Talk:Problem of evil

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon religion.svg

This religion related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be with improvement.

This article is of HIGH importance to the wiki.

See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Copperbrain.png

Archives for this talk page: <1>, (new)

Contents

[edit] How serious is this web site?

Should I seriously try to argue for omni benevolence, or is this like conservapedia where I should just have fun reading a one sided argument? If it is a serious site, should I develop the explanation of "God is beyond us"?

Essentially, what I have always heard is a comparison of God to us as we compare ourselves to our children. We know considerably more than our children. On the basis of our few additional decades of knowledge and experience, we take our 3 year olds to get shots. I have not yet met a 3 year old who grasps that vaccinations, though they cause suffering now, are actually an action of love and benevolence. Such a concept is simply, in my experience, beyond them. Assuming an omnipotent, omniscient God, the parellel points out that God is infinitely farther from us than we are from our 3 year old children. Just because we cannot understand the eventual benefit of our situation does not mean that there is none.

To continue the parallel, such a God would think in terms of eternity. The 2 seconds of pain and 2 hours of complaining is a much larger percentage of a child's 80 years of life than whatever suffering we experience as a percentage of eternity.

I guess the counter to this is "Why doesn't an all powerful God give us the benefit without the suffering." Rather than re-iterate the "God is beyond us" statement as a response, I would propose instead the possibility that we only seem to be suffering from within our present limitted perspective and not necessarily from our eventual perspective. To propose a new analogy: I have gone on runs that were agonizing. Sometimes I have finished and only remember how lousy it felt, but other times, I finish and exult in the entire experience; I do not mean to say that this is a comparative "I appreciate the accomplishment because I felt like a knife was in my side earlier"; rather, on an absolute level, I look back, remembering the knife in the side and think "that was awesome!". i.e. what seemed like suffering during a narrow state of mind was actually wonderful when I could broaden my view.

I know that the exercise example seems paltry when compared to some of the suffering you may have experienced, or that you imagine others have experienced, but again I would point out that we are using a limitted example (our lives) to make an analogy against infinity (eternity)

