If God wants to destroy evil...

[Zarathustra]

God created everything that has been, is, and is going to be in existence. He created the Earth and the Heavens. He created the Lake of Fire in which he casts sinners. He created Good, and He created evil. Does not the old adage says "I have created you, and so can I destroy you"?

If God wanted to, couldn't He, in theory, destroy evil with no need for the battle of the apocalypse?

[spetey]

Then the problem of evil is: why did God make a world like ours, where there is lots of evil? You claim maybe God needed to make rotten worlds in order to resolve paradoxes. Like what?

In my speculated account, God is fighting the "bacteria" of the Universe.

Uh-huh. Very metaphorical. And, according to you, did God create this "bacteria"? If so, why? And, according to you, is God powerful enough to destroy this "bacteria"? If so, why doesn't God?

The theodicist's job is to show that every scrap of evil is necessary--that this is the best of all possible worlds. You claim evil is necessary to solve some paradox, but you are sketchy and metaphorical about what this paradox is. Please tell me what paradox evil is necessary to solve. If you can't tell me which paradox it is, it seems you just trust that there is some such paradox. But again, your trust does not serve as reason for me.

If logic exists, then I think it is sensible to think that paradoxes exemplify themselves as evil in the world.

Uh-huh. Now the paradoxes are the evil, instead of necessitating evil. I don't get this either. The tsunami was evil--yes? How is the tsunami a paradox?

Afterall, what could be more paradoxial than a good God creating a universe with evil?

Ah. Now here you are referring to a specific purported paradox: that an all-good, all-powerful God exists, and there is evil. But obviously this "paradox" is not the same as the evil, nor is it in any obvious way the source of the evil. And it's not really a paradox, it is merely a set of inconsistent claims. We can resolve the inconsistency by throwing out the premise that God exists. No paradox!

It sounds here like you believe in God because such belief contradicts obvious facts such as the presence of evil. But this is a very strange "reason" that I hope you can see will not be persuasive to me.

Of course, I don't expect you to buy into that reasoning...

Good, I'm glad. So give reasons that in principle could appeal to me, or confess you are merely appealing to faith.

... but God is required in any view of self-existing logico-mathematical structure, and logico-mathematical structure is the simplest account for the world (i.e., especially in light of quantum theory which destroys any kind of permanence to the concept of matter). Once materialism bit the dust with the advent of quantum theory (with chaos theory giving it another kick), there just isn't room anymore for atheism.

I can't make anything of this at all. It doesn't seem to do with defending God in the face of evil, though, so perhaps it's best elaborated on other threads if necessary.

Now, the question is what kind of God is there. Not whether there is a God.

It's true the problem of evil does allow for certain kinds of gods, like Zeus or the Invisible Pink Unicorn, for example. Since Zeus and the IPU are not claimed to be all-good or all-powerful, the presence of evil poses no problem for such gods. But it works a treat against Yahweh!


spetey

[spetey]

God doesn't torture children, Spetey, the world that exists is what tortures children.

And who is responsible for the world being as it is? Again, the question is easy: could God have prevented this torture of the children or not? If not, in what sense is this God powerful? If so, why didn't God?

Unfortunately the laws of our universe allow for evil to exist. It is not God's fault that this is so, anymore than it is God's fault that there is a Liar's paradox that remains unsolved within logic.

No, it's not God's fault? Huh. Who made the laws of the universe? Even given the laws of the universe, God could easily have made a planet where there are no tsunamis (or earthquakes or hurricanes or ...), I assume.

Instead of arguing about God's existence, why don't you use that good intellect of yours to try and argue for God's existence? It's really too bad that you didn't put half the effort of your converted life that you put into your non-converted life.

Thanks for the compliment, Harvey. Why do you assume I didn't try to reason for the existence of a God? In fact I did try to use my "good intellect" to show that God exists. For a long time I felt due to societal pressures that I should believe that God exists, despite crazy contradictions such as the presence of evil and 1=3, and I struggled to do so. But after careful honest reasoning, the answer came up the same every time: there just is no such God. No matter how smart someone is, that person just can't give a good proof that 2+2=5. I feel I am in a similar position with trying to prove that God exists.


spetey

[spetey]

And, if you pay attention, children, with their "chid-like-faith", seem to suffer less than the adults.

Some, fortunately, suffer less. (That's easily explained by their relative lack of responsibility.) But do you claim those children who drowned didn't suffer? If so, on what grounds do you say this?

