• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

Christian God - The Problem of Evil

Rivius

New Member
arg-fallbackName="Rivius"/>
Hello LOR,
I've been sitting around in my miserable little life and musing about the problem of evil and how Christians seem to be either completely oblivious to it, or manage to reconcile it with their belief in their God.

Now from what we know of the Christian God, he is tri-omni: omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

For the time being, I'm most concerned with the first two omnis:
  • om,·nip,·o,·tent   [om-nip-uh-tuhnt]
    -adjective

    almighty or infinite in power, as God.


  • om,·nis,·cient   [om-nish-uhnt] Show IPA
    -adjective

    having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.


Now, having defined those, let's take a moment to define evil, just for the heck of it.

e,·vil   [ee-vuhl]
-adjective
1.
morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
2.
harmful; injurious: evil laws.
3.
characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
4.
due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
5.
marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.


With that out of the way I must ask a question.
Couldn't an omnipotent God create a world where evil did not exist, or did not occur?

A common argument from Christians is that this would interfere with freewill, and that the lack of freewill is an undesirable trait (and indeed one of God's greatest gift to us) and thus would be inconsistent with the perfect world God was trying to create.

Now, I, as a lowly human can CONCEIVE of a world where freewill and a lack of evil is compatible.
Perhaps evil can be chosen, in theory, but the way this world was designed, no evil choices will ever be made. In other words, I can conceive of a world where every human being (or angel for that matter) always freely chose to do good.

So why didn't God design it this way? If I can conceive it, it should have been easy to make, but nevermind that.
Even if it were implausible within our logical framework, a God possessing omnipotence would not be bounded by such constraints. Indeed, he should be able to define his own laws of logic and create the perfect world with no issues at all. If you argue he could not, can you say his omnipotence is intact?



Another argument I see is that evil isn't necessarily something that exists per se, but actually just a lack of God, or of goodness. One of the more interesting explanations of that argument I've come across is here:

http://www.heaven.net.nz/answers/answer15.htm


But I take issue with this. Nevermind that I'm perhaps not quite able to concede such a definition of evil, it still doesn't address the point. Why did this "lack of God" even arise in his world in the first place.

Now let's go back to the 3rd omni I neglected to define:

om,·ni,·pres,·ent   [om-nuh-prez-uhnt]
-adjective
present everywhere at the same time: the omnipresent god.


If God is indeed omnipresent, then what meaning does "lack of God" have? It shouldn't be possible at all.


The Christian then says, "Well, you don't lack God, you merely reject him". Indeed, this is free-choice. This is freewill. But what did it take to make such a rejection? What sort of choice would that be? Would it not be evil by their definition? Is it perhaps a lack of God which is causing the rejection of God? It doesn't make sense.



So my conclusion:

I can conceive of a world where evil does not exist.
Even if it were not possible by our logic, for God it should be possible.

Evil exists therefore:

1) God is NOT tri-omni.

OR

2) God is not benevolent and does not care for the problem of evil.

OR

3) God does not exist

Either way, the Christian God does not remain intact.


This is honestly one of the biggest reasons I originally became an atheist some years ago, before I came across more arguments and became a little more acquainted with science. I was just wondering if there was anyone who saw holes in my argument or perhaps thought it doesn't quite do. I'm looking for attack and maybe input to make it more robust. I'm interested in some constructive discussion perhaps? Sorry if it may seem a little sloppy in the way I laid it down. I'm terrible with articulation. Perhaps later I'll make adjustments if I think I can do better.
 
arg-fallbackName="Anachronous Rex"/>
To be fair, this is only a problem if you assume that the Christian God is somehow benevolent; I'm not sure if this is textually supported.
 
arg-fallbackName="TheFearmonger"/>
Deuteronomy 28:50 to end, god makes people eat their own children for unbelief lolz. He is not perfect, and an imperfect being is not a god, so yeah. Part 1 solved.

Part 2 the problem of evil, also easily solved. We, as humans, define right from wrong. Evil is only evil in the eyes of a human, and so gods cannot play a role in it. This also means we control evil, and all its consequenses. So, no problem:D

Isnt life grand?
 
arg-fallbackName="Aught3"/>
Well God does some nice things and God does some nasty things, at least according to the Bible. He's a complicated character and rather human because of it.
 
arg-fallbackName="lrkun"/>
Try to look at it this way. Evil is a man made concept, defined for the purpose of distinguishing that which is detrimental to man.

If a God exists, then to it, there is no such term. To see man, animals, and everything else die is good. Liken it to an MMO game.

Nevertheless I find no evidence in favor of or against this it. So I can't conclude that the second paragraph is true, unless in a hypothetical manner as defined by the thread starter's opening post.

It - god
 
arg-fallbackName="godisabullet"/>
Hi all,

My first post on the boards after being very well entertained by reading others' posts.

I have had this argument with religious people but about sin instead of evil.

What I don't get is how, when I say - "God created everything therefore he created sin. Why would a god want to do this? It seems rather malicious," - the answer is always something about sin being part of free will. God wants us to have free will but it's up to human beings as to whether we use free will to do good or to sin.

But then they say we're all born sinners. :S

I dunno. It all seems crazy to me ;)

Cheers.
 
arg-fallbackName="Yfelsung"/>
If God wanted me to have free will, he'd show himself and allow me to decide whether I would follow him by merit of his actions, not his mere existence. He'd also take the shotgun called "Hell" away from the back of my head so I could truly make my own decisions.

The idea of God is ludicrous.
 
arg-fallbackName="Keogan"/>
Yfelsung said:
If God wanted me to have free will, he'd show himself and allow me to decide whether I would follow him by merit of his actions, not his mere existence. He'd also take the shotgun called "Hell" away from the back of my head so I could truly make my own decisions.

The idea of God is ludicrous.

Exactly. If the Christian God showed himself to be real tomorrow, that still doesn't necessitate me falling down to my knees in in worship of Him. If that vengeful Old Testament God did exist, he would have a lot to answer for.
 
arg-fallbackName="lrkun"/>
If evil = sin, and everyone alive to day has sin - according to the christian doctrine. Then everyone has this thing we call sin.

Why did the christian doctrine claim that everyone has sin? Because if everyone has sin, everyone will look for the remedy to this thing we call sin.

What is the remedy to this thing? Faith in Jesus. Therefore if everyone has faith in Jesus, then it follows that everyone will be cured.

-oOo-

If you analyse my argument, you'll realize that it is a Christian propaganda to indoctrinate one and all for the purpose of joining the exclusive club. It's all for the sake of being a member of Christianity.

It's a devious marketing tool that has been accepted up until today. Therefore most christians look at those who don't adhere to their faith as sinners, for some humanitarian reason they want to indoctrinate others and save them.

;)
 
arg-fallbackName="mirandansa"/>
I don't believe in "Creator", so i'm not interested in defending it on behalf of Christians. But i would like to point out that the defending principle is called theodicy (theos 'god' + dike 'justice'), first coined by Leibniz in his response to skeptic Pierre Bayle who argued that the sufferings experienced in this earthly life prove that God could not be good and omnipotent. You can find Leibniz's full essay here:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17147/17147-h/17147-h.htm
 
arg-fallbackName="SpaceDust"/>
I don't get it when Christians say we are born sinned because of two people eating an apple i thought god was a friendly guy its been 2000 years and he still doesnt forgive us we been saying sorry for 2000 years i wonder if hes heard of love thy neighbor and hes a bad role model hes jealous of something witch is a sin right? "for I the Lord your God am a jealous God" Exodus 20:2-17
 
arg-fallbackName="SirYeen"/>
Yfelsung said:
If God wanted me to have free will, he'd show himself and allow me to decide whether I would follow him by merit of his actions, not his mere existence. He'd also take the shotgun called "Hell" away from the back of my head so I could truly make my own decisions.

The idea of God is ludicrous.

*Didn't read all responses you you might have already have a similar response but anyway. I'll play the devil's advocate here :
You are assuming that hell exists, and that god decides whether you go to hell or not.
* I'm pretty sure that if god wanted you to follow him he'd act yes. But who says he want people to follow him.
* I'm pretty sure I could make a decent case for a Deistic God.
 
arg-fallbackName="Yfelsung"/>
Iprodigy said:
Yfelsung said:
If God wanted me to have free will, he'd show himself and allow me to decide whether I would follow him by merit of his actions, not his mere existence. He'd also take the shotgun called "Hell" away from the back of my head so I could truly make my own decisions.

The idea of God is ludicrous.

*Didn't read all responses you you might have already have a similar response but anyway. I'll play the devil's advocate here :
You are assuming that hell exists, and that god decides whether you go to hell or not.
* I'm pretty sure that if god wanted you to follow him he'd act yes. But who says he want people to follow him.
* I'm pretty sure I could make a decent case for a Deistic God.

God is an omnipotent being who exists outside of reality. I am quite positive God doesn't exist.

Any other creature that may fit the definition of "god-like" or a deistic god will have a better, more accurate definition than the word "god".

God doesn't exist.

Some being we have assigned god-like attributes to may exist, but they are not God, they are "Undefined Extra-planetary Creature X".

God is a god named God, and he is purely fictitious.
 
arg-fallbackName="godisabullet"/>
My 2 cents...

1. The idea of sin is directly related to the idea of a god. No god -> no sin. Therefore you need to prove there is a god before you can prove there is sin.

2. Evil is a human construct. To assert that it has some relation to a god or gods you need to prove that there is a god or gods.

So, what proof is there of a god or gods?

None.

Therefore there is no such thing as sin and evil has nothing to do with a god or gods and is a totally human construct.

Cheers.
 
arg-fallbackName="Latagon"/>
I agree with the above poster. Sin is just some act or another that is deemed immoral. Morality itself is a construct of the human concept of right and wrong. God itself is merely the face of this sort of morality. It is an instrument of fear and control by the "christians"

Please excuse my novice opinion, I'm new here.
 
arg-fallbackName="Andiferous"/>
I can't think of many ways to justify god creating everything and humans subsequently choosing evil, when god has not created evil. That's just one of those thing that can never really make sense, really. Or I do not think so. That alone is a biggie. Quite. :)

Omnibenevolence isn't something claimed by most doctrines. Where did it come from? I'd be curious to hear. There are usually the trinity of omnis: potence; presence; omniscience. Not that I'm making an argument there; just that I'm not sure it's logical to assume that god is good (except by definition of terms).

It's also not logical to assume that god intervenes in human activity, unless otherwise professed. One might support the idea of a so-called 'clockwork society' in which god just observes us be ridiculous and make mistakes without muddying his hands in our affairs.

Sin has an interesting overlap with social taboo in many cases, so I suspect there are some societal origins for "sin" and morality.
 
arg-fallbackName="Rivius"/>
Well, I was dealing mostly with the internal consistency of Christianity (and I suppose Abrahamic faiths in general). So the definition of evil and attributes of God are assumed as what is stated from their doctrines.


In any case, I've done some research into the matter and it appears as if the logical problem of evil has been conceded (by most contemporary philosophers) to have been solved by Alvin Plantinga.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga's_free_will_defense

To put it in something of a nutshell, he's saying that even with Omnipotence God could not actualize a world with free-will and with his beings doing all good. He assumes incompatibalism, which is fair by the logic of Christian doctrines. He then goes on to say that God may have had good reason to create free-will anyway, and that the good far outweighed the bad.
All of these claims are logically consistent, so it looks like that has been solved.


Now, there still remains the evidential problem of evil, but Plantinga get's away by saying "God works in mysterious ways" and actually invokes it in a somewhat logical sense that is difficult to rebut.

My main objections have to do with:

(*) The existence of heaven as a perfect world. A possible world at that where no sin takes place (outside of satan's original sin)
(*) The existence of the New Jerusalem at the end of times.

If all you say we need for such a world to exist is foreknowledge, why did God not allow it? He created us as ignoramuses and yet expected us to just know better.

I suppose I have some reading to do, because I'm sure my arguments have been rebutted before.

EDIT: Ok, so apparently a common argument to the heaven defense is that heaven is not actually a world but only a part of the current world. So some argue that heaven is contingent on this world, despite the depravity here. Hmmmm. Seems about watertight. I'll mull it over some more. *shrugs*
 
Back
Top