This is outline I have come up with on my own. It is not something I cut and pasted from some great philosopher or anything. I know it is long, but I am posting this for those who wish to see a complete, alternative answer to the problem(s) of evil from the Christian perspective.
THE PROBLEM(S) OF EVIL
I. Introduction
A. This problem is unique and important.
- It is emotional, personal, and immediate.
- Because it actually, if true, necessitates that God does not exist,
according to point B.
B. The Classic Syllogism:
Premise 1) If God is all good, He would destroy evil.
Premise 2) If God is all powerful, He could destroy evil.
Premise 3) Evil exists.
Conclusion) An all good, all powerful God doesn't exist.
II. Options
A. Atheism
- This denies premise 1 & 2: since there is no God, there is no
problem of evil.(The problem of evil is reconciling evil with God.)
- It doesn't take the evidence for God seriously.
- It doesn't take my personal problem (of evil) seriously. It
leaves me with no answer or hope.
B. Pantheism
- This denies premise 1 & 3: God is beyond good and evil; there
is no such thing as evil; it is an illusion.
- Evil is an illusion of unenlightened human consciousness: This
has bad implications, in that rape and murder are equal with
love, life is equal to death, praise to cursing, cruelty to
noncruelty.
- In short, pantheism doesn't take evil, my problem, seriously.
C. Polytheism
- This denies premise 1 and 2: whether there is no supreme,
reigning, omnipotent, all-good God above other gods, or that
there is no God near that level of perfection at all.
- This can't even attempt to answer, because the conclusion
clearly states a singular God.
D. Theism
- This falsifies the premises, but lets see how it fairs, because
this is the only logical option to be dealt with.
III. Theism
- Forms of the problem.
A) Any evil.
B) Any amount of evil.
C) Unjust distribution of evil.
B) Any amount of evil
- Logical standpoint: This is a gratuitous problem.
Premise 1) If God exists, then evil has a justifiable reason.
Premise 2) But not all evil has a justifyable reason.
Conclusion) God does not exist.
- Practical standpoint: There is too much pointless evil.
~ Answer: How much evil is too much?
~ We (as Christians) can't explain all the instances of evil, but
we can explain why we can't explain them: The finite can't
comprehend the infinite.
~ In other words, "We don't know why, but we know why we
don't know why, and we know the One who knows why, and
that's better than just not knowing why!" (further explained)
C) Unjust distribution of evil
- The actions of some often undeservedly affect another.
- But the question is not why do bad things happen to good
people, because there are no good people.
~ Ex. Compare a sheep's white wool to the grass it stands next
to. Wow! it sure looks white! Then compare its white wool to
white snow. Hmm, doesn't look so nice and white anymore:
It's all who you compare yourself as being "good" to. There
are too many varying standards of goodness, without
putting God into the equation (discussed later).
- The better question is why good things happen to bad people.
- We have to remember that throughout all of this, that just
because we don't see the end result, doesn't mean it isn't
resolved justly: Justice delayed isn't justice denied.
A) Any evil: this is the only logical option to be dealt with.
IV. The Problem of Evil.
- Let's look at the 3 premise's points: evil, omnipotence, and
goodness.
- The Classic Syllogism:
Premise 1) If God is all good, He would destroy evil.
Premise 2) If God is all powerful, He could destroy evil.
Premise 3) Evil exists.
Conclusion) An all good, all powerful God doesn't exist.
- However what is the assumption in this objection? It is noteworthy
that the problem of evil assumes that God exists! How do we know
what evil is unless we know what good is? And how do we know what
good is unless there is an objective standard beyond ourselves?
V. Is Evil a Problem?
A) What is evil?
- The problem of evil's origin:
Premise 1) God is the author of everything.
Premise 2) Evil is something.
Conclusion) God is the author of evil.
- If evil is a thing, then God made it, or worse he didn't: resulting
in dualism. But to deny the reality of evil is the incompetent
pantheistic attempt.
B) Did God create evil?
- The nature of evil:
~ Evil is not a thing; rather it is the privation of a good thing.
~ Evil is a corruption - the worst things are the best things
corrupted.
~ Ex. Blindness or a moth-eaten garment: Sight is an amazing
wonder, but it being damaged results in blindness. A new
shirt can be worn in pride, but a moth-eaten shirt is thrown
away in disgust because of its corruption.
C) Is the existence of suffering from nature a problem?
- There's a psychosomatic unity of man’s evil with nature’s evil.
~ From the Christian standpoint, at the point of the Fall (as
told in the Bible) the curse of sin, pain, and death not only
fell on humanity, but all of nature as well.
- It can be described in the following diagram: Imagine a circle
with a slightly larger one around it, and a third circle slightly
larger around the second and first. The inner circle is the
spirit of man, the second is the body of man, the third is the
realm of nature. When the first circle is disconnected from
God and cursed with sin, pain, and death, it is a chain
reaction to the rest, because the spirit is the innermost. The
spirit of a man affects his whole being, and the corrupted
humanity affects the realm of nature.
D) Why is there evil, suffering, and pain?
- The answer is free will.
~ Objection to that Christian standpoint:
Premise 1) Every creature God made is perfect.
Premise 2) Perfect creatures can't do what is imperfect.
Conclusion) Every creature God made can't do what is
imperfect.
~ Answer to that objection:
Premise 1) God made everything perfect.
Premise 2) One of those things God made was free
creatures.
Premise 3) Free will can cause evil.
Conclusion) Imperfection can arise from perfection.
E) Summary
- God is not responsible for evil. He made it possible, but we
make it actual.
- Ex. We do not blame Henry Ford for the accidents that happen
today, do we? Just because by building cars, Ford made it
possible for car accidents to happen, doesn't mean that he is
responsible for the actual car accidents that happen today.
VI. Is God's Omnipotence a Problem?
A) Why can't God destroy evil?
- He can't destroy evil without destroying freedom.
- Think of the implications: He wouldn't destroy freedom
without destroying man, because that is the core of our being,
which can't be taken away without extremely altering us. So
what if He starts this destruction of evil by destroying you? I
don’t think that's what we want as humans - death - especially
since many of us aren't ready to face it.
B) If God can do anything possible, did He do His best?
- Did God create the best world? What other worlds could He
have created?
- He could have:
~ 1. Not created at all.
~ 2. Created a world without freedom.
~ 3. Created a world with free creatures that wouldn’t sin.
~ 4. Created a world with free creatures that would sin, but
could not all be saved.
~ 5. Created a world with free creatures that would sin, but
could all be saved.
- Since God could have avoided evil or hell or both, did He do His
best?
- Well, here’s the answers to the other possibilities:
~ 1. Nothing is not better than something.
~ 2. A nonmoral world cannot be morally better than a moral
world.
~ 3. This is a contradiction; it's conceivable but not achievable.
~ 4. This would automatically condemn some, while saving
saving others, which would contradict His just, merciful, and
gracious nature.
~ 5. God would respect our choices, but compromise His
immediate justice, by allowing all the possibility of being
saved.
- So is this the best possible world in number 5?
~ Answer: This world is not the best, but it is the best way to
the best possible world.
~ From the Christian perspective, imagine this diagram:
A dirt road, which represents the journey of humanity. At the
very beginning of the road there is a line that represents
Creation, while slightly farther there is a line in the dirt that
represents ...
~ From the Christian perspective, imagine this diagram:
A dirt road, which represents the journey of humanity. At the
very beginning of the road there is a line that represents
Creation, while slightly farther there is a line in the dirt that
represents the Fall (as told in the Bible). Then it seems like
an endless walk before you reach another line, right before
a fork in the road. The seemingly endless walk represents
the Age of Choice, which we live in right now. The line
represents the Confirmation of Choice, where in most
people's lives is there death, standing at the judgment seat,
where they will face the consequences of their choices;
while in some, that line will come in the unexpected return
of Jesus, as Christians believe. The fork in the road
represents the two short paths to the eternal destinations -
Heaven or Hell. Heaven, obviously being the best world,
and our life on earth the best possible way to that perfect
world. I just want to stress that although the details may
differ on how people think they will get to heaven,
depending on their beliefs, it can't be denied that choice
number 5, this life we live, is the best possible way to the
best world, Heaven.
VII. Is God's goodness a problem?
A) Is God good to allow evil to remain? Well, first we must
differentiate between 2 things: goodness and kindness, and His
goodness outweighs His kindness.