Of course his perspective allows Him to see the entire picture, and make sense of it all.

To say it makes sense to God, without explaining it so that it makes sense to us, is just to appeal to faith.

So, will I look back and regret? Yes! I'm sure of it. But what I will regret, is all the opportunities for growth I passed up, and all the opportunites I missed in helping God's kid understand the gifts of this life!

You seem to claim that pain and suffering are not bad--that in fact they are good tools for growth. By this reasoning it seems you should seek out as much pain as possible. Do you? There are lots of ways to injure yourself painfully right where you are, I bet. (Got a stapler nearby?) But personally, I hope you don't.


spetey

[Bro Dave]

Some, fortunately, suffer less. (That's easily explained by their relative lack of responsibility.) But do you claim those children who drowned didn't suffer? If so, on what grounds do you say this?

I did not say there was no suffering, did I?

Of course his perspective allows Him to see the entire picture, and make sense of it all.

To say it makes sense to God, without explaining it so that it makes sense to us, is just to appeal to faith

Of course, that is true. But, in order to love God, first you must trust Him. And, if you understand the entire universe was created for you and me, and zillions of others gradually to achieve perfection, putting a little faith in Father's intentions does not seem so difficult.

So, will I look back and regret? Yes! I'm sure of it. But what I will regret, is all the opportunities for growth I passed up, and all the opportunites I missed in helping God's kid understand the gifts of this life!

You seem to claim that pain and suffering are not bad--that in fact they are good tools for growth. By this reasoning it seems you should seek out as much pain as possible. Do you?

That is more than a little convoluted Pain is only important as a "steering mechanism". It tells us how NOT to live our lives. Ideally, if we were all perfect, then the pain would cease to serve a purpose. But, we are in little danger of being perfect!

There are lots of ways to injure yourself painfully right where you are, I bet. (Got a stapler nearby?) But personally, I hope you don't.


spetey

LOL, not to worry. I make enough stupid decisions that I do NOT have to purposefull pound staples into my body! Anyway, the pain is only a score keeper of how well we are doing. Why would I want the "score" any lower than it is already???

Bro Dave

[spetey]

To say it makes sense to God, without explaining it so that it makes sense to us, is just to appeal to faith

Of course, that is true. But, in order to love God, first you must trust Him. And, if you understand the entire universe was created for you and me, and zillions of others gradually to achieve perfection, putting a little faith in Father's intentions does not seem so difficult.

I think it's very difficult, given obvious problems with the view like the presence of evil. And aside from being difficult, I think such faith is downright dangerous, as I argue here. If you disagree, please defend faith on that thread.

Ideally, if we were all perfect, then the pain would cease to serve a purpose. But, we are in little danger of being perfect!

You mean pain is what we get for making mistakes? Is the suggestion that those children deserved to suffer so horribly? They made some kind of mistake?

Anyway, the pain is only a score keeper of how well we are doing.

So those thousands upon thousands of drowned children were life's bigtime losers, huh? On your scheme of things they must have deserved all that suffering, I guess. But how come God has such a painful and apparently unfair scorekeeping method? Seems just plain sadistic.


spetey

[Bro Dave]

editing error

[Bro Dave]

I think it's very difficult, given obvious problems with the view like the presence of evil.

TV has made us emotion junkies. We love feeling victim-hood. While evil is a reality for us in our relative perceptions, it has no absolute existence. That is to say, there is some degree God’s perfection being expressed, i.e. “good”, or there is some lesser degree, i.e. evil. Evil, or the lack of perfection, is the way the universe was created. It isn’t of itself “wrong”, until willed creatures appear, and begin to understand the concept of “wrong”, and choose to do the “wrong” thing. Then you have sin. But sin is also a part of natural growth. And the pain that sin brings, teaches us the better way; God’s way. Evil simply eventually falls away, as we move in the direction of God and perfection.

You mean pain is what we get for making mistakes? Is the suggestion that those children deserved to suffer so horribly? They made some kind of mistake?

“deserve”? No, the children did nothing to deserve drowning. Duality is the nature of our existence. Every “high” requires a “low” by which it is judged. Duality demands more than only the possibility of a “good” outcome. Random natural events occur. They are not evil. They just “are”. How we react to these events, (and whom we attempt to blame) measures our growth.

So those thousands upon thousands of drowned children were life's bigtime losers, huh? On your scheme of things they must have deserved all that suffering, I guess. But how come God has such a painful and apparently unfair scorekeeping method? Seems just plain sadistic.

Each of us gets to choose how we see life. You see it as a victim, cheated of the only thing of value; life. I see it from the perspective of a student, on his first day of class, where every experience carries with it the potential for a lesson to be learned.
At the end of our class day, you leave mistrusting the Teacher. I will leave, expecting Him to teach me the lessons of being perfect, even as God is perfect. (its right there in the course syllabus!)

Bro Dave

[harvey1]

Then the problem of evil is: why did God make a world like ours, where there is lots of evil? You claim maybe God needed to make rotten worlds in order to resolve paradoxes. Like what?

In my speculated account, God is fighting the "bacteria" of the Universe.

Uh-huh. Very metaphorical. And, according to you, did God create this "bacteria"? If so, why? And, according to you, is God powerful enough to destroy this "bacteria"? If so, why doesn't God?

Let me highlight the issues involved as I see it.

• The simplistic state of the universe is nothing (i.e., no fields, no space, no time)
• Nothing and simplistic state are still logico-mathematical terms. Nothing can be treated as zero, which is an axiom in number theory. Simplistic state just refers to a few axioms and some rules of inference by which to construct an elaborate formal system. From a logical perspective, you can't get much simpler than this and still be talking about a world that can bring about our universe.
• Any inference rules rely on some kind of causal principle or if-then relationship.
• Tarskian satisfaction is also a nifty concept to be used in such an account since it provides a means for a formal statement to be true.
• Satisfaction is a relational property between an object-world (or phenomenal world) and the formal system (or language-world)
• Language requires some kind of mind in order for it to comprehend the world
• In order for there to be anything, there must be mind to comprehend what it is for there to be even nothing, and there cannot be something for the same reason. Hence, the only possible world is one in which God exists
• If there is a formal system, then whatever its axioms are (i.e., whatever is true because God exists), all necessary conditions must automatically follow
• The formal system brings about paradoxes that require instantiation of worlds
• The worlds that are instantiated are ruled by the platonic formal system
• If the lower functions of the platonic system are supervising the world, then the universe is mainly explained by them (call those lower functions the "laws of physics")
• The laws of physics are necessitated, so they cannot be made contingent unless there are higher laws that apply for a special case (call those special cases as "miracles")
• The laws of physics introduces a natural world, and the only means by which to bring about a spiritualworld is by overturning the natural world
• The natural world must be overturned according to how the necessitated laws allow, and this requires patience as the "heavenly war" takes place here in our natural setting.
• At the end of the universe, the universe is judged according to rules of truth. Those structures that are meaningful to God as aiding the cause of existence are kept, while those structures that are not are considered deadends and are firewalled away.
• This "process" is perhaps an infinite one, and the formal system is "constantly" striving to struggle for existence.
• The set of all truth taken as a whole is an infinite set. The satisfaction of this world has been met by the infinite objects that satisfy the set, God deems it has been satisfied.
• God is all in all. The world stays "out there" as a static object. There was never any change, it was all just one infinite "BE"

The theodicist's job is to show that every scrap of evil is necessary--that this is the best of all possible worlds.

The world just exists. God satisfies the conditions of this world, and the evil that exists is all safely firewalled away. We live in a temporary structure that from our perspective has not been decided upon for its truth or falsity. However, the world cannot be anything other than it is, it just "is." If not for God, though, the world would never be created. But, never fear, we are here, and therefore God was successful in bringing about a reality that is paradox-resistant.

If logic exists, then I think it is sensible to think that paradoxes exemplify themselves as evil in the world.

Uh-huh. Now the paradoxes are the evil, instead of necessitating evil. I don't get this either. The tsunami was evil--yes? How is the tsunami a paradox?

Logical paradoxes exemplify themselves as evil in the world. In other words, the Universe is self-similar and the conflicts that God fights against in survival of the world are allowed to be exemplified in our world in constructs that represent the same kind of threat, namely evil. So, from the bottom end evil occurs because the laws of physics are such that evil naturally evolves, and from a top end it happens because the world is self-similar to the reality structure as a whole, and this is the struggle that happens everywhere. Having the laws of physics for our universe is also self-similar for reality which is governed by the laws of logic (not necessarily logics that we would recognize). In any case, reality is a fractal and the category of fractal is determined by its level of self-similarity.

Afterall, what could be more paradoxial than a good God creating a universe with evil?

Ah. Now here you are referring to a specific purported paradox: that an all-good, all-powerful God exists, and there is evil. But obviously this "paradox" is not the same as the evil, nor is it in any obvious way the source of the evil. And it's not really a paradox, it is merely a set of inconsistent claims. We can resolve the inconsistency by throwing out the premise that God exists. No paradox!

It is a paradox because both claims are true (there is a good God and there is evil). The paradox is what you would expect of a world riddled with such contradictions. However, when you look at the infinite set of existence (i.e., outside the set that contains the infinite number of objects, or the reality structure itself as one whole thing), even paradoxes and evils make sense. They are the mechanism by which such a structure is possible (since if there were no need for such a structure there would be no motivation other than God's fetish to watch pain and suffering to create such a world). So, God being all in all has a happy ending for all. God truimphs in the battle for existence. We, as lowly humans in this heavenly drama taking place "out there," are experiencing that struggle, but the end will justify all of the meaningless that happens on the route to that future success.

It sounds here like you believe in God because such belief contradicts obvious facts such as the presence of evil. But this is a very strange "reason" that I hope you can see will not be persuasive to me.

No, I'm not Kierkegaard, but I do think that paradoxes are ultimately a necessary evil.

[spetey]

Uh-huh.

Very fancy theories from both Bro Dave and Harvey about "dualities" and "logical structures" and such. And by "fancy theories", I mean "theories that sound clever to the uninitiated, but actually make no sense". I understand the big words. They just don't string together into any kind of coherent whole. Harvey, you keep fumbling for some sophisticated theory I haven't heard of, in hopes to bluff me out--but I'm sorry to say you have consistently bad luck in this realm. There's lots I don't know about, but as for Tarski, I am probably one of the few people alive who have read The Concept of Truth in Formalized Languages multiple times. (I assure you it has nothing to do with cosmology, as you seem to think.) In my experience people often resort to grand, complex-sounding, issue-distracting worldviews when confronted with a simple question like this.

For this thread though, the real problem with each of your theories is that they fail to explain why there is evil despite there being an all-good and all-powerful God.

Bro Dave, you claim sometimes that there is no evil. But look: was it good or bad that the children drowned so horribly? Put it this way: if you saw a child drowning in front of you, and could easily save her, would you try to save her, or would you just shrug and say "eh, there's no evil, there's nothing wrong here" and then let her drown? Of course, I hope, you would save her, since the child's drowning would bring great pain and sadness both to her and to those who love her. But you see God was in exactly the same position with each of those children from the tsunami: God could easily have saved each one, and yet God did not. Why?

Harvey, inconsistent claims are bad. We know not all of them can be true--that's what it is to be inconsistent. Normally we struggle to avoid such inconsistency in our beliefs. For example, once we thought there was an ether, but it turned out inconsistent with data and further reasoning. So we rejected it. If you are claiming that you do not try to keep your beliefs consistent, then that means you do not believe according to reasons. (Since you are familiar with logic, you must know that any crazy belief follows deductively from an inconsistent set.) Here are three inconsistent claims:

• God is all-good.
• God is all-powerful.
• There is unnecessary evil.

You must throw at least one out to have a consistent belief set. Myself, I throw out the first two, of course, since I think there is no God. Most theodicists try to throw out the third--they try to show every scrap of evil is necessary. But this is awfully tough to do given disasters like the tsunami.

Harvey, you do agree that God could have saved these children, right? After all, as you say, it's possible for God to perform miracles. God could have prevented the tsunami without any effort. So the question is easy: why didn't God?


spetey

[harvey1]

Harvey, you do agree that God could have saved these children, right? After all, as you say, it's possible for God to perform miracles. God could have prevented the tsunami without any effort. So the question is easy: why didn't God?

I don't know the specific reason why not. The general answer is that we live in one possible world, and in order for this possible world to be an actual world, there must exist certain criteria that set it apart from other worlds. The criteria that exists for this physical universe happen to allow tsunamis and the cruel consequences that follow from those criteria. God selects criteria based on a number of factors, and some of those factors are unavoidable. Had God chosen to ignore those factors, then there are other factors that would creep in and cause even more problems. The laws of physics (specific to our universe) are the best considering the overall situation that exists for the world. Now, I can't prove they are the best, all I can show is that there's good reason to believe there is a God, and there's good reason to show that God is good, and there's good reason to believe there is real evil in the world, and there's good reason to believe that extreme simplicity is the best means by which to describe the early state of the world, and therefore, God setting up the best laws possible that happen to make horrible evils possible is a reasonable belief given all of these other well-founded beliefs.