--Bertrc (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the old "God moves in mysterious ways" card. He wouldn't seem so fucking vicious if only we could see the big picture. All those people dying of starvation, it's for their own good really. All the pain, all the misery, all the unfairness... it's like going for your vaccinations because, afterwards we all go to Sugar Mountain. Yeah, I can buy that... er... no, sorry, I can't. Bad Faith (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I've thought that "god is beyond" us is the most plausible "solution" to this "problem," but if he/she/they/it is "beyond us," how do we know that "god" is also omnibenevolent (or any properties or characteristics of "god" at all)? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh, that is simply on faith. I mean, I have my own personal experience, but I will readily concede that it is primarily faith. --Bertrc (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
My problem with this argument is that it doesn't really answer the question other than "I dunno, and no one really can know until after we're dead, so let's all just shut up about it now". How can you tell the difference between this and that he just doesn't fucking exist? I know you want your god to have so many awesome properties, but just tacking on more cool stuff for your god to have doesn't make the idea make any more sense. (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 22:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
God follows the Rule of Cool. (WARNING: TV TROPES) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I like how you are asking us to compare the suffering of a child having his bone set, with the suffering of millions of kids who die of starvation "for their own good". Every parent and doctor I know does everything they can to alleviate the suffering of setting bones. we give really good drugs for it. An all powerful god does not or cannot alleviate the suffering of starving kids? Again, the problem of evil is not a problem for gods that are not Tri Omni. it is exclusively a christian problem. I don't care about teh suffering of ants, but i both cannot do anything about it, and am not all good. Pink mowse.pngGodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 23:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Some would say that God is alleviating the suffering of starving children, by causing them to starve to death and bounce them up to heaven where they can strum harps all day. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 00:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
WaitingForGodot, Actually, I was comparing vaccinations, not bone-setting. "Benevolence" in my limitted allegory, was not a trip to sugar mountain but, rather, the protection against influenza/polio/etc. I have seen 3 year olds who can conceive "Take the shot and you will get to go to sugar mountain" (well, a lollipop, actually) But the non-immediate rewards have always been beyond them (and frankly, few have accepted a lollipop as offsetting) My analogy is not God saying "I'm not doing anything to alleviate your suffering"; Rather, "I am sorry you do not realize how I am alleviating your suffering and how I am suffering with you." Personally, I have never lost a child to starvation in Africa; my heart certainly goes out to you, if you have. I have had children lose a parent to cancer, though, and I believe I have seen how God alleviates suffering (FYI, I don't think anybody has felt better being told "Daddy is in a better place." However, understanding/believing that God is with them and suffering along with them has seemed to help). --Bertrc (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
CowHammer, I'm not saying that this is proof of God. I proffered this as a partial, possible answer to the problem of suffering. --Bertrc (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Didn't you ask the same question on Talk:Atheism? Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 23:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Heh, Yeah, I asked about how seriously to take this site on on Talk:Atheism but was bringing up morality, rather than the problem of evil. :-) --Bertrc (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean to respond with a meaningless cliché, but if god is omnipotent and omni-benevolent, then he doesn't need to work mysterious ways to do good things for all of us. Suffering is suffering is suffering... and a God that is all-good by the standards we judge goodness would use that power to relieve suffering. Even if you like to say "God is beyond us" it's no more than special pleading. What is the difference between a God that supposedly acts in a way that causes us to suffer, ignores suffering, and supposedly does it all "for our own good", and a universe than lacks a God of that description and doesn't care? I'd postulate that there is no difference. Therefore such argumentation is just pleading for us to keep hold of the God hypothesis despite (and even because) there is a sweet bugger-all evidence to support it. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 02:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, one difference if God didn't care, I think, is that we would suffer more; also, I believe our suffering would be pointless (a la getting the shot and still getting the disease); our suffering would never be re-perceived (a la, never looking back on a long distance run and exulting in the entire experience); our suffering would never have any alleviation without God's presense and sympathy (a la, not holding a child during and after their shot or not grieving with somebody who has lost a child) These are just a few initial thoughts. Personally I don't think God causes or ignores suffering; I think God supports us in our suffering, shares in our suffering and brings good out of our suffering. That last one is a bit complicated; there is a difference between causing us to suffer "for our own good" vs, from the scope of eternity, turning our suffering to such good that we will be able to exult. --Bertrc (talk) 02:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
That doesn't actually answer the question. We only have one world and one set of experiences; suffering "more" makes absolutely no sense at all because we'd require something to compare it against. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 02:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, that is certainly a possibility, but I think that most theists believe that this is not the only world nor the sum total of our eventual experience. Isn't that one of the points of contention? Perhaps I misunderstood your question. I gave an answer for what would (IMHO) be different if God ignored or caused suffering. I guess you asked what is the difference between a universe in which God ignores or causes suffering and a universe without God. I don't think there would be a difference, but I would say that the question is moot (a strawman) since my position (belief) is that God neither ignores nor causes suffering. Hmmm, are you asking "How can we know that God is with us, both experiencing and alleviating our suffering while working to make it so that, ultimately, it will not have been suffering"? I think I would say that that is within each person's experience and faith, just as it is up to a child to trust and accept their parent while getting those 5 shots or not and just as it is up to my junior team members to trust me when I push them to finish the 5k race or not (FYI, most of them do not trust me) Yes, yes, I concede that neither analogy is perfect, since, among other reasons, parents and I are certainly fallible while the general theist consensus seems to be that God is infallible but heck, I am trying to use an analogy in a limitted world to convey possible aspects of an unlimitted existence.  :-) --Bertrc (talk) 22:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
But that's only hand waving. I'm saying that the evidence before me seems to point away from the existence of a benevolent, omnipotent being. I see absolutely no reason to believe there is one, none what so ever. Your faith that there is one but we don't understand him is all very well for you but it comes down to "I believe there is a benevolent, omnipotent being - however there are things which don't tally with this - therefore it must be that we don't understand the motives of this benevolent, omnipotent being. Sorry, that doesn't wash. Bad Faith (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
BadFaith, Aaargh, I missed my window, now I have to retype. My response to your post was: Remember the topic. "The problem of Evil" is "How do we reconcile the existence of a benevolent God with the existence of suffering." My proposal addresses that question; my proposal is not meant to tell you why you should believe in God. The two analogies I made (which I am sure others have expressed better) essentially say "The problem of Evil" is not an actual contradiction and does not disprove God. Proving God's existence would be a completely separate discussion -- one I am willing to bet is beyond me, to tell the truth.  :-) --Bertrc (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Advance apologies for using that horrifically coloured tq template here... but:
I guess you asked what is the difference between a universe in which God ignores or causes suffering and a universe without God. Yep.
I don't think there would be a difference Okay.
Now, we can expand that to cover other questions. Such as: "what is the difference between a universe where God exists and answers prayers to the tune of 'yes', 'no' or 'not yet' and a universe where God does not exist?" or perhaps "what is the difference between a universe where God sets up physical laws as we see them and a universe where God does not exist?"
So, should you answer any of those with "I don't think there would be a difference" then we have to ask the further question of "what use does that belief have?". Scarlet A.pngbomination 23:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
As I said, you are building a straw man argument with your question about a universe where God ignores and causes suffering vs a Universe without a God, since my position is not that God causes or ignores suffering (yes, I originally simply said that your question was moot). As for the difference between a Universe where God answers prayrs (FYI, I think answers are considerably more complex than the possibilities you present) and a universe where God does not exist . . . Well, in the Universe where God does not exist, prayrs would not be answered. As for the question "what use does that belief have" . . . I'm afraid I have to start my answer with a questions: what use does a child's belief that their parents or benevolent have? What use does a Junior member of my running team's faith in me have? Their belief does not change a parent's benevolence or the overturning of one's experience of hitting the wall anymore than my our your belief alters the existence or non-existence of God's benevolence, if that is where you are going. FYI, as I told Bad Faith, I think that this is off the topic of "The problem of Evil"; I do not think resolving the problem of Evil proves God's existence. --Bertrc (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
To address your original assertion and reference to an analogy, show me the doctor who would still break a child's bone if he had the power to stop them from breaking it in the first place.
On the seashore, erosion wears away a chunk of rock. Eventually, it's so worn that a little boy playing on it is sufficient to snap it quite off. The boy slips and falls a few feet, landing badly and breaking his arm in two places. The doctor hurts the boy more as he sets the bone, but gives him a mild anaesthetic and a lollipop. The doctor minimizes pain and just tries to help.
But imagine a doctor who is all-powerful, yet still chooses to let the boy get hurt. Your analogy fails badly in this way, because you're skipping the "omnipotent" part. You're arguing that the pain and suffering and evil of the world is necessary because it serves some larger purpose, but that's just an admission that God cannot achieve this purpose without pain and suffering and evil - tantamount to saying that he is not, indeed, omnipotent. I will happily agree that Lucretius' original dilemma of the triad is answered by admitting that God's power is limited, but that's a rare claim for a theist to make.--ADtalkModerator 00:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
But you are using a different analogy than I did. One aspect of my doctor analogy (which uses vaccinations) is to show that, as broad as the gulf is between a 3 year old and a 30 year-old perspective, the gulf between our limitted perspective and an unlimitted perspective is infinitely greater; once that is grasped, the analogy can show that what the child thinks is suffering is actually an act of benevolence. Separately, I tried to point out that even our conception of suffering can be false; as broad as the gulf is between hitting the wall and the overall race, the gulf between our finite existence and an eternal existence is infinitely greater (If I wished to stretch the doctor analogy, I would have pointed out that I no longer consider all my allergy shots over the years to have been suffering, but I thought the running analogy could be more broadly grasped )However, you have developed a completely different analogy that first requires comprehension of an unlimitted (omnipotent) perspective. --Bertrc (talk) 01:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Try this: stare at this image and recite your analogy. If you can do so with a straight face, then I can conclude one of two things: either you are evil, or God is evil. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 01:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Armondikov, *whew* Frankly, I would advise sticking to the suffering you have experienced in your life when trying to figure out how various analogies apply. Call it a hunch but I am willing to bet you have no conception of what it is like to see your child starving to death (any more than I) and, as such, have no more idea than I of what divine intervention or lack of divine intervention such a person might be encountering. I think it is up to a person experiencing such loss to make accusations of being Evil for talking about God being with them and suffering with them. --Bertrc (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Exactly, it's nice and easy to pass off suffering in the world as just part of some divine plan when the worst you have to experience in your life is your iPod battery running out in the middle of a song, rather than, say, whether flies are going to nest in your eyeballs while your stomach eats itself and you shit yourