The Problem of Evil (XXVII)

[SteveII]

One topic keeps coming up all the time in this forum in almost every thread discussing God. It is the problem of evil in the world. It seems to be the position of most of you that the existence of God and the evil we see in the world is logically incompatible. I have never participated directly on this topic so I was wondering who might like to discuss it. 

First, we should distinguish between the intellectual problem of evil and the emotional problem of evil. The intellectual problem deals with the rational arguments for and against God/evil co-existing. The emotional problem deals with dislike of a God that permits suffering. Just to stay focused, I was hoping for a discussion on only the intellectual problem. Perhaps we can discuss the emotional problem later. 

The typical argument goes something like this:

1. If God exists, then evil cannot exist
2. If evil exist, God cannot exist
3. Evil exists
4. Therefore God does not exist.

There is no explicit contradiction so I am assuming you have implicit contradictions. Does anyone care to articulate them in a manner we can discuss? 

NOTE: I am in no way minimizing the real pain and suffering in the world. In fact, the real pain and suffering might be so intense for some that a discussion on the intellectual problem might seem callous. I apologize now. That is not my intent.

[Silver]

If there is no explicit contradiction in the argument, then I am wondering why you even created this thread.

[ApeNotKillApe]

The presence of suffering isn't contrary to the existence if a god, it only contradicts the assertion that such a god is a benevolent one.

[robvalue]

Exactly. It contradicts the god which is presented as all powerful and all good.

It doesn't contradict a God who is not all good, or not all powerful.

[Minimalist]

Nor does it contradict a god who is not at all.

"Fairy tales" are silly.

"Shit Happens" is all too obviously real.

[madog]

I think Apenotkillape and robvalue have summed it up perfectly ..... the question of whether there is a God has nothing to do with whether he is a shit, loving or indifferent ...... Your question is whether your "God" is the one out of all the other God/s fairytales out there .... we however don't need a supernatural anything

[ApeNotKillApe]

The actual argument:

1. If a god designed the universe then the behavior of the universe reflects the intent of the designer.
2. If said god is omnibenevolent, suffering should not occur as the result of natural forces.
3. If suffering as the result of natural forces does occur, then said god knowingly designed the universe to behave in such a way as to cause suffering, and is not omnibenevolent.
4. Suffering occurs as the result of natural forces.
5. Therefore any designer god, if it exists, is not omnibenevolent.

[brewer]

Evil exists in reality. The problem arises when thiests try to justify/rationalize their man made fantasy in the face of reality. The problem arises again and again with reality, not just with evil.

[Gemini]

I think claims to the effect that philosophers have solved the logical problem of evil are a bit misleading. Consider the following quote from Davis Lewis's paper "Evil for freedom's sake?" in which he provides a reductio against Plantinga's free will defense:

"We are partly right, partly wrong in our catalogue of values. The best things in life include love, joy, knowledge, vigour, despair, malice, betrayal, torture, . . . . God in His infinite love provides all His children with an abundance of good things. Different ones of us get different gifts, all of them very good. So some are blessed with joy and knowledge, some with vigour and malice, some with torture and despair."

It's logically possible that this is correct. Which goes to show how trivial and uninteresting it is to provide a mere defense against the logical problem of evil. "The hypothesis isn't true, of course. And it isn't plausible. But a defense needn't be true and needn't be plausible; possibility is enough. And not epistemic possibility, or 'real' possibility given the actual circumstances and laws of nature; just 'broadly logical' possibility. That's an easy standard."

The task of a theologian whose ambition is commensurate to the task at hand is to provide a theodicy. To defend the compatibility of a tri-omni god with the suffering we observe in the world around us, granting some reasonable assumptions. Such as that the question is intelligible to beings with our comprehension of morality.

Given our understanding of morality, there is no question that a person who was able prevent a child from being crushed to death as a result of an earthquake, or who could prevent hundreds of thousands of deaths from a tsunami, and failed to act, would be immoral.

[Minimalist]

"God" also seems to be the master of the trivial.