- God is more concerned about us being good, than us feeling
good.
- God is more concerned with our character, than He is with our
comfort, with our holiness, than our happiness.
- God lets us suffer not because He lacks love, but because He is
love.
~ (Ex. Doing my kids homework for them is kind, but not loving
or good for them.)
~ (Ex. A boy must sometime thread a needle himself, so he will
know the pain of the prick, and not always have his mom
sew for him.)
B) God, although He didn't create evil, can use it for good in this
world or in the next: He permits it but doesn't promote it.
- This world
~ Pain keeps us from destruction. (Ex. If we didn’t experience
pain, we wouldn’t know when we are getting hurt, causing
severe damage due to the lack of feeling.)
~ God uses evil to warn us of a greater evil. (Ex. A boy who
burns himself at the stove learns not to touch extremely hot
stuff, such as more dangerous things like fire.)
~ He uses evil to bring about a greater good. (Ex. From the
Bible, the story of Joseph’s slavery and Job’s desolation.)
~ Evil can help defeat evil. (Ex. The role the cross plays in
salvation.)
- The next world
~ Suffering can lead us to repentance. Pain is God's
megaphone. It motivates us to seek the cure of Christ.
~ The struggles of this world prepare us for the next.
VIII. The Problem answered.
A) The Classic Syllogism still remains.
Premise 1) If God is all good, He would destroy evil.
Premise 2) If God is all powerful, He could destroy evil.
Premise 3) Evil exists.
Conclusion) An all good, all powerful God doesn't exist.
B) Here's the answer, and how it should be presented instead.
Premise 1) If God is all good, He will defeat evil.
Premise 2) If God is all powerful, He will be able to defeat evil.
Premise 3) Evil is not yet defeated.
Conclusion) God will one day defeat evil.
C) What seems to be the problem is the very answer! Because God
is all good and all powerful, we know as Christians He will one day
defeat evil (in Christ's return)! Don't read the book and criticize
the author half way through for not resolving the plot!
IX. Summary
A) Only the Theist leaves us with the answer.
B) We know that God didn't create evil, but only the potential for it.
C) This was done to ensure freedom and our greatest good of love.
D) God can't destroy evil without destroying freedom.
E) Although there is possible and actual evil, God still created the
best world.
F) God's goodness is not compromised by allowing evil to continue.
- By allowing it: Lets men freely choose Him; bring good out of it;
we can better enjoy eternity.
G) The problem will one day be fully answered and evil fully
defeated.
God's plan is ingenious! He created a world without a guarantee of
perfection, knowing that it would fall. He permitted evil, allowing his
creatures to freely choose Him and His sinless home, while promising
evil's defeat.
Originally posted by ngeisler88Good outline. I'll go through it again and see if I'm in complete agreement, but it looks good thus far.
I also want to apologize for the unclear formatting. It doesn't exactly match what I typed regarding spacing. Please delve into it regardless and reap what you can. Thank you for taking the time to read it all thoroughly.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeThe Garden of Eden had no natural disasters or death until after the sin of Adam and Eve. (see Genesis 1-3). There will be no natural disasters or death in the new heavens and earth when God puts an end to evil once and for all. (see Revelation 21:4).
"God is not responsible for evil. He made it possible, but we
make it actual."
Which human made eatherquakes actual?
Originally posted by dj2beckerSo it is your contention that the Fall of Adam is responsible for
The Garden of Eden had no natural disasters or death until after the sin of Adam and Eve. (see Genesis 1-3). There will be no natural disasters or death in the new heavens and earth when God puts an end to evil once and for all. (see Revelation 21:4).
earthquakes and that this is in concord with a just and loving God?
Nemesio
"God is not responsible for evil. He made it possible, but we
make it actual."
If I were still X Xian and wrote in this manner, I would point out that if this "God" fellow has omniscience, then he knows the entire stream of consequences resulting from the concatenation of every possible action including his own. Therefore God is at least ultimately responsible for evil because from his perspective making evil possible and making evil exist are equivalent. This is an odd consequence of God's omniscience.
Now if a human, who is not omniscient, willfully makes possible some disaster, that person may in the some cases be held negligent. This is because the outcome is uncertain from the human's perspective. One cannot expect a human to know the entire stream of outcomes arising from their decision. We can however expect God to know this about his own actions. If making evil "possible" somehow lets God off the hook then we are limiting his knowledge in the same way that a human's is. But this is unacceptable because certainly we do not want to reduce "God" to a simple anthropomorphism.
Butt prays JESUS, Im no a satanust no mor GOD bliss you dj2becker. You are so brite. You two bruther jaywill
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by telerion"God writes straight with crooked lines."
[b]"God is not responsible for evil. He made it possible, but we
make it actual."
If I were still X Xian and wrote in this manner, I would point out that if this "God" fellow has omniscience, then he knows the entire stream of consequences resulting from the concatenation of every possible action including his own. Therefore God is at least ult satanust no mor GOD bliss you dj2becker. You are so brite. You two bruther jaywill[/b]
How can we know that God's apparent "evil" is not actually the source of some greater good?
Originally posted by telerionLet's look at my outline again for clarification. Because He is omniscient, His plan is ingenious as stated below.
[b]"God is not responsible for evil. He made it possible, but we
make it actual."
If I were still X Xian and wrote in this manner, I would point out that if this "God" fellow has omniscience, then he knows the entire stream of consequences resulting from the concatenation of every possible action including his own. Therefore God is at least [i]ult ...[text shortened]... satanust no mor GOD bliss you dj2becker. You are so brite. You two bruther jaywill[/b]
"God's plan is ingenious! He created a world without a guarantee of
perfection, knowing that it would fall. He permitted evil, allowing his
creatures to freely choose Him and His sinless home, while promising
evil's defeat."
What was the purpose for Him creating mankind? The answer is simply free worship and free fellowship. In order to not be loved by robots, freedom had to be inserted into the equation, which then further allowed for imperfection to arise.
I will offer no further clarification on this until you reread section V and VI, which answers your dillema.
To conclude, you reference even though God might not be responsible, He is at least ultimately responsible. There is no such thing. Evil could have come about some other way maybe. God's plan was a sufficient condition, but not a necessary condition. Nevertheless, there is no such thing as ultimately responsible. To follow your logic then Henry Ford is responsible for the car accidents of today. To follow your logic, the parents of a murder, and even the grandparents of a murderer, should bear the same penalty of the murder, because why not? If the grandparents didn't have sex to have the parents who didn't have sex to have the murderous child, then that child would have never had the opportunity to murder, because it wouldn't have existed. Your logic is ludicrously flawed in trying to hold things in this chain-reaction accountable. Another type of this flawed, would be how people term genuine, born-again believers as different that born-again believers. It's repetitive and unnecessary.
So either in some cases "ultimately responsible" and "responsible" are in fact the same or "ultimately responsible" just doesn't exist at all. Either way, God's omniscience is not a valid contention against the problem of evil.
Originally posted by dj2beckerWhy is a free choice for good or evil such a good thing?
The Garden of Eden had no natural disasters or death until after the sin of Adam and Eve. (see Genesis 1-3). There will be no natural disasters or death in the new heavens and earth when God puts an end to evil once and for all. (see Revelation 21:4).
Originally posted by ngeisler88A. Atheism
~ From the Christian perspective, imagine this diagram:
A dirt road, which represents the journey of humanity. At the
very beginning of the road there is a line that represents
Creation, while slightly farther there is a line in the dirt that
represents the Fall (as told in the Bible). Then it s atures to freely choose Him and His sinless home, while promising
evil's defeat.
- This denies premise 1 & 2: since there is no God, there is no
problem of evil.(The problem of evil is reconciling evil with God.)
To state that there is no “problem of evil,” as per Euthyphro’s dilemma may be correct. That is not to say that there remains no question of evil—whys, wherefores, causes, etc. Your whole set-up seems to presume (a) that there must be a satisfactory (universally recognized?) answer to those questions; and (b) that such an answer must be accessible to us. Both “I don’t know” (e.g., why there are earthquakes and rattlesnakes) and situational answers (e.g., “The reasons that so many went along with Hitler’s ‘final solution’ seem to be....” ) are thrown out of court, so to speak, at the beginning.
In other words, we would like there to be an ultimate metaphysical answer to the questions of evil, therefore there must be one.
- It doesn't take the evidence for God seriously.
One doesn’t need to be non-serious about rejecting what may be presented as evidence for a particular conceptualization of “God” in order to, in fact, reject such evidence if it does not seem convincing. Since the “classic” problem of evil is, as you say, one of reconciling evil with the existence of a particular conception of God, that “problem” in fact counts as evidence against. Therefore, there needs to be countervailing evidence on the other side of the ledger. Your schema does not seem to provide that—it simply argues that the existence of such a God can be explained in spite the “problem of evil,” and the “problem of evil” explained within that framework.
Quite frankly, if one does not count “divine revelation”—and a particular body of such revelation to boot—as evidence, then I don’t see it.
- It doesn't take my personal problem (of evil) seriously. It leaves me with no answer or hope.
It’s quite possible that the truth—or at least the body of evidence—may not provide you with either. If you insist that it must, you are assuming part of what you are trying to argue for at the get-go. That is, the whole thrust of your argument seems to rest on the presumption that the “answer” must satisfy you personally, and give you hope, or it will be rejected out-of-hand. That is a decision that you personally have to make, but it can’t be a test of “the facts.”
- Evil is an illusion of unenlightened human consciousness: This has bad implications, in that rape and murder are equal with love, life is equal to death, praise to cursing, cruelty to noncruelty.
First, as I tried to say above, if the truth has “bad implications,” that doesn’t necessarily make it less true.
More to the point of your presentation here, I think this is a mischaracterization—as a monist, I would be more likely to say (assuming, again, that there is an answer) that people commit evil acts ultimately because they perceive reality in an illusive manner. As a priest friend of mine put it, Christianity tends to treat sin as the result of rebellion against God’s laws, monists tend to treat it as the result of illusion in how we perceive the reality in which we live. This basic premise seems to be subject to more than one treatment, as is the Christian viewpoint.
I have come across no monist who says that “rape and murder are equal with love.” No Sufi would say that; just as no Buddhist would say that rape and murder are equal with compassion. This, too, would be illusion—and a most pernicious illusion at that.
I do not think you understand the term “illusion” (maya) as it is used (sometimes somewhat differently) in the monistic systems.
- In short, pantheism doesn't take evil, my problem, seriously.
Pantheism is a broad term. I am speaking of the monist viewpoint as, say, in Zen or Advaita Vedanta. Those systems of thought do take the question of evil seriously. As you note, the classical “problem of evil” does not arise, because of the absence of the concept of an omnipotent and omni-benevolent being. Just because you do not find their answer satisfactory, does mean the question is not treated seriously.
The whole rest of your argument (well-presented as it is) is an attempt to address the problem of evil after assuming the points that I noted above, namely—
(1) That there is a being such as described by the God of supernatural theism (namely, here, Christianity);
(2) That there is an ultimate, universal answer to the problem of evil (and that it is accessible to us, at least in part);
(3) That any answer to the question of evil must be in accord with those assumptions in order to be (personally ) satisfactory.
I have no problem with your seeking an answer that is personally satisfying—that is part of the basic aesthetics of our existence. I have no problem with your decision of faith to live your life in the light of such an answer. But I would offer that, we can test our faith by the facts (as we find them); we really cannot do it the other way ‘round, without confusing perhaps both faith and facts.
________________________________
BTW, I think you are entangled in illusion... 😉
Originally posted by NemesioIs it earthquakes that kill people or is it the bulidings and structures they insist on building and living in that kill them during the earthquakes? Would we need buildings and such to live in if no one had sinned and the earth was still a paradise like state as was the Garden of Eden?
So it is your contention that the Fall of Adam is responsible for
earthquakes and that this is in concord with a just and loving God?
Nemesio
Originally posted by telerionThrough this line of reasoning God is more responsible for this post of yours that I am responding to than you are. Likewise, my response was ordained by God as well and is his rebutal to himself.
[b]"God is not responsible for evil. He made it possible, but we
make it actual."
If I were still X Xian and wrote in this manner, I would point out that if this "God" fellow has omniscience, then he knows the entire stream of consequences resulting from the concatenation of every possible action including his own. Therefore God is at least [i]ult ...[text shortened]... satanust no mor GOD bliss you dj2becker. You are so brite. You two bruther jaywill[/b]