Religion threads are always amusing, so I thought I'd give everyone something to chew on.

For those not familiar, the Problem of Evil is a logical argument for the nonexistence of any omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God.

The form of the argument is quite simple:

1. If God is omniscient, then he is aware of the existence of evil.
2. If God is omnipotent, then he is able to prevent the existence of evil.
3. If God is omnibenevolent, then he desires to prevent the existence of evil.
4. Evil exists.
5. An omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God does not exist.

Apologists' attempted refutations vary, but the two most common seem to be the greater good argument and the free will argument.

The greater good argument suggests that events that appear to be manifestations of evil or suffering are ultimately beneficial, as they are part of God's "plan." As is hopefully obvious, it is an absurd attempt which fails to recognize the scope of omnipotence. An omnipotent God can, by definition, do anything. Therefore, he can bestow upon us whatever benefits we might gain through the existence of evil or suffering instantaneously without the need for such an intermediary step.

The free will argument is much more popular among those educated on the issue. It was popularized by a modern philosopher by the name of Alvin Plantinga and, much to my befuddlement, has been accepted as a sufficient refutation of the problem of evil by most experts in the philosophy of religion.

The argument supposes that "free will" is a good characteristic for the universe to have. Therefore, since God is omnibenevolent, he must include free will into the universe he created. However, granting humans free will allows them to make evil choices, resulting in the existence of evil.

There are a number of glaring problems with this argument as well, however, which leaves me puzzled as to why it has gained such a degree acceptance even among many atheists. First of all, it completely fails to account for evil or suffering of non-human origin. Unless one supposes, for example, that somehow all diseases and natural disasters are the product of human free will, then the argument fails to explain the existence of some evil which can still be shown to exist, and God is incompatible with this evil. Given the absurdity of such a supposition, this argument is obviously very weak - but perhaps it would at least leave the slightest room for doubt about the nonexistence of God.

Upon further inspection, however, it is evident that the notion of "free will" to begin with is simply a red herring. Plantinga assumes that "free will" necessarily includes the ability to choose evil. However, God has already placed arbitrary restrictions on the decisions we can and do make by manipulating human nature, and limiting our physical and cognitive capabilities. There is no logically necessary reason why God could not have eliminated evil caused by humans by creating us such that we were either unable to grasp the idea of doing evil or by changing the physical reality of the universe so that we couldn't carry out evil choices (for example, making it impossible for humans to kill one another).

In either case, God has prohibited some arbitrary set of actions from the scope of our "free will." The only difference is that in once scenario, evil does not exist. There is no logical obstacle to prevent God from having created the "evil-free" universe rather than the existing universe. If he was omnibenevolent, he would have opted for the same "quasi-free will" which we presently possess, but without evil. Since evil exists, he obviously didn't. Therefore, the aforementioned God still can not exist according to the problem of evil.

Is Plantinga's argument a failure, or am I wrong? Where does the problem of evil leave this God which so many people want so desperately to believe in?

I agree with the lack of an omniscient, omnipotent, and all good God, but I think that your refutation of the free will argument in some way rests on the assumption that this God should be a creator too. You say that an all good omnipotent God could have placed restrictions on our ability to do evil, but then he would have to be the Creator too. Right?
Of course, Christianity teaches that God is the Creator so your argument would fit refutation of this nicely.
Apart from the lack of explanation of sickness and natural disasters by the free will argument, my biggest beef with that argument is that it presupposes that we actually do have free will. Who's to say that it's not an illusion (as we have debated before in this forum).

Basically, I find the the problem of evil to be a little artificial, as it relies so heavily on the logical inconsistencies of omnipotence. Even if we remove the two requirements of God being omniscient and all good, omnipotency in itself is not possible. (Can God do something he cannot undo?)
Furthermore, I think that most modern non-fundamentalist Christians only expect God to be all good and omniscient, or perhaps only omniscient. To people who do not expect God to interfere when they are struck by evils, the resolution of the Problem of Evil would not be required for their continued belief.

What if you do not consider "natural" disaster type events to be evil?

I believe evil to be a completely human made phenomenon. There needs to be foresight into the harmful results of an event and only after this foresight an event carried out. A tornado, plague or earthquake does not have the ability to consciously weigh the outcomes of its existance. However a human is able to presuppose the results of their actions. Therefore, I believe "evil" is a unique human quality.

I am not your "classic" religious individual as I guess I am more of a deist. I believe there probably is a "higher" being, although after it set things in motion it really only gives nudges here and there instead of having complete daily control. That being said, and because I believe in free will (although that is another modified view I have) and that non-human "travesties" are not to be considered "evil," I have no problem with this higher individual being considered the three omni's you listed.

Good use of philosophy to break down a common theological mistake.

It's a mistake to think of "God" as good, since most mystics (the founders and true holders of religion) agree that God is beyond mere "good and bad", since good and bad are thoughts that God transcends. Of course, this makes God more of a place to go to in your mind, a "truth", religion claims, that we can peer into as we meditate or pray. Huxley called it "the divine Ground". Buddhism called it Nirvana. Christians and Muslims call it God or Allah, but unfortunately have anthropomorphized it.

___________________
The father made fetuses with flesh licking ladies / While you and your mother were asleep in the trailer park / Thunderous sparks from the dark of the stadiums / The music and medicine you needed for comforting / So make all your fat, fleshy fingers fingers to moving / And pluck all your silly strings and / Bend all your notes for me and / Soft silly music is meaningful, magical / The movements were beautiful / All in your ovaries / All of them milking with green fleshy flowers / While powerful pistons were sugary sweet machines, / Smelling of semen all under the garden / Was all you were needing when you still believed in me.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter The free will argument is much more popular among those educated on the issue. It was popularized by a modern philosopher by the name of Alvin Plantinga and, much to my befuddlement, has been accepted as a sufficient refutation of the problem of evil by most experts in the philosophy of religion. The argument supposes that "free will" is a good characteristic for the universe to have. Therefore, since God is omnibenevolent, he must include free will into the universe he created. However, granting humans free will allows them to make evil choices, resulting in the existence of evil. There are a number of glaring problems with this argument as well, however, which leaves me puzzled as to why it has gained such a degree acceptance even among many atheists. First of all, it completely fails to account for evil or suffering of non-human origin. Unless one supposes, for example, that somehow all diseases and natural disasters are the product of human free will, then the argument fails to explain the existence of some evil which can still be shown to exist, and God is incompatible with this evil. Given the absurdity of such a supposition, this argument is obviously very weak - but perhaps it would at least leave the slightest room for doubt about the nonexistence of God. Upon further inspection, however, it is evident that the notion of "free will" to begin with is simply a red herring. Plantinga assumes that "free will" necessarily includes the ability to choose evil. However, God has already placed arbitrary restrictions on the decisions we can and do make by manipulating human nature, and limiting our physical and cognitive capabilities. There is no logically necessary reason why God could not have eliminated evil caused by humans by creating us such that we were either unable to grasp the idea of doing evil or by changing the physical reality of the universe so that we couldn't carry out evil choices (for example, making it impossible for humans to kill one another). In either case, God has prohibited some arbitrary set of actions from the scope of our "free will." The only difference is that in once scenario, evil does not exist. There is no logical obstacle to prevent God from having created the "evil-free" universe rather than the existing universe. If he was omnibenevolent, he would have opted for the same "quasi-free will" which we presently possess, but without evil. Since evil exists, he obviously didn't. Therefore, the aforementioned God still can not exist according to the problem of evil. Is Plantinga's argument a failure, or am I wrong? Where does the problem of evil leave this God which so many people want so desperately to believe in?

I'm assuming you're referring to the "choice" of evil as the Garden of Eden scenario - where Eve was "tempted" and eventually caused the Fall of Man.

I'd like to point out also it was Satan who first turned from God, due to pride and his desire to "be God". Now it's pretty much undebatable that God created Satan, and obviously gave him free will (due to his ability to reject God).

With that being said, I can see where you are coming from with your assertions of the argument.

My personal opinion is two-fold. While I believe that God created man with free-will (and I see your point as in him putting the factors into the garden - why not just leave them out?) - it was ultimately their choice to disobey him. That may sound like a cop-out, but God also *knew* what would happen by putting the "restrictions" on them. He knew Man would fall. I have to reason that God allowed this because he wanted to relate with a free-minded creature, not a creation that simply droned on, unable to choose whether to obey him or not. He wanted to relate to humans, not robots.

Secondly, I believe the "good" in the universe can only be appreciated with "evil" present. To quote Vanilla Sky:

"Just remember, the sweet is never as sweet without the sour, and I know the sour."

Evil is evil, but it also makes us appreciate the good. It's a paradox of sorts. But really - would you want to have been born into a world with no perception of evil? It sounds nice in fairy tale land, but we would not be appreciative of the good (when it comes) in the end.

