Problem of Evil

[lordlundar]

Even without God's perspective, I can see that there is unnecessary evil in this world. I don't see what perspective would cause anyone to think that the holocaust was necessary. Or a child being raped and murdered was necessary.

And from a mortal perspective, it is unnecessary. But you are a mortal, and cannot understand God's position. Until you can, you cannot answer as to why it's allowed to happen.

So God is effing ineffable*? If you're saying that no one can understand God, I don't see how that applies. The problem of evil must be discussed in human terms. No other context makes sense.

*Apologies to Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett.

But your original point is how God can allow it. To that end, a mortal understanding of the situation is insufficient. So you're right, no other context than a mortal one makes sense to us, because we are mortal. We're not immortal, let alone an omnipotent being. So the aspects of an omnipotent being are impossible for a mortal to understand, as is their reasoning.

To be honest, when you said we had to dismiss God as a factor in this discussion, your argument fell apart. You cannot say "God's stance doesn't matter" when the discussion is how God allows evil to exist.

[jackfaire]

The evil that happens could be a tool of God's

We hunt animals to control overpopulation. God lets people be killed horrifically to allow for population control.

[draggar]

Are you saying that baking cookies for my neighbor (or any other good deed) becomes a neutral act if there is no evil in the world?

No, drag's saying that without negative experiences, positive experiences mean less if anything at all.

If you baked your neighbor cookies and they had had a perfect life, then the cookies would be meaningless.

Something like that.

The concept of "good" cannot exist without the concept of "evil". Good and evil are comparisons of each other and without one the other shifts to neutrality or at least a shift, now neutral becomes evil, lesser good becomes neutral, and overly good becomes good.

Sure, it's nice to bake cookies for your neighbor but in an all-good world then people are always making cookies for their neighbors so where is it good if it's happening all the time? It becomes commonplace.

As for the question how can an all-knowing, all-seeing god figure allow evil to happen? I think the movies Dogma and Bruce Almighty summed it up pretty well.

In Dogma Bartleby expresses his frustration that humans have a choice to worship god (and thus other choices) and in Bruce Almighty god tells Bruce that the only thing he cannot do is mess with free will.

We have a choice - a choice to be good (helping each other etc..) or be evil (helping ourselves all the time)

[Vagabond]

I agree with Wingates & Draggar's viewpoint.
Without evil, how would you know what is good?

Such that, if all you ate were cookies, how would you know how nasty <insert food procuct, or vegetable here> is?

Only once you step into the light do you realize there is darkness and/or a shadow.

[HYHYBT]

Even without God's perspective, I can see that there is unnecessary evil in this world.

How can you possibly know that it really is unnecessary?

God lets people be killed horrifically to allow for population control.

Nah, if it weren't for the killings we could just have a lower fertility rate.

So if somebody does something intrinsically good, such as saving a life, but has no knowlege that the act was good, it's meaningless? I think the person whose life was saved would disagree.

If you could not possibly help saving their life, then it's good for them but not a good act on your part. For example: suppose you're in a hold-up and about to be shot. Someone the crook doesn't realize is there (call him Bill) pushes him as he's firing, thereby saving your life. (I know, the crook is doing wrong, but I'm terrible at setting up this sort of thing and he's irrelevant anyway.) From your point of view, this is a good thing. But Bill's action, nonetheless, could have been good, bad, or indifferent. He wanted to save you? Good. He didn't realize what was happening, and hit the robber because, say, he had on, say, a pink triangle cap? Bad, though convenient. He didn't have any idea what was going on, but was just coming through the door and happened to hit the robber with it by accident? Indifferent, because he had no real choice in the matter.

[Kheldarson]

Here's a better example, I think.

A kid is about to drown in a pool. Got separated from his party, fell in the shallow end, struggling to keep his head above water. There's nobody around except the maintenance man who's inside the pool house taking care of equipment. He doesn't know about the kid himself, but happens to be emptying the pool for the season, and ends up saving the kid's life that way.

Now, the act is good. It saved the child's life. But there was no conscious choice to do it on the man's behalf. He didn't know, wasn't concerned. So while there is a meaning (saving a life), there's nothing else to it. That's the point. If there's no evil, then you're in a state where saving a life is, yes, a good thing, but the act itself is otherwise meaningless since it's normal.

[HYHYBT]

Yes, thanks, that's much better.


(well, I *did* say I was bad at this...)

[Ghel]

Sorry, I’ve been away a couple days. I’ll do responses all at once:

Lordlundar: I am not saying that we have to dismiss God as a factor in this discussion. In fact, God IS the discussion. What I was saying is that, since we can never know the mind of an omnipotent, omniscient being, the only way we can discuss this is from our own, admittedly limited point of view. And I don’t see that as being a problem. Even a child would know that the things done to them by an abusive parent are wrong, even if they have no power to stop them.

Jackfaire: Are you saying that the only method an omnipotent being has for population control is to allow people to be killed horrifically? Couldn’t he, maybe, use birth control, or some other method that improves the quality of people’s lives instead of destroying it? Considering that the world’s population is approaching the point where the ecosystem will be overwhelmed, horrific death is going to be the only option when we can’t produce enough food to feed everyone.

Draggar: I don’t think either Dogma or Bruce Almighty really addressed the problem of evil. Dogma showed a god who, although very powerful, was not omnipotent. Bruce Almighty showed a god who was apparently bored with it all and so started screwing with his creations. Either that, or he was also not omnipotent.

HYHYBT: Using your example, Bill stops a robbery, saves a life, and brings the attempted thief to justice. Media swarm the bank, and interview Bill, telling him what a great guy he is, and how he did such a good thing. He says, “I wasn’t trying to save anybody’s life. I just happened to bump into the guy.” That doesn’t matter. What he did was still a good thing.

Kheldarson: Even without evil in the world, there would still be variation in events. A child’s life being saved, even by accident, would still be a good thing. Even if, as in your example, both the method of dying and the act that saved him were both accidents.

[jackfaire]

Jackfaire: Are you saying that the only method an omnipotent being has for population control is to allow people to be killed horrifically? Couldn’t he, maybe, use birth control, or some other method that improves the quality of people’s lives instead of destroying it? Considering that the world’s population is approaching the point where the ecosystem will be overwhelmed, horrific death is going to be the only option when we can’t produce enough food to feed everyone.

Nope I am not. It depends on how he views us though as to which method he likes the best. Horrific death is the easiest. Diseases etc.

If you care about your creations those wouldn't be the methods you use.

[Ghel]

Nope I am not. It depends on how he views us though as to which method he likes the best. Horrific death is the easiest. Diseases etc.

If you care about your creations those wouldn't be the methods you use.

Which all points to a God who is evil, or at least uncaring.

[jackfaire]

Which all points to a God who is evil, or at least uncaring.

I agree and oooggg a aboooga

[HYHYBT]

Even a child would know that the things done to them by an abusive parent are wrong, even if they have no power to stop them.

True, but I know many of the things that as a child I *thought* were unfair, and would have called abuse if I'd known of such a thing, I can now see were just the opposite.

Bruce Almighty showed a god who was apparently bored with it all and so started screwing with his creations. Either that, or he was also not omnipotent.

I'd forgotten all about Bruce Almighty, but how did you get that out of it?

Bill stops a robbery, saves a life, and brings the attempted thief to justice. Media swarm the bank, and interview Bill, telling him what a great guy he is, and how he did such a good thing. He says, “I wasn’t trying to save anybody’s life. I just happened to bump into the guy.” That doesn’t matter. What he did was still a good thing.

The point is that *from his point of view* he didn't do anything at all; there was no *moral* good. The same with the pool: the child's drowning would be a sad event, and his being saved by the pool emptying a happy one, but neither would, morally speaking, be either good or bad.

As for overpopulation, well, we have brains. Were we all to use them (and otherwise why would they be there?) AND if we weren't selfish, hostile, etc. then we could both feed a lot more people *and* have fewer children. And supposedly, outside causes like disease are originally from other created beings choosing to do evil.

[crashhelmet]

Draggar: I don’t think either Dogma or Bruce Almighty really addressed the problem of evil. Dogma showed a god who, although very powerful, was not omnipotent. Bruce Almighty showed a god who was apparently bored with it all and so started screwing with his creations. Either that, or he was also not omnipotent.

With Dogman, you're going to have to read the actual screenplay that Kevin Smith wrote. There's a crucial scene cut out of it, that could show more to His omnipotence.

There's a scene where Bethany is counseling a young girl. She tells this girl that she was once married, but her husband didn't want to have kids. She was so afraid her husband would leave her for getting pregnant, that she had an abortion. She got an infection from the abortion and that's what sterilized her. She wasn't born infertile like the movie suggests. The bigger twist on it, is that her husband was so angry at her for getting the abortion that he left her. Of course, she blames God for it all instead of herself. Her role in the movie is more than just being the last Scion. It's her opportunity to redeem herself and renew her faith.

CH

[Ghel]

With Dogman, you're going to have to read the actual screenplay that Kevin Smith wrote. There's a crucial scene cut out of it, that could show more to His omnipotence.

There's a scene where Bethany is counseling a young girl...

***SPOILERS AHEAD***
I've seen that scene. It's on the DVD special features. That still doesn't make God (as portrayed in the movie) omnipotent. When I say that in Dogma, God is not omnipotent, I'm more referring to the fact that God gets caught in a mortal body and held there against his will. That could never happen to a truly omnipotent being.

[jackfaire]

***SPOILERS AHEAD***
I've seen that scene. It's on the DVD special features. That still doesn't make God (as portrayed in the movie) omnipotent. When I say that in Dogma, God is not omnipotent, I'm more referring to the fact that God gets caught in a mortal body and held there against his will. That could never happen to a truly omnipotent being.

Yep he would have known it was going to happen before he took that body.