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]

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.

Again, this does not solve the problem, it only pushes it back a step. You think God made some possible worlds real, and not other possible worlds. Why did God make possible worlds with such evil real?

God selects criteria based on a number of factors, and some of those factors are unavoidable.

In what sense was the tsunami "unavoidable"? Did God have the power to stop it, or no? (Put back in your terms: did God have the power not to create a world with such a tsunami, or no?)

Had God chosen to ignore those factors, then there are other factors that would creep in and cause even more problems.

So in other words, it was for the best that there was a tsunami, right? This sounds more like the traditional theodicy: this world with all the tsunamis and stuff is the best possible world God could have made. But what reason do you have for this claim? It sure looks like it would be easy to make this world better, simply by not permitting such disasters to occur, for example. Is it just faith that tells you that if not for the tsunami, something worse would have happened?

... 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.

There was some reason to believe in the ether, too. But when it was inconsistent with other, stronger reasons not to believe, we gave it up. Again, those three claims (God is all good, God is all powerful, there is unnecessary evil) cannot all be true together. On pain of inconsistency, you must reject one. Which do you reject?


spetey

[harvey1]

Hey, Spetey.

Again, this does not solve the problem, it only pushes it back a step. You think God made some possible worlds real, and not other possible worlds. Why did God make possible worlds with such evil real?

As I said, the possible worlds that were instantiated met some kind of criteria that God wanted, and the ones that did not meet this criteria were not created. You want to know the criteria. My answer is that these worlds bring about eternal structures (e.g., saved souls) that glorify (i.e., define) God. This glorification of God is obviously important since, if God is engaged in some logico-philosophical struggles (like us!), then such definitions provide meaning to a language (e.g., mathematics that point to mathematical structures). If this language that defines God has inherent meaning (i.e., it references objects that exemplify God), then it prevents a paradox. A paradox is when true statements conflict such that nothing in that language must be considered true (or considered to have the status of existing if put in phenomenal terms). If no such structures are introduced that glorifies God, then nothing is true of God. If nothing is true, then nothing exists--which is a contradiction since nothing is an axiom (i.e., the concept of nothing is something).

Therefore, God is justified in bringing about universes that introduce pain and suffering as long as God is doing so in a way to minimalize the pain and suffering while maximizing the needed factors to make for a stable world.

God selects criteria based on a number of factors, and some of those factors are unavoidable.

In what sense was the tsunami "unavoidable"? Did God have the power to stop it, or no? (Put back in your terms: did God have the power not to create a world with such a tsunami, or no?)

God had the power to create this world without a tsunami, but there would be another that would have far worse conditions to maintain a stable world, and therefore God is just and right to minimalize pain and suffering even if it means a tsunami in our world where many people tragically suffered a great deal.

Had God chosen to ignore those factors, then there are other factors that would creep in and cause even more problems.

So in other words, it was for the best that there was a tsunami, right?

No, it's not for the best, it is to allow the best to happen.

This sounds more like the traditional theodicy: this world with all the tsunamis and stuff is the best possible world God could have made.

No, God could have made this world better, but just like I can pay for a cool car if I don't make my house payment, so it is that choices have to be made. Our lives are just microcosms of the world at large. This is self-similarity, and these are sacrifices that even God is responding. Now, God is not less than all-powerful since this is the same world that produces ultimate triumph where God wins (just look at the last page of Revelation!). So, God is all in all where death and tragedy are erased and a new world exists that only knows joy.

But what reason do you have for this claim? It sure looks like it would be easy to make this world better, simply by not permitting such disasters to occur, for example. Is it just faith that tells you that if not for the tsunami, something worse would have happened?

Well, every view has a paradox to it. I choose to face my paradox in a manner which I think is more resolvable. In my view, my personal Christian theism is far more capable of explaining the world than your materialistic one that is fraught with unresolvable issues. Most atheists don't even bother offering a metaphysical account for the world and just throw up their arms (as if that is supposed to impress someone who has considered such matters!).

... 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.

There was some reason to believe in the ether, too. But when it was inconsistent with other, stronger reasons not to believe, we gave it up.

Well, you can say "ether" everytime there is a lecture at a philosophical conference, and someone will eventually say, "Spetey, there's the door...." The point is that we need solid reasons to accept, and solid reasons to accept a metaphysical package. My view is that I have strong reasons to accept my metaphysical package, and strong reasons to reject an atheistic one.

Again, those three claims (God is all good, God is all powerful, there is unnecessary evil) cannot all be true together. On pain of inconsistency, you must reject one. Which do you reject?

I reject your premises on a number of accounts.

1) God is all good meaning that God chooses the best of all criteria for worlds that are created in order to reduce pain and suffering as much as possible while at the same time meeting the necessary conditions that exist due to the possibility of paradox.

2) God is all powerful in that God can do anything that doesn't contradict things that are necessary to maintain the world free from paradox.

3) There is unnecessary evil and there is necessary evil that God allows because if not allowed, paradox would destroy the world and it cannot be destroyed, so the only choice is but to allow certain evils. This is the way it is, and ultimately it is that way because if it weren't that way, it would still be that way, because that's just the way it is (like or leave it). Did you catch all that?

If you take (1)-(3), then unnecessary evil might be and ought to be prevented by humans, but that doesn't mean it is within God's necessary being to prevent "unnecessary evil" (i.e., unnecessary for humans) without causing severe damage to a stable world. God's focus must be on the final goal, which is to create an eternal world where everyone who has been found worthy to be part of that world.

[stevencarrwork]

Therefore, God is justified in bringing about universes that introduce pain and suffering as long as God is doing so in a way to minimalize the pain and suffering while maximizing the needed factors to make for a stable world.

'minimalize'?

6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust, and that was the minimum number God could allow without jeopardising his plans? What is this?

Could not one more Jew have been saved? How could that have affected the needed factors to make for a stable world, if one more child had been hidden from the Nazis?

Oskar Shindler managed to save many Jews. If he had saved just one more Jew, (and so minimised the pain and suffering even more), would the factors needed for a stable world have been jeopardised?

Could God not have got away with a world where only 3 million Jews died in the Holocaust? if not, then could he have got away with a world where 5 million died? Or 5,900,000?

Why did God have to bring about a world where 6 million died, when he could have saved 100,000 Jews from forced starvation and being worked to death?

If I see you in great pain and suffering, do I dare not minimise your pain, because I have now been informed that your great pain and suffering is already at the minimum needed for God's plans?

Why is it obviously right for us to minimise the pain and suffering we see, and wrong for God to do the same thing?

Should we cure cancer, for example? Surely if it is right for us to cure cancer without God's intervention, it is right for God to cure cancer without our intervention?

There are such obvious opportunities for us to minimise pain and suffering, but we lack the knowledge of how to do so.

Is this because God has deliberately brought about a world where we lack the knowledge of how to cure cancer, because, in some strange way, the pain and suffering of cancer has already been minimised consistent with God's plans?

If God wants us to cure cancer, why was God justified in bringing about a universe where we lack the knowledge of how to do so?

There are many Christian doctors doing cancer research, and I'm sure many of them pray to God for guidance. Why has God not brought about a world where their prayers for knowledge of how to help people have been answered?

Nobody can look at the world we live in, and say that the pain and suffering have been 'minimalised'......

[spetey]

Therefore, God is justified in bringing about universes that introduce pain and suffering as long as God is doing so in a way to minimalize the pain and suffering while maximizing the needed factors to make for a stable world.

'minimalize'? ... Nobody can look at the world we live in, and say that the pain and suffering have been 'minimalised'......

Exactly so, stevencarrwork. Harvey, for what reason are you sure that the evil in this world has been minimalized, even though there are countless obvious senseless tragedies? Or is it merely faith that makes you believe this?


spetey

[harvey1]

Therefore, God is justified in bringing about universes that introduce pain and suffering as long as God is doing so in a way to minimalize the pain and suffering while maximizing the needed factors to make for a stable world.

'minimalize'? 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust, and that was the minimum number God could allow without jeopardising his plans? What is this? Could not one more Jew have been saved? How could that have affected the needed factors to make for a stable world, if one more child had been hidden from the Nazis? Oskar Shindler managed to save many Jews. If he had saved just one more Jew, (and so minimised the pain and suffering even more), would the factors needed for a stable world have been jeopardised? Could God not have got away with a world where only 3 million Jews died in the Holocaust? if not, then could he have got away with a world where 5 million died? Or 5,900,000?
Why did God have to bring about a world where 6 million died, when he could have saved 100,000 Jews from forced starvation and being worked to death? If I see you in great pain and suffering, do I dare not minimise your pain, because I have now been informed that your great pain and suffering is already at the minimum needed for God's plans? Why is it obviously right for us to minimise the pain and suffering we see, and wrong for God to do the same thing? Should we cure cancer, for example? Surely if it is right for us to cure cancer without God's intervention, it is right for God to cure cancer without our intervention? There are such obvious opportunities for us to minimise pain and suffering, but we lack the knowledge of how to do so.

Steven, I agree that it svcks to live in a world that so much sadness and grief exist, and we've seen so much evil, a lot is still on-going. I wish I could say the best is behind us, but in point of being honest, I have to say that most likely the worst of human tragedy is ahead of us. We are more than likely to see some pretty horrendous things happen if we live long enough. Six million people will vanish in a mushroom cloud, or much worse than that.

However, by me saying that, did 2+2 stop equaling 4? Have you wished it all never happened to begin with? I can't help but want humans to live on, despite what happened at those death camps. I can't but help that each of those precious souls that died in such vicious circumstances wouldn't want us to push on and somehow find a way to make it into deep in this century, and God willing, we find our way on Mars, and moons of Earth, Mars, Jupiter, etc., and then who knows what follows... I think they would want that. I think they would want something good to come out of something so horrible. They wouldn't want us to give up and say it is better that we never were.

That's the choice God has to make. Is it better to allow all of this horrendous evil and go on and some of us find a way to the promised land, or do we stop here and wish God never tried to bring about paradise? I for one am glad and thankful we have this grand opportunity to see this world, and once in a while see real beauty. And, I pray as hard as I can that God can and will save humanity from what surely looks like what will be coming soon (namely, 140 nations with hydrogen bombs and a means to launch them with ballistic missiles). Humans can't survive in that kind of world, that I'm sure. So, somehow God has to intervene, else that's it. If atheism is right, then start preparing for extinction.

But, I don't believe that. I believe that God created a power that was greater than the evil of the Nazis. I believe that God allowed good to triumph, and it's the way God influences the world. God doesn't influence the world in the grand ways as Elijah expected (strong winds, and huge thunderstorms), God influences the world in "small winds." It's when symmetry occurs and for that brief, brief moment when the outcome could be anything that God slips that invisible hand into this mess. It takes time and its pain for those moments to occur, but they do surely do. They come at distinct times, like the battle of Norway, and the battle of Midway, the battles that brought Patton into Germany. Those are the ways God brings justice to evil, and as unfortunate as it is, it only happens when nature is vunerable to change. I wish the world weren't like that, but like I said, God is battling the evils of this world and has battled the evils of this world, and thank God we all don't live in a nuclear aftermath from a war between the United States and the Soviet Union, which for the life of me, I'm still trying to figure out how they ended up as friends. Maybe there is hope and God is busy doing it.

[spetey]

Hullo Christian Debaters!

That's the choice God has to make. Is it better to allow all of this horrendous evil and go on and some of us find a way to the promised land, or do we stop here and wish God never tried to bring about paradise?

We stop and wonder whether there is a God in the first place, given this evil. The options you give assume that there is a God.

I for one am glad and thankful we have this grand opportunity to see this world, and once in a while see real beauty.

Me too. There's lots of good stuff in the world. There's also lots of crappy stuff. It's almost as though there were no all-powerful being making sure things are good. It's as though things just happen naturally, and some of it is good, and some isn't.

But, I don't believe that. I believe that God created a power that was greater than the evil of the Nazis. I believe that God allowed good to triumph, and it's the way God influences the world. God doesn't influence the world in the grand ways as Elijah expected (strong winds, and huge thunderstorms), God influences the world in "small winds." ...

This is a credo. We know roughly what you believe, we want to know why you believe, especially despite the atrocities out there.


spetey

[harvey1]

That's the choice God has to make. Is it better to allow all of this horrendous evil and go on and some of us find a way to the promised land, or do we stop here and wish God never tried to bring about paradise?

We stop and wonder whether there is a God in the first place, given this evil. The options you give assume that there is a God.

Well, this thread assumes there is a God...

I for one am glad and thankful we have this grand opportunity to see this world, and once in a while see real beauty.

Me too. There's lots of good stuff in the world. There's also lots of crappy stuff. It's almost as though there were no all-powerful being making sure things are good. It's as though things just happen naturally, and some of it is good, and some isn't.

If there were no God you wouldn't even be able to wonder about such an issue. The universe would still be trying to figure out how what the heck a string is, and it would be a great accomplishment for it to muster up a wiggle if a string were present...

But, I don't believe that. I believe that God created a power that was greater than the evil of the Nazis. I believe that God allowed good to triumph, and it's the way God influences the world. God doesn't influence the world in the grand ways as Elijah expected (strong winds, and huge thunderstorms), God influences the world in "small winds." ...

This is a credo. We know roughly what you believe, we want to know why you believe, especially despite the atrocities out there.

And, I did so. I'm thinking that we're already ready to go onto a new question since that one has been properly and sufficiently answered.

[spetey]

Well, this thread assumes there is a God...

Oh, does it? Did I stumble into the Christian thread room by mistake? I thought this was about the Problem of Evil, which is traditionally an argument to show that God does not exist. But if you want to assume that God exists, despite evil, and without giving reasons, well, I'd be interested to hear you defend that position in this thread--a thread which may look familiar to you, Harvey.

If there were no God you wouldn't even be able to wonder about such an issue.

Oh Harvey! You would not even be here to make these crazy claims about your "god" if it were not for the Invisible Pink Unicorn! So you must believe in the IPU now, I suppose?!

Of course my point is that here again you assume that my existence depends on God. I have disagreed that there is a God, here and elsewhere. On this thread I point to the existence of unnecessary evil to argue that the all-good all-powerful Yahweh does not exist.

This is a credo. We know roughly what you believe, we want to know why you believe, especially despite the atrocities out there.

And, I did so. I'm thinking that we're already ready to go onto a new question since that one has been properly and sufficiently answered.

Oh, I must have missed it. Was it the thing about how there are paradoxes and so we just have to believe inconsistent things sometimes and trust that God is doing everything for the best? Was that the reason? Because it sounds a lot more like faith.

If there was some reason that might appeal to others who don't already believe, please, for us slow folks, spell it out here. Why did so many children die such horrific deaths? Was God unable to save them, or unwilling to save them, or was there simply no God to witness it in the first place?


spetey

[stevencarrwork]

We are more than likely to see some pretty horrendous things happen if we live long enough. Six million people will vanish in a mushroom cloud, or much worse than that.

Thank goodness there is an omnipotent, omniscient God who loves us all and will not pass by on the other side and let such things happen.

Sorry. There isn't.

We are on our own in a universe that appears designed to kill off in short order all life-forms that manage to appear.

[harvey1]

Sorry. There isn't. We are on our own in a universe that appears designed to kill off in short order all life-forms that manage to appear.

You're faith is great, but you have it pointed in the wrong direction.