Talk:Problem of evil/Archive 2

message: Comments are solicited on the attempts by an anon editor to make substantial changes to the article:
:Anonymous is irrelevant. You're suppose to be bold. The point is to improve the article, not to get famous writers to write it. Also, you are blanking out a lot of my edits. Do you even have a specific complaint? Infinity0 17:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Explain the reason behind your reversion. I think my edits make it much more clearer. Infinity0 23:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: In the section describing Augustine's response to Epicurus' version of the Problem, there appears this sentence: 
:Augustine also argued that Epicurus had ignored the potential benefits of suffering in the world. An omnipotent God could give the world any benefits derived from suffering without those in the world having to suffer.
Is sentence number two ("an omnipotent God...") not a counterargument to sentence number one ("Augustine also argued")? If so, the wording needs to be made clearer. SpectrumDT 00:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, i'll go clarify it. Infinity0 00:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Augustine vs Epicurus: Nonsensical passage? 

message: Someone placed what Infinity and I considered origonal research in the responses section. It was taken out, with the following comments added into the text:
The above paragraph is pointless waffle. Somebody please condense it down and add the counter-response that it's not a problem of evil (whose definition is disputed) but of *physical suffering* which is an objective concept. I'd do it, but I'm busy right now. Infinity0 20:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Origonal research in responses

message: Christians that don't accept the concept of "free will", such as Greg Bahnsen, argue that the existence of evil does not contradict the nature of God because God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil which exists. Morally sufficient, in this context, meaning one which satisfies God's omnibenevolence. God has not made this reason known to us yet, but this doesn't mean that such a reason doesn't exist. The existence of this reason, Bahnsen says, is to be taken by faith. He gives the examples of Abraham and Job who were faced with obvious "evils", but had to trust God that He had a morally sufficient reason for them, which turned out to be true in both occasions, according to the Bible. Critics of Bahnsen say that God could have tested Abraham and Job without causing them such evil. Proponents of Bahnsen's logic respond that what happened to Abraham and Job didn't compromise God's omnibenevolence, as the state in which Abraham and Job are now is not any worse than it would have been without the evil (i.e. the evil has been undone in a sense). In the same way it can be speculated that God will undo the evil present in the Earth.
First of all, stop being so christian-centric.
"God has a morally sufficient reason" is irrelevant. It is people, humans, who suffer. They hurt. Also, god cannot have a "morally sufficient reason" to allow evil, since he is omnipotent. That point is already in the article, at the start: an.. omnipotent god should be able to arrange the world according to his intentions - so god intends evil to exist. Infinity0 talk 21:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested addition 

message: :Probably the earliest theodicy still used today is that offered by Hinduism. At first it seems no different from the early Christian beliefs, that all pain and suffering are the results of past sins. But the difference is reincarnation. When Hinduism says ‘past sins,’ it is talking of sins which could have been committed in a past life. Although with many lives lived peacefully and well, one can break the chain and transcend physical life, it is not uncommon for a Hindu mother to scold her children and warn them that evils committed in this life could be returned in the next, perhaps being reincarnated as an animal! Life seems very pitiless. We are punished for sins that we cannot possibly remember doing, and possibly would not do if faced with the same circumstances. To be born a beggar, a king, an athlete or a helpless cripple is simply the composite consequence of the deeds of other lives. It is no use inventing a devil to explain evil. Life is purely what we’ve made of it. Looked at from this standpoint, despair lurks close, but many seers have had different ideas. From their perspective, life is no longer an unpitying court of justice, but instead a gym, where obstacles in life seem more like the ropes and parallel bars and vaulting boxes which make us strong.
:Saint Irenaeus was born in the early 3rd century in Asia Minor. He was born into a Christian family, surprising as Christians were still prosecuted for another 50 years. He became the 2nd Bishop of Lyon in his later life, by then well known for his book, of which only one copy remains, a Latin translation. He believed that Mankind had been created immature and needed to overcome evil and brave suffering before it can be pure and be, in every sense of the word, good. He said that Adam and Eve’s argument with God had been not a fully fledged rebellion, but instead a childish tantrum, portraying man’s desire to have everything, now. He believed that God is keeping Eden safe and untainted, waiting for when man grows up. He likened death and suffering to the whale which ate Jonah: it was only in the depths of the whale’s stomach that he could turn to God. Saint Augustine was born in a Roman city in northern Africa, son of Saint Monica. He was raised in Carthage and grew up to teach rhetoric and philosophy but moved to Rome, often considered the centre of the civilised world. He became known later on for his privation boni theory which is very popular today. He believed that Evil was not created by God, but was just an absence of Goodness. For example, God did not create darkness, he created light. He created life and justice, but did not create injustice and loss of life. This is often known as the Constant Theodicy.
:Karl Barth thought that current theodicies relied too much on the a priori notion of God’s omnipotence. He agreed with the Constant Theodicy, calling the opposite of good ‘das nichte’, which always threatens to reduce God’s creations to nothing. He talked much about Hope. He said that was what God had given to help man against das nichte, so that man would be helped through pain and suffering by the hope that God’s eventual triumph over evil would soon come. The most recent and probably the most popular theodicy is that concerning Free Will. This believes that God created man with the potential in him for both good and evil and the ability to choose, for obedience and goodness is pointless if it is forced and there is no alternative. God then set limits on his own powers, so that he could not interfere with man’s thoughts and actions.
This was put in the "See Also" section. I think it's useful information, but atm there is too much of it. Someone please condense it down. Infinity0 talk 23:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some extra content? 

message: 'Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?'
Amos 3:6
What is the claim that a god must be 'all-good' based upon?
I'd reckon its probably not from a religous book, but rather some idea pushed by modern priests.
Added 10/03/06
There are quotes from the bible in omnibenevolence. But thanks for pointing out that contradiction; I'll add it to my list so I can show it to the next Jehovah's Witnesses that come knocking on my door ;) -- infinity0 21:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something to consider 

message: Infinity0 and anonymous contributor: Nice work on the reformatting and clarifications-- the article suddently starts to make some better sense.  I will need some time to fill in the history, maybe a week.  No doubt Augustine of Hippo, who really defined the problem in ways that affect views even today, and perhaps Anselm at the end of the first millenium CE, and who else I don't know at the moment.  Later...Kenosis 06:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significant changes to the article in March, 2006 

message: The article does not discuss the problem of evil as understood by Buddhism or Islam, which makes the article incomplete. Anyone interested in providing such a discussion? Coolmoon 04:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I lack the knowledge to write such an entry, but my understanding is that Islam has the same "Problem of Evil" as Christianity. Buddhism does not have a problem of evil, viewing what we call evil as suffering caused by unnecessary attachment. -- Chris Q 06:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for that. Some info in the article about the Islamic view would be good, though. Regarding Buddhism, may be an addition to the article mentioning how Buddhism deals with evil/suffering, then? Coolmoon 10:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Buddhism and Islam

message: When I say Mormon, I mean pertaining to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in this context.
First, we believe that God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient.  We also believe that there is evil in this world, but that it is not His evil--it is Satan's.  We believe that before this life, both Satan and Jesus formulated plans for the salvation of mankind.  Jesus' plan was to give men free will and judge them for it accordingly in the end.  Satan's plan was to force mankind to be perfect.  When God the father chose Jesus' plan, Satan rebelled and took a third of the hosts of heaven, who agreed with him, down to hell.  These spirits who followed Satan are evil, and tempt men to do evil today.
Now, it seems like a paradox to most people that a perfect God can allow any sort of evil to exist, but: being perfect does not entail this.  The omniscient God knows that men must have temptation in order to give them choice.  Free will would mean nothing if there was no temptation to do wrong.  God tolerates Satan because He knows this temptation is necessary for men to be able to choose their own way.  If there was no temptation, men would never sin, and there would thus be no opportunity for good, as it were.  The Book of Mormon states in 2 Nephi 2: 11, 13: 
"[11] For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility."
"[13] And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away."
In essence, God wants his children to be happy, and the plan he has for us is one of agency, or free will.  We must choose to become what we become, or else life would mean nothing.  And Satan must exist to tempt us to do evil, as Christ teaches us to do good.  Satan is not an omnipotent being and God could destroy him immediately, but He knows that Satan is necessary for the greater good and eventual happiness and eternal life of mankind, no matter how much it pains Him.  This scripture from Moses 1:39 illustrates God's greatest glory:
"[39] For behold, this is my work and my glory—-to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man."
I am wondering whether I should put this or a shorter summary in the main article, but I thought I'd post it here first.
Tom Stringham 17:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: In Mormon Theology

message: First let's start by defining Evil, then defining it in the biblical terms. Evil that which results in pain, sorrow, or distress. Okay that was easy, now on to the biblical terminology. The Hebrew word "ra'" is variouly translated as "bad," "gloomy," "ugly," "evil," "calamitous," "malignant," "ungenerous," and "envious," depending on the context. The Greek word "ka•kos'" may be defined as that which is morally evil and/or destructive; the translations are as follows: "bad," "evil," "hurtful," "injurious," and "wrong."
The bible first uses (ra') as the polar opposite of "good." This is shown with God's command to Adam not to eat from the tree of "Good" and "Bad." Further God warned Adam of the concequences for disobedience. (Genesis 2:16, 17) Therefore, it is evident that God sets the standard as to "what is good" and "what is bad or evil." Further, this account shows that is is not within humankind's perogative to set the standard for themselves apart from God.
It is interesting to note that in the bible, God is referred as being the creator of evil or calamity. (Isaiah 45:7) God's enforcing of the penalty for sin, that being death, has proved to be an evil, or calamity for humankind. This reveals that evil is not always synonymous with wrongdoing. Simply put when the administrators of justice must enforce a law they do so by penalty. The penalty is in itself an evil against to one breaking the law. For example if no penalty was given against those who break the laws and practice lawlessness there would be no justice. Sex offenders, Murderers, thiefs of everykind would constantly be free to do as they will, if it were not for Police, judges, court officials, and jailers. Do we as a society see these as evil doers or as those who enforce the law thereby protecting our own civil liberties? If we look at the situation from the vantage point of the law breaker everything these law enforcer do to them is evil and wrong. However, from the vantage point of justice what these law enforcer do is legal and right. Is it wrong to put a person into a small room, limit their freedom to the public or punish them for the crimes thay have committed by whatever means the government of this world have approved? Ofcourse I am aware, as are you that many governments and their laws and law enforcers are in fact cruel and unjust. Does this mean God is cruel and unjust? It sould be taken into account that God always gave warning, well in advance as to what He was going to do if they people continued practicing evil. This was done to give them time to change their ways,and could extend mercy. To do this was in fact undue kindness on God's part.
So it is interesting that God in the postition of Law giver, Judge, and Law enforcer, must inflict "evil" against practicing evil doers, in fact seeks to extend mercy where ever possible. See the examples of the flood and also the plagues of Egypt. In both cases God allowed time for people to take advantage of the situation, to escape the intended "evil" against them.
Evil can then be thus put into two different catagories. That of unjustified evil and that of justified evil. For something to be justified it must be within the limits of the law; be that legislative law of governments or divine law or both (being only if the legislative law of the land does not contradict divine law.) Therefore, the arguement is brought into the realm of justice, that of law and order. For that we need to define Justice. Then, both kinds of Evil can be defined. I can only give to a start. Justice is the maintenance, or administration of what is right, in a fair and impartial way and according to a standard.
There are of course questions, such as why does God allow unjustified evil to exist? If God is Almighty, Benevolent, and All-knowing why does He not just remove such obviously unbenificial evil from this world? These questions are not addressed here, see Theodicy discussion: The Biblical Explaination of the problem of evil. This was just to give some perspective on the definition of Evil. As it is so very clearly distorted and blurred. Here is a question for you as a reader of this: Can we honesty attribute our own cruel and unjust works of evil to God? I hope this in some way improves the article of Wikipedia and add some useful insight. As always I invite all to examine and critique what I have written here. Truth-Seeker 24.150.46.62 22:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You say 'These questions are not addressed here' - yes they are. Have you read the article? 84.70.185.115 23:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defining the Evil of God 

message: I suggest at least some of this article, e.g. the responses to the arguments against God, be moved to Theodecy - and preferably improved, as a lot of it reads like unsourced 'original research'. 84.70.185.115 23:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move part into Theodecy?

message: Should the spelling by god or God? In some sections it's god and in some it's God. - jlao04 08:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was God and Gods until [this edit] where someone decided they were both not proper nouns. His edit only affected the introduction, which seemed to bug him for some reason. I don't mind whether its "god" and "gods" or "God" and "Gods", but would object to any POV differentiation. -- Chris Q 11:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be "a god" and "gods" generally and "God" for the Judeo-Christian god specifically. It is both a common noun and a proper noun. Kronocide 16:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, except "God" should be used when referring to any god, not just the Abrahamic ("Judeo-Christian") one. It depends on the context. It's similar to the words "mom" and "dad," for example. One might say, "Hi Mom," or, "I believe in God." One might also say, "I have a mom," or, "I believe in a god." --Alexc3 (talk) 19:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  god or God? 

message: Searching for the problem of pain (in all lowercase) redirects to Problem of Evil. Instead it should redirect to The Problem of Pain (the C.S. Lewis book). I tried to change it, but it doesn't seem to be working. Perhaps someone more savvy can fix it. --kidbritish 23:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This redirect has already been fixed, seeing nobody mentioned it here in the past. --54x 12:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improper redirect 

message: This is against teologies saying "there is no God in THIS world, because he wants to preserve your free will".
Assume people have free will (and I'm actually not gonna agree with this, but let's assume it anyway).
World could be constructed in another way and people would still have free will. Example: if you play dice, you could have got a 6 instead of 1, as a one-time exception being a part of world laws. This still wouldn't make you unfree.
Having another world order affects your will, but it is still free. As in the above example: you could be more willing to keep playing if your results were better.
Note, the overall probabilities of your life actions shifted a bit (and multiplying this experiment, they could be shifted a lot). You are more towards one direction, even more: your character could change - whilst still being free.
Now, a better example: God knew how world would look like when he created it.  He knew what would be the effect of human free will.  But was him tied by a destiny?  Of course, not.  He could have created completely another world, so that human free decisions in it would be other; and would be in better proportions.  So that less people would be surprised by hell.
Then why there is so little God in this world?  Why doesn't he help us a little, for example in the XXth century?
And well, if you keep saying it's because he wants to hide and wants to keep the number of believers lower... because he wants to keep a fair amount of evil... then I'm going to fulfill this desire of him. ;)  I don't think anything could happen against God's will; so whatever I finally do must be already a subject of his plans and the result of some earlier will of him.
Actually, I believe God's precepts should be treated like the ancient virtue, like some kind of a tip, a guide-post how to live well and what to do to succeed in life. But I can't agree they are so strict and absolute that breaking them means your condemnation and eternal hell: is man only a mistake of God? does he not love us enough, also those who follow other ways?
83.31.15.129 00:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion: argument from world creation 

message: Should this be removed as original research, or is it just that there is inappropriate use of the first person? Also archived some of the older messages on this page (older than 20th August, roughly) Angus Lepper 20:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cinema 

message: I have removed the following sentence: 
Critics of this argument note that there is evidence in these religious traditions that free will and evil might both indeed exist in heaven.
This sentence does not add anything, the text already says: What about those in heaven - they are free, yet some claim that no evil would ever happen in heaven.
The heaven example is in any case a weaker example, the strong one being why couldn't God create beings that were like Himself. One could argue that if there were evil in Heaven it would be an even stronger indication that God was either not all good or not all powerful. -- Chris Q 07:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  evil in heaven - removed sentence. 

message: The final statement non-existence of God is easily circumvented in the Logical argument for the Problem of Evil. The current statement does not define God as omniscient, and does classify that God must know evil to eradicate it.  Since God is defined as existing in the first statement, this argument should be concluded that God is not aware of evil, not that God doesn't exist.
The Problem of Evil is only a 'problem' when you prove that God does not exist.  The first statement should therefore be a definition of God, not a statement about his existence.
I'll make these changes after 24 hours if I don't receive a rebuttal.
Fenricwolf 00:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Fenricwolf that there should be a premise that God is omniscient. I think that it was assumed (incorrectly) that omnipotence implied omniscience. The first statement says that God exists because this is a Reductio ad absurdum. I don't really follow what 97.101.61.57 is saying, 9 is clearly marked as a premise and so does not follow any other. The nature of Reductio ad absurdum is such that the contradiction shows that not all premises can be true. If you assume that 9 is false then other premises could be true. Thus Julian of Norwich and followers of Advaita Vedanta for example do not have a problem of evil. -- Q Chris 11:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we are agreeing here, the only thing the argument proves is that not all premises cannot be correct. Id does not say that the premise "God exists" is false or that the premise "evil exists" is false and so on for all the other premises. Despite its limited scope, I still think this is a useful argument as many people do claim that they believe all the premises to be true, it shows them that there must be some error in their beliefs. -- Q Chris 19:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Logical Error in Logical problem of evil

message: I have added the following tags. 
This section needs attention from someone knowledgeable in this subject. The current entry appears to be a good faith edit describing Islam's attitudes to good and evil rather than addressing the topic of the article. The small amount that I have read about Islam's ideas on predestination and evil make me think that Islamic philosophy has much more to say on this topic.  -- Q Chris 09:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The problem of Evil in Islam 

message: Am I not understanding something, or is the argument "Moral argument from evil" in the Formalised arguments just a rambling and less robust expression of the argument given in "Logical problem of evil"? If so I think it adds little value and should be removed. -- Q Chris 06:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole argument is pretty flaky. Specifically, I have a problem with: 11. No theist knows that a god exists; 12. For any given theist, that theist's belief that a god exists is either false or unjustified; 13. If a god exists, then some theists are justified in believing that a god exists; and 15. If a god exists, then some theists know (i.e., have a justified, true belief) that God exists. The concept of "justification" is used ambiguously here to conclude in faulty logic. If 11 begets 12, then it is implied that actual nonexistence of a god would make the theist's belief "false" instead of "unjustified", while "unjustification" lies in his lack of proof (factual knowledge) of a god's existence. Thus, because the existence of a god doesn't require or necessarily create "proof" of itself, and in the absence of proof the theist remains unjustified in his belief whether a god exists or not, 13 and 15 are invalid (and by extension the whole conclusion.) Just my two cents.  Succubus MacAstaroth 15:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moral argument from evil