is not in accordance with the character of God; if He is able and unwilling, He is envious, which is equally at variance with God; if He is neither willing nor able, He is both envious and feeble, and therefore not God; if He is both willing and able, which alone is suitable to God, from what source then are evils? Or why does He not remove them?"

I assume that you have the above or something similar in mind ...

Well, a lot more could be added to this "paradox" but it would still be baseless. It's like the "Omnipotence paradox" --"Could God create a stone so heavy that even He could not lift it?"-- and other "God" pseudo-paradoxes.

What they all have in common is that they are not real paradoxes because they are based on arbitrary elements and facts: First you create a concept named "God", then you attribute imaginary features to it --"omnipotent", "omniscient", etc.-- and then you try to prove that these are impossible to exist or happen. What a stupidity!

Now, in the Epicurean pseudo-paradox, there are more concepts created, i.e. arbitrary elements, like "evil", which make it even more ridiculous.

Now, you might wonder, if I find this kind of "paradoxes" ridiculous, then why I get into trouble of talking about them? Well, I do it with the hope of preventing people taking them seriously, or at least thinking twice before doing that.

Mm, well in my belief these paradoxes aren't ridiculous. It helps flesh out His behaviour in a context that gives certain people hope and thats most definitely not bad.

Although I would agree with you that this isn't the best way to assess gods existence. The existence of God after all, is a choice. The main reason people are atheists is that they don't want the premise of heaven to influence their positive actions. They would rather enjoy life because life in their opinion is limited. In this case, they wouldn't be attacking whether god exists, but see no use.

Mm, well in my belief these paradoxes aren't ridiculous. — john27

You are right to the extent that I have overcritized them. See, I am a fan of paradoxes, I have a large collection of them, but none about God. According to my personal quality criteria, there are real paradoxes and pseudo-paradoxes. Most of the "paradoxes" that one can find around --Wikipedia alone you can find a lot of them-- are based on fallacies, which I can recognize, easily or after some analysis. That's why I call them "pseudo-paradoxes".

It helps flesh out His behaviour in a context that gives certain people hope and thats most definitely not bad. — john27

OK, I respect this.

this isn't the best way to assess gods existence — john27

Certainly!

The existence of God after all, is a choice — john27

Of course.

Thank you for your response. I appreciated it. :smile:

:up: