I recently had an enlightening conversation with another blogger, and because the topic is so important, I thought I would copy some highlights over to this blog:
john
1. If God is omniscient, then God knows when, where, and how human suffering will occur if it is not prevented.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to prevent each instance of human suffering.
3. If God is omni-benevolent, then God wants to prevent each instance
4. So, if there exists a God who knows how to prevent human suffering, has the power to prevent it, and wants to prevent it (i.e. if the “3-O” God exists), then human suffering will not occur.
5. Human suffering occurs (relentlessly and ubiquitously).
————-
6. Therefore, the “3-O” God does not exist – and theism is false
poppies
I see the main issue as the definition of “omnipotent”. Omnipotence only has meaning in a context of all *possible* power. Premise #2 I see as faulty.
Does God have the power to create a triangle with no angles? I would think not since such an object is illogical, and since God is the source of logic and reason it would go against his nature.
I think most people agree that choice is a central aspect of a loving relationship, which is apparently a high priority for God in his dealings with humans. For choice to be real and not just apparent the danger of evil choices is necessarily courted. It is impossible and not within the realm of omnipotence to ensure against evil without endangering the precious autonomy of those with whom God wants have a freely chosen relationship.
john
Poppies,
Thank you for that response. I am always looking for insight into this problem that has plaged philosophy and men for quite some time.
The definition of Omnipotence is as follows: “having unlimited power to do anything. For that reason it must follow that God dose have the “power” to eliminate evil. However, I wonder, would it be possible for God to use both moral and natural evil to help the growth of men?–and why?
cool point!
poppies
I question that from having unlimited power to do anything it follows that God “must” have the power to eliminate evil. True, God can do any “thing”, but is eliminating evil in a world of free choice a “thing”, or is it not a “thing” and instead an “impossibility”?
If one says it is a “thing”, then why is this ability a thing but active mutability is not? Surely if God is omnipotent, he has and uses the power to change his nature, right? And, of course, God has and uses the power to be capricious, or evil, or amoral, or non-existent… (note the saracasm in the last two sentences)
You see, when you define omnipotence as the power to do both the possible and the impossible, God ceases to exist since the context provided by possibility and impossibility is lost. Something can only be defined in terms of differentiation from other things, but if there are no logical limits to who God is and what he can do, he ceases to be anything.
john
Poppies,
Thank you for the insight; I understand what you are saying. That seems to be true, it would follow that if God truely were omni-maximum then he would have power to do anything. However, possiblility would be lost, but I ask isnt that a requirement for a supream being. It would follow that if God were supream (unlimited) then he would not require the possible or the impossible?
I think that the point you are making in the last paragraph is very good. I once was working on an argument that was like that, yet why would God require himself to be limitted to the comparisons of other things? I see that it would seem necesary to have weekness define power, but couldn’t God be defined by the same maxim?-which is to say …
1. If God is the greatest then there must be something not so great as to difine his greatness.
or-
1. If God is perfect then imperfection must define his perfection.
2. God is perfect
3. thus, he is defined as such?
I think its a God point but logical limits can be limitless if they are logical… well…one would suppose.
poppies
Ah, you’re onto some very important topics regarding which I’ve only recently come to clarity.
First, I would say in the reply above, you effectively ask “isn’t it a requirement for a Supreme Being to be beyond logic?”, which is something many people think. It’s related to the Euthyphro (apparent) Dilemma, and the correct response is the same: God is bound by logic, by morality, by immutability, by a desire for autonomy in his creatures, by a whole host of things, because he is bound by who He is.
It is not “other things” outside of Himself that God is limited by and defined by, but it is instead his very nature. Being a perfectly unified, non-contradictory, immutable Being, he would cease to be God if ever he acted in contradiction to His nature. Because it is his nature that defines him, he could logically exist alone, with no need to reference weakness, or evil, or the like. It is the error of Dualism to require some outside reference point to define His goodness or power.
I feel it is much more impressive to realize that God does all of His amazing actions within self-defined constraints, rather than His being some random, impersonal (because personality implies a well-defined unchanging nature) force that can knock down the deck and start all over at any time.
February 18, 2007 at 12:08 am
that’s the problem with an “out there” god. Bad things have to have an ultimate responsibility with him. Voltaire parodied such a being after the infamous Lisbon earthquake of 1755.
It’s a hard one to defend - except to say, God has it in the best interests - and all will come out good.
ggw
February 18, 2007 at 1:13 am
Wow, that comment feels a bit out of left field! I actually don’t think it’s a “hard one to defend” at all, as shown in the posted conversation, which I have to wonder if ggwfung read all the way through.
If you’re still out there, ggwfung, please let me know what you find erroneous or illogical in the arguments I’ve used to show that the “out there” God doesn’t bear ultimate responsibility for bad things.
February 18, 2007 at 3:05 am
the problem isn’t evil. but it us how we view evil. And why we even see ‘it’ as evil. Appropriately, god- if here be omnipotent, then if God be the supreme being then God must have been possible of the things even evil itself! That is perfection both evil and Good. But if he be doing such, then freewill is there, it would seem that God is just using evil and good to manipulate us. Perhaps, there is no God.
February 18, 2007 at 8:40 am
couple things.
one, as a man who has authority over other people in my job, i know what it means to be held responsible (and rightly so) for the errors made by subordinates. therefore, God is responsible for evil, but not guilty of it. there is a difference i believe.
two, i think your logic is all good except for step 4. you claim that God wouldnt allow suffering. i dont agree with you for a few reasons. one, suffering helps mature us. we become more disciplined as a result. two, we are forced to seek God and rely on Him more. three, we cant see the entire playing field. we have a very limited perspective and are bound by time. God can see the whole world and all of time and He knows what is best for all people over the long term. four, check out “the problem of pain” by cs lewis. its a good examination of the problem of evil.
ultimately, you may reject these arguments. but there is still the trump card. remember when your parents told you to do something that you didnt agree with. they tried to rationalize it with you, but you just wouldnt agree with their logic. so finally they said, then you must obey just because i am your authority.
in the same way, a fellow philosopher once asked, what if God made some creatures for noble purpose and some for ignoble. shall the clay say to the potter why did you make me this way.
i dont think this man’s point was that God is abitrary (although if He is omnipotent, then He by definition is abitrary - ie He wills it and it is so, not He wills it because it is so), but rather that He is God and we are not. He has authority. He tries to explain His purposes to us, but often we dont agree with His reasoning. but He is God and we are not.
a wise man of ancient days was reprimanded for just this. the story goes that God chastises him saying, were you there when I created the heavens and the earth? do you know how the thunder works or can you tame the mighty animals of the earth. etc.
so surely He is God and we are not. i for one believe there is rational explanation for suffering, but if a person cant buy that, then God is still God and we arent.
peter
February 18, 2007 at 11:54 am
In response to Red:
I think the way you’re describing evil makes it seem like good and evil are polar opposite equals. This is not the case, however; good is a “thing”, and evil is the absence of that thing, and not a thing in itself.
Good could exist without evil, but evil could never exist without good.
Also, considering how autonomy-supporting God is as described in the conversation, I would find it hard to justify describing Him as manipulative.
February 18, 2007 at 12:15 pm
In response to PB and J:
I’d love for you to further parse the difference between guilt and responsibility, I’m not sure I understand how you’re differentiating.
As for premise #4, it’s not my premise, but I do think it’s pretty on. Do you think there will be suffering in heaven? I think the fact that God uses suffering in amazing and unexpected ways to benefit His creatures doesn’t imply that He necessarily wants to use that particular tool. It’s a broken world, ya know.
The ending paragraphs of your comment touches on something I wish everyone could understand. This blog is called Digital Reason, so you can imagine I often get caught up in the trap of thinking I can comprehend more than a reasonable amount of what God is and does. Which is hilarious, since it’s like a toddler assuming he could easily explain the whole of our current understandings of string theory.
I do think, however, that our culture currently errs on the side of not understanding enough about God, as opposed to trying to understand more than is possible given our limitations. Accordingly, my personal mission is to stress the things of God that are at least somewhat comprehendable, and to expose the fallacies inherent in attacks on religious strawmen, such as The Problem of Evil.
Nonetheless, for those who remain unconvinced by my arguments (or perhaps the poor formulations of said arguments), it is very true that God is still God and we aren’t.
February 18, 2007 at 12:26 pm
in regard to the guilt vs responsible, let me explain. you see i am responsible for any mistakes my subordinates make. i am the one that my boss chastises. but at the same time, i am not personally guilty of the mistake (although it is possible that it was indirectly my fault, but i am talking of situations where i was not directly or indirectly at fault). i didnt cause the person to make the mistake. they alone are guilty.
in the same way, we alone are guilty of evil. we alone are the ones who made the mistake. not God.
however, God is responsible because He has authority over us. and He created us with an ability to choose. if He had made us robots, then a sin would have been directly His fault. but because He gave us the ability to choose, the way of life and death, He is responsible for our actions, but not guilty of them.
i believe this makes all the difference in the world
peter
February 18, 2007 at 12:31 pm
as to the question of premise 4, the author of Hebrews make the analogy between a loving father and God the Father. a human father disciplines his son because he loves him. in the same way God disciplines us. in fact, the author says only an illegitimate son isnt disciplined.
suffering (not always, because you are right sometimes suffering is a consequence of our disobedience, but not always) happens when we are disciplined. think of being a child. when our parents spanked us (at least mine did), it hurt. we suffered. but that was meant for our good.
so suffering doesnt have to be a bad thing. as to whether there will be suffering in heaven, God only knows. but supposing there isnt. its because would be because we no longer need to be disciplined because we are mature and complete. so discipline (which leads to some suffering) is a necessary fact of life, but an omni God is more loving because He disciplines. in fact, an omni God wouldnt be omni if we didnt suffer.
peter
February 18, 2007 at 12:34 pm
now for the pure reason question, i am glad to hear that you dont believe we can achieve perfect understanding through reason.
and i do agree with you that our postmodern culture as a whole rejects reason at all. (however, a select few, scientists etc, put reason paramount) so we have a weird mixture of relativism and rationality. we are half modern and half postmodern.
instead i think we need to be post-postmodern. meaning we have a good balance of both. that we have faith and reason that are coexistent. that we have a rational faith and a faithful reason.
peter
February 18, 2007 at 12:50 pm
PB and J:
Regarding Responsibility vs. Guilt - I still fail to see the accuracy or importance of God being responsible but not guilty for evil, since God is accountable to no “boss”. If he were, I could see your point. Perhaps we can go about it this way: if God were not responsible for evil, what would look different in the world?
As for suffering, I would caution you against saying something bad can be made good if it is used for good ends, that’s a dangerous path. Suffering is always a bad thing; in a perfect world, it wouldn’t happen. However, I applaud your accurately connecting many of our current instances of suffering to divine discipline necessitated by our immaturity/incompleteness, which is indeed the case in our current fallen state.
I also applaud the call for post-postmodernism; here, here!
I’ll have to check out Mere Humanity as I get time, it looks very interesting.
February 18, 2007 at 1:19 pm
granted: God has no boss. but the point is that a person can be in charge (and even create someone) of someone and not be guilty of their creations disobedience. its not God’s fault we rebelled. He gave us free will and we chose to disobey. so the suffering isnt His fault.
at the same time, i agree that it is bad to be utilitarian in thinking, ie end justifying the means. but i think that God has a different perspective. He has the ability to make means work to the end.
i think the basic reason we disagree is because you believe suffering is always bad and i dont. let me give an example of how suffering has been a good thing for me.
i went through this thing called ranger school. its about 65 days of little food and less sleep. most of the time you walk around with heavy loads and walk long distances and then do military tactics and then walk all night until the next mission. there was a lot of suffering there. my back ached. my legs got ring worm. i lost about 20 lbs. almost all of it muscle mass. it rained and was cold. i was often falling asleep even standing up. etc etc.
it was definitely a time of suffering. but it was also an excellent time. the suffering helped me to rely on God much more than ever before. it truly showed my dependence on Him. so the suffering was a good thing.
and to make it even more clear, i wasnt the only one like that. i know so many guys who go through ranger school that have “religious” experiences there. there are many that commit to Christ while there. there are many who recommit to Him. and others who at least are interested in talking about Him. why? because they too are stripped away and beaten down and tired and have come to the end of their chain. they recognize that they need God as well.
the suffering was a good thing. you might say that the suffering itself isnt good. fine i might grant that. however, then you have to accept that the end (reliance on God) justified the means (the suffering). now i would be wrong if i caused someone to suffer to “help” them grow. but God causes us to suffer that we may come to know Him.
look at the Scriptures. in many of the minor prophets God tells the Israelites that He brought famine and pestilence,etc, in order to get their attention so that they would return to Him. so are famine and pestilence suffering? i think so. do they cause pain and hurting and death? i think so. did God and does God use them for His purpose for good? i think so.
anyway, hope you have a good day
may we receive whatever comes from the Hand of God
peter
February 19, 2007 at 12:58 pm
PB and J:
I don’t want to harp on this suffering issue, but you seem reasonable, and you seem to understand the power of ideas and their ramifications, so I hope you’ll have patience with me as I continue.
I think you’re unjustifiably jumping from the idea that the results of suffering can be good to saying that suffering itself is good. I think this thought is very dangerous and erroneous, and has led to many negative consequences in religious history. It’s a very tiny logical distance from thinking suffering is good to thinking that inflicting suffering on others can lead to good. For parents especially, I think this must be carefully thought through, since too many parents are of the school of “I’ll make ‘em suffer so they’re better prepared for life’s challenges”.
In a nod to the show “Lost”, let’s say you’re involved in an auto accident which leaves you badly injured. While in the hospital, you’re worked on by a surgeon who ends up becoming your spouse and provides you with great joy. Does it then follow that it is wise to get into as many accidents as possible in order to increase your joy?
Another way to think about it: surely Satan is evil, yet God uses his plans for good purposes. It all makes me think of Romans 3:8: “And why not say, “Let us do evil so that good may come of it”? – as some who slander us allege that we say. (Their condemnation is deserved!)”.
Notice that biblical accounts of “purification through suffering” never talk of the glories of suffering itself, they only speak of the possible positive results. Also notice that spiritually helpful suffering is described only in cases of believers with a modicum of commitment. I think this is a nod to God’s respect for autonomy; it seems like He recognizes suffering is powerfully efficacious but also painful, and will only inflict it for sanctification purposes if the sufferer has agreed to “any means necessary”.
I’m open to any contrarian points or examples of where I’m being illogical or unscriptural; it’s totally possible I’m wrong here, and I’d love to know if that’s the case.
February 20, 2007 at 12:24 pm
poppies
i would like to say something a second time because i agree and disagree with you:
“you might say that the suffering itself isnt good. fine i might grant that. however, then you have to accept that the end (reliance on God) justified the means (the suffering). now i would be wrong if i caused someone to suffer to “help” them grow. but God causes us to suffer that we may come to know Him.
look at the Scriptures. in many of the minor prophets God tells the Israelites that He brought famine and pestilence,etc, in order to get their attention so that they would return to Him. so are famine and pestilence suffering? i think so. do they cause pain and hurting and death? i think so. did God and does God use them for His purpose for good? i think so.”
so while suffering may be bad, it comes from God. if God it comes from God, then it must be part of His nature. which means part of God is bad, right? or suffering isnt inherently bad. i personally believe God is wholly good. so suffering must be inherently good sometimes. this doesnt mean that some suffering is from sin or the devil, because it can be (and most is i think). this suffering is evil. but God’s suffering is good.
just my perspective
peter
February 20, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Ah, that’s interesting. In thinking upon your points, I’ve changed my mind a bit. Here’s what I’m thinking: the punishment of the unrighteous obviously includes suffering. God as supreme judge is wholly just in visiting suffering upon the unrighteous. Therefore, suffering is not always bad in a world in which the unrighteous are present. It’s a manifestation of God’s justice.
However, I’m unclear on whether God ever actively originates suffering to use upon the righteous. Can you provide a clear scriptural example of this?
February 20, 2007 at 6:11 pm
poppies
i am not sure i can think of a clear passage about such. in fact, i am not sure there is one. maybe suffering is a result of our disobedience.
i think sometimes the suffering is punishment (ie for the wicked), but i think for the righteous it is more like discipline. punishment’s purpose is justice. discipline’s purpose is maturity.
so maybe the purpose makes a difference too.
good question you raise though. lemme know if you find anything.
peter
March 21, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Hello poppies,
This is a wonderful post. I really did enjoy our discussion. I have noticed that you have been able to carry on a great dialog with Pb and J.
Well let me change the subject a bit.
I have been researching the idea of evil and punishment, and evil and nature. I have come to a semi-conclusion that is as follows,
1. If God is omni benevolent (OB) then he cannot tolerate unnecessary evils
2. If God is omnipotent (OP) then he has the ability to destroy unnecessary evils.
3. However, unnecessary evils exist
4. Therefore, God is either not OP or OB
It would seem that God could punish us for sins and errors but wouldn’t he be a more loving God by providing mercy, which is good, unless his punishments are for the betterment of men. However, if one claims that punishment, and evil that is caused by such, is for the betterment of men then one must ask why do good people (like job) experience evil? Obviously, this occurs. It happened to Job, and there was no apparent logical reason for the evil that he experienced. To respond to PB and J that “unnecessary evil is needed for maturity,” I must say that if God were to use evils and punishments seems to deny his omniscient because one could say the following:
1. God is all knowing and all-loving
2. Thus, God knows and desires the best possible existence for his children.
3. The best possible existence is one in which evil is minimized and Good is maximized.
4. This world seems to exhibit an almost equal if not increased amount of evil. (empirical)
5. Thus, it would seem that God doesn’t exist.
How would you alleviate the contradictions present in the above paradox?
Thank you,
John
March 24, 2007 at 1:46 am
I would need proof that unnecessary evil exists to see the paradoxes you see; I don’t think it does. I think evil exists necessarily due to the nature of free will.
March 24, 2007 at 6:46 am
Nice point! I just recently wrote a artical adressing that same subject on my blog is called ‘Pantinga and natural evil’ if you get chance check it out.
Best,
John
March 22, 2008 at 2:55 pm
this is of course why there is a whole theological discipline to deal with this. It is called theodicy and attempts to deal with this problem of unmerited suffering. The book of Job deals specifically with this,a nd you will note that when God does appear to Job, he does not answer that question. The book of Ecclesiates also deals in large measure with this as well as Jeremiah and Isaiah. The long and the short of it is, as has been pointed out, is that God in his soverienty has allowed free will, and that neccesitates that evil can exist. Ultimately persons make that choice. The first being Lucifer himself and a third of the angles that followed in their rebellion. As has been stated, there is no true service, not true love, no true servanthood to God without the ability to NOT do those things. That in contrast opens the door to rebellion, to evil to “not” love. Scripture tells us that every perfect and good gift is from the father of lights, that he is not the author of evil, that he is not tempted nor does he tempt any man. He also tells us that all things will work to gether for good “if we are called according to His purpose” meaning that we are walking in obedience. He also promises that we WILL see persecution for the world is at enmity with Him.