Tuesday, November 6, 2018
Evil? -- No Problem
In sections X and XI, Philo and Demea catalogue human misery and Philo uses this evidence to prove that either God does NOT exist or He is NOT benevolent. Is this argument sound? If not, where does the argument fail? What about the possibility that suffering is part of some great good like free will or character development (a theodicy)?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The problem of evil is a troubling and seemingly definitive argument against God’s existence. The first premise, there is suffering and evil in the world, is a certain truth. No one can deny that bad things happen, and it is difficult to understand why God, in his traditional image, would allow or even create this evil. If God were really omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, he would know how to prevent evil, he would be powerful enough, and he would want to prevent it. By this argument, if God exists, he prevents evil, so he must not exist.
ReplyDeleteHowever, God existing can still be compatible with evil existing in the world. Either God does not have all three traditional qualities, or there is something else governing what God can and can’t do. One logical explanation would be logic itself. Some philosophers reasonably maintain that logic is somewhat infallible. Why should God be able to operate outside the rules of logic? This somewhat limits the “omnipotent” quality. If reason does constrain his actions, it would make sense that he cannot allow humans to have complete free will while excluding all evil from the world. In our society, we often ascribe freedom to be the most important quality. It follows our values that in a world where there was no evil but God controlled everyone, we lose more than we gain. If God can only grant us free will or no evil but not both, free will is the better choice.
I think that the problem of evil does a good job of proving that God is not benevolent, however this does not disprove God’s existence totally. The classic view of God is that he is omnipotent, meaning he is all powerful, omniscient, meaning he is all knowing and aware of everything, and omnibenevolent, meaning he is perfectly kind and incapable of evil. The problem of evil claims that if suffering exists, then God cannot be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent because one of these would be violated, either he cannot stop the suffering, he is unaware of the suffering, or he is not kind enough to stop the suffering. Some people claim that because God gave us free will, we can cause suffering however we want and it is not his problem however this does not explain natural dictators like hurricanes destroying cities. Another contradiction claims suffering is good in the long run. I think that this is also false because it is difficult to see the good in a baby dying at a young age. The baby got most of its lifespan cut off, so it cannot experience the benefits that may have come from the suffering. Overall, I think that this argument is sound in proving that God cannot be omnibenevolent because he allows suffering to exist for no real good reasons.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the problem of Evil is a sound argument, but fails to totally disprove a god such as Harvey (although perhaps it does a good job disproving the Christian-like God). This is because if God was truly omni benevolent, he would not allow any evil to be prevalent on the earth. However, because stuff still sucks in this world, it means that God is not omnibenevolent, therefore God doesn't exist. However, one may argue that god allows evil to preside in the world because a world of Free Will is the best thing for us as humans. However, this may seem like a good excuse at first, but at closer inspection, we can see that this is not a good counter-argument at all. This is because evil, such as the death of newborns, natural disasters, and many other types of 'murder of innocents' still exist in our world. In the argument of the problem of evil, it claims that if god were truly omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, there would be no suffering. However, one good argument that God is omnibelevolent could be the idea of 'whatever doesn't kill us makes us stronger'. This seems to fill the criteria of why some things must happen, like the loss of a newborn, in order to make us as humans stronger. This may also justify natural disasters, as God has the omni-benevolence to know what is better for us in the long run. In the comparison, our human knowledge seems to be very very small compared to the all knowing God himself, so perhaps that is enough to prove God's existence. In the end, I still think that the problem of evil is a legitimate, since life does indeed seem to suck, as there is anguish in the world. The argument that what doesnt kill us makes us stronger seems to fall short as it doesnt seem to justify the fact that there are innocents that starve to death in 3rd world countries, although the argument does seem to work when we talk about the top 1% in the economy.... God is not able to prevent evil in the world, therefore God does not exist.
ReplyDeleteI think that the Problem of Evil argument does not provide enough evidence or disprove the existence of God. We view God as Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnibenevolent. If God were Omniscient, he has the knowledge of all evil that exists, and knows how to prevail it. If he is omnipotent, we has the power and will to prevent such evil from entering our universe. If he was omnibenevolent, then God would not want evil to exist, he would not create in in the first place. Therefore, if God truly existed, he would prevent evil, and because we cannot deny there is suffering and evil in the universe, it would seem as if God did not exist. However, I believe this argument is flawed for the reason that God could be creating evil as a good thing. I could simply argue that God creates hurricanes or tornados to help the eco system. I could argue that God created suffering so when we call out to him we do not forget his presence in our lives. I could argue that in times of suffering God could be helping us realize that we have chosen the wrong path and this pain could be Gods way of telling you to choose a different path. The premise in which God is omnibenevolent can be logically doubtful and if it is doubtful and we do not have sufficient evidence that God does not exist then we have to without our judgment. With the premise of benevolence being wrong, it causes the rest of the premises to be wrong, which causes the argument to be unjustified. Therefore, this part concludes that human misery is not enough evidence to prove that God does not exist. I also believe that even if God truly has the will to prevent evil, he still would not. Following along with the Virtue Defense (Free Will defense), a world cannot live with free will and no evil. This would be impossible to do so. The only way for God to prevent evil, is to program us to constantly be good and nice. Therefore, we would be much like robots. Robots do not have free will. The only way to not have evil is if we did not have free will, and living in a world with free will is better than living in a world with no evil.
ReplyDeleteWhile it casts doubt upon the existence of a benevolent God, the Problem of Evil cannot fully disprove His existence. The Problem of Evil argues that either God does not exist or that He does not possess all three traditional qualities assigned to Him. If God is omniscient, then He should always know when evil will occur and how to stop it. If God is omnipotent, then He should have the ability to prevent any evil. And if God is omnibenevolent, then He should want to prevent all evil. A God possessing these three qualities would therefore successfully prevent all evil. However, evil is found all over the world, so this type of God cannot exist. The issue with the Problem of Evil argument is that it is entirely possible that God actually does possess the three traditional qualities, but chooses not to prevent all evil so that people can have free will. We discussed in class that a benevolent God could choose to create one of two worlds: a world with free will and with evil or a world with no free will and no evil. A world with no free will and with evil is not a possibility assuming a benevolent God exists, since this world is clearly worse off than both of the two aforementioned worlds. A world with free will and no evil is also not a possibility, since people would not actually have free will if they were not able to commit evil. This discussion leaves us with the question of whether a benevolent God would choose to create the world with free will and with evil or a world with no free will and no evil. We humans, in our limited knowledge, cannot know which one of these worlds is better off. Our world is (presumably) one with free will and with evil. We would need to have seen a world with no free will and no evil to know whether it is better or worse off than our world. Because it is impossible to discern whether a benevolent God would create the former or the latter, we should reserve our judgments and take an agnostic stance. A benevolent God, an indifferent God, and no God are all possibilities.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the argument of evil does explain the possibility that God may not be omnibenevolent nor omnipotent, it doesn’t prove that he is nonexistent. According to the classical view of God, he encompasses three distinct traits which define his power, knowledge, and overall goodness. The argument for evil begins with the fact that there are suffering and evil within the world. If God really does possess all of the aforementioned traits, then he exists because he can prevent evil. However, there is evil in the world, therefore God doesn’t exist. Based on this argument, it is sound because it finds a fault about God’s power and benevolence. If he was truly good and powerful, then he should be able to prevent all of this evil from occurring. However, that is not the case. The problem with the argument of evil is that it assumes that God is not powerful enough to prevent evil from occurring. But, how would we know if that is the case since God is the only one who is all-knowing? Similar to Plato’s cave allegory, perhaps God is the only person to have escaped the cave and is the only one able to interpret all knowledge. Only God will know what is best for us, therefore, it is possible that God purposely created evil to coincide with goodness. We as people may think it is bad, but in the long run, evil may be good for us. As discussed in class, God created four different worlds with different combinations of free-will and evil. Obviously, no one would want to live in a world where there is only evil. In addition, if there are only free-will and no evil, then we are essentially forced to be good, which actually gives us no will. Thus, this world is illogically possible. Finally, a world with no free-will nor evil is basically nothing or rather inconclusive since we are unable to tell God’s true intentions since he is all-knowing. Therefore, the best world, according to our reasoning, would be one that contains both free-will and evil. This is true because it is impossible for evil to exist without goodness and vice versa. The existence of these two characteristics relies on each other, so the existence of a Good God must also mean that it is evil. Again, the argument of evil is a compelling argument but it doesn’t disprove God’s existence. God can exist with evil in the world.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Philo, the problem of evil presents a grave issue for theists: it means either God does not exist or that God is not perfect. In traditional Western religions that are monotheistic—Christianity, Judaism, and Islam—God is seen as a supremely perfect being; he is omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent. However, the problem with this idea of God is that evil exists in this world, which must invalidate at least one of these qualities or his existence. If he is omniscient, he must know of the existence of all evil in the world. If he is omnibenevolent, then he needs to stop all evil. If he is omnipotent, he has the capacity to stop all evil. The problem with Philo’s argument is that the premise that God must stop evil in order to be omnibenevolent, etc. is not necessarily true. An omniscient God knows the result of every event; therefore, an omniscient God would know if something “evil” ends up causing good in the grand scheme of things. For example, a hurricane devastates an island in the Caribbean. This island is a developing nation that cannot by itself rebuild after the natural disaster. News of the tragedy leads more developed nations to aid the country and after a few years, the country is back on its feet and its economy is thriving. Would this not be good as a result of natural evil? Applied to an individual level, a person who experiences tragedy could also end up changed for the better. On the other hand, perhaps the idea of free will is the ultimate good caused by God. Were God to put an end to all evil, the concept of free will would not exist, as he would control everybody. A counter to Philo is that the gift of free will is better than if God stopped all evil.
ReplyDeletePhilo asserts that G-d does not exist because there is evil in the world; however, this argument is not sound because the presence of evil is good in the long run. After listing all of the things that are bad in our world, Philo tries to debunk all of the traditional characteristics of G-d. Ultimately, Philo seems to have proven that the traditional G-d does not exist by the following: If G-d is omniscient, he knows how to prevent suffering. If G-d is omnipotent, he has the power to prevent evil. If G-d is omnibenevolent, then he does not want or will evil to happen. Philo thinks that because suffering and evil exists, then G-d is not behaving under the traditional characters of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence many religions ascribe to him. This argument is not sound because the statement that if G-d is omnibenevolent he will want to prevent evil is false. In fact, the opposite is true; it is important for evil to exist in our world for three reasons: virtue, free will, and the existence of goodness. Firstly, virtues such as forgiveness cannot exist without evil. For example, if G-d did not allow for any evil, then I would have no reason to forgive my brother when he steals my money. One might argue that forgiveness is irrelevant if evil does not exist; however, I think forgiveness allows us to form genuine and more meaningful connections with those who violate our trust. Similarly, if G-d did not allow for evil, then we would all behave benevolently. However, this means that we would all be Pollyanna robots and would not have free will to express ourselves. The inability to express ourselves undermines our humanity. Personally, I would rather live in a world where I can choose to forgive or not to forgive than having that decision made for me. Finally, evil must exist in order for there to be goodness. Contradictory things need to exist together in order for there to be contrast between the two and therefore evidence of their existence. For example, hate must exist in order for us to understand love. If I have never experience hate and have only experience love, then I will think that love is constant and something I will always experience. However, once I experience hate, I know that love is not a constant but rather a form of goodness. As such, evil must exist for us to understand what goodness is.
ReplyDeleteWhile the Problem of Evil does not entirely disprove the existence of God, it does, however, invalidate the God that Christians claim to call their own. As per their typical description and belief in God, he must be omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, but the problem of evil shows the contradiction between God’s existence and his status as all powerful, all knowing, and all good. It is evident that there are people who experience pain and suffering and that evil exists in this world, so how could an all-powerful God permit this? The answer, God is not the perfect being he is made out to be. If he were truly omniscient he would know how to stop this evil, if he were omnipotent, he would have the power to, and if he were omnibenevolent, he would want to; so since evil still exists, God clearly isn’t all benevolent, or he doesn’t exist at all. However, the argument doesn’t touch on a much more likely solution: a God without these three Omni-qualities existing. All this argument proves is that a God who has these three Omni-qualities, cannot exist in our world.
ReplyDeleteDespite this, one could argue that God is indeed benevolent because he knows what’s best and that suffering may play a role in the greater good; however, a line needs to be drawn somewhere. Yes, a little struggle might be good in the long run, but having millions of children die each year from disease or malnutrition is something no benevolent god could stand to watch. Perhaps this God is truly benevolent, but incapable of defeating the evil in the world, but this would render his status of omnipotent, void. Or maybe he is omnibenevolent and omnipotent, but he is not omniscient and does not know every single happening of evil that occurs in this world, and therefore couldn’t stop it. Any way you put it, this proves that if God does indeed exist, at least in our universe, he cannot be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent at the same time.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe Problem of Evil illuminates a major weakness in the traditional definition of God as omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. We can summarize The Problem of Evil argument in premise form as follows:
ReplyDelete1. There exists horrendous evils and suffering for which there is no ultimate purpose/ good that comes out of said evils
2. If God is omnibenevolent, he would not allow for such pointless evils to occur
Conclusion. An omnibenevolent God does not exist
This argument is logical, but the first premise fails to take into account this traditional God's omniscience. If there were to exist a traditionally defined God, it is implicit within the definition that He would have infinitely more complex knowledge of the universe than the mere human mind could comprehend. In any case of seemingly inexplicable evil or suffering, there always exists the possibility of some greater good that is simply unknowable to the human brain- this "good" could very well take place in some shape or form that is too complex for us to ever understand.
The problem with this objection is the overwhelming amount of inexplicable evils throughout history and today and how it assumes that the good that comes from evil is likely to be beyond the reach of our understanding. How can we blindly, assume that if some atrocious event occurs, out in the universe somewhere or sometime in the distant future there will be an equivalent good worthy of necessitating such an evil? The theistic argument assumes the teachings of the Bible to support their belief- there will always exist some equivalent or greater good that comes from evil under the power and benevolence of God; however, we cannot know for certain that the Bible is truth. Even in accepting that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omnipotent being exists, it is not implicit within the premise that the Bible is true; therefore, the objection that good will always come out of evil should God exist, is not supported by a factual foundation.
Philo argues for the claim that either God does not exist or he exists but is either not omniscient, omnipotent, or omnibenevolent. The first premise of the argument is that 1.) there is suffering in the world and suffering is a kind of evil. The next three premises are that 2) if God is omniscient then he knows how to prevent evil, 3) if God is omnipotent then he has the power to prevent evil, and 4) if God is omnibenevolent then he wants to prevent evil. The existence of God entails that there would be no evil and suffering. Given the premise that 5) God either exists or does not exist, we can conclude that 6) either God does not exist or he does exist but lacks at least one of the three attributes of perfection listed in premises two, three, and four. The issue is that the concept of God seems to erase the existence of evil, and yet evil exists. One famous objection is that Philo does not understand the purpose of evil. Yes, there is evil in the world that God created. However, evil exists because humans have free will and therefore must be given a choice between doing good and not doing good. However, this objection is flawed. If this story about free will and evil were true, it would explain how there is a God who created a world that contains evil. However, this story cannot possibly be true because it still does not solve the contradiction in claiming that God is perfect and that nothing imperfect can arise from perfection. Even if evil must exist to give people free choice, it is still unexplained how evil is possible in the first place. The contradiction between a perfect God and an imperfection remains regardless of why evil exists.
ReplyDeletePhilo uses the argument that because there is a lot of evil and suffering in the world and God is supposed to be omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient, God cannot exist. The argument is based on the fact that if God exists and is all three of those things he would have the power to end suffer, know how to end suffering and want to end suffering. The problem is evil exists in the world, so how can God also exist? This problem calls for a definition of what it really means to be omnibenevolent. Omnibenevolent means to be all good and all loving and although it may seem impossible for God to have those qualities and have suffering in the world however; God gave use free will. Free will means that we have the power to make our own decisions and choose our own path. God can still be all good and all loving because he knows that having free will will make our lives better and happier in the long run, even if there is suffering and evil in the world because of it. Another possibility is that God knows better what is good and what is not. God may be trying to build our character and make us better people in the long run. Without any type of suffering how can you learn to be empathetic or even responsible. It is impossible to have responsibility if there is no chance of suffering because there would be no worry that something could go wrong. Without those types of traits, how can we find meaning in our lives? God may not prevent evil but he might be doing what's best for use without us even knowing.
ReplyDelete