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil I'm assuming you're referring to the "choice" of evil as the Garden of Eden scenario - where Eve was "tempted" and eventually caused the Fall of Man. I'd like to point out also it was Satan who first turned from God, due to pride and his desire to "be God". Now it's pretty much undebatable that God created Satan, and obviously gave him free will (due to his ability to reject God). With that being said, I can see where you are coming from with your assertions of the argument. My personal opinion is two-fold. While I believe that God created man with free-will (and I see your point as in him putting the factors into the garden - why not just leave them out?) - it was ultimately their choice to disobey him. That may sound like a cop-out, but God also *knew* what would happen by putting the "restrictions" on them. He knew Man would fall. I have to reason that God allowed this because he wanted to relate with a free-minded creature, not a creation that simply droned on, unable to choose whether to obey him or not. He wanted to relate to humans, not robots. Secondly, I believe the "good" in the universe can only be appreciated with "evil" present. To quote Vanilla Sky: "Just remember, the sweet is never as sweet without the sour, and I know the sour." Evil is evil, but it also makes us appreciate the good. It's a paradox of sorts. But really - would you want to have been born into a world with no perception of evil? It sounds nice in fairy tale land, but we would not be appreciative of the good (when it comes) in the end.

You are a good man

'Good' and 'evil' are, I think, just terms created by humans to describe events or actions that bring about good or bad results. The Free Will argument says that humans were created with the knowledge of what good and evil are, and that we have the ability to choose between them. But I don't necessarily think that is so. Who teaches us what good and evil are?? We're not born with the knowledge, so at some point during our lives we learn of it either through experience or through the teachings of our parents. This means that everybody has varying opinions on what good and evil are.

So how can a God create a universe where there is no eveil, when evil itself can't be explicitly defined??

Every event has a certain amount of repercussions. How do we know that something we want to do might affect someone or something for the worse?? And if a universe was created where nothing could affect anything for the worse, would that not mean that we no longer live in a world of free will, because in some instances, the laws of physics themselves would have to be broken in order to prevent something bad or evil happening??

Not only that, but what about living creatures other than humans?? Animals kill other animals every day, usually for food. But that isn't always the case. Rivalry for the females in a pack of animals can often be the cause of the death of some of those animals through fighting. If humans displayed the same behaviour, would that not be considered evil?? Why do the animals therefore do it?? Why is it that humans are gifted with intelligence enough to know that killing is wrong, but animals weren't?? Should, therefore, animals not exist at all in an evil-free world??

I'm not a religious person at all, but I do think that the Free Will theory in itself doesn't disprove the existence of a God.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Streakfury 'Good' and 'evil' are, I think, just terms created by humans to describe events or actions that bring about good or bad results. The Free Will argument says that humans were created with the knowledge of what good and evil are, and that we have the ability to choose between them. But I don't necessarily think that is so. Who teaches us what good and evil are?? We're not born with the knowledge, so at some point during our lives we learn of it either through experience or through the teachings of our parents. This means that everybody has varying opinions on what good and evil are.

I believe we are born with the knowledge of good vs. evil. In Christianity it's called the "Holy Spirit". I believe every person knows when they do something evil - the ability to not do these things is what makes a person good.

quote:

So how can a God create a universe where there is no eveil, when evil itself can't be explicitly defined??

I agree there is much grey area in the good vs. evil argument. The Bible defines evil pretty well, while I agree there is still room for interpretation.

quote:

Every event has a certain amount of repercussions. How do we know that something we want to do might affect someone or something for the worse?? And if a universe was created where nothing could affect anything for the worse, would that not mean that we no longer live in a world of free will, because in some instances, the laws of physics themselves would have to be broken in order to prevent something bad or evil happening?? Not only that, but what about living creatures other than humans?? Animals kill other animals every day, usually for food. But that isn't always the case. Rivalry for the females in a pack of animals can often be the cause of the death of some of those animals through fighting. If humans displayed the same behaviour, would that not be considered evil?? Why do the animals therefore do it?? Why is it that humans are gifted with intelligence enough to know that killing is wrong, but animals weren't?? Should, therefore, animals not exist at all in an evil-free world?? I'm not a religious person at all, but I do think that the Free Will theory in itself doesn't disprove the existence of a God.

Using animals as an example of good vs. evil is unapplicable. They are animals, we are humans. In a divine sense, they were created as lessers to us. Also keep in mind, that before the Fall of Man, there was no death in the world. Every animal was create a herbivore (as was man). After the fall, death and sin came into the world.

So, to answer your question, animals did exist in an evil-free world. Then Eve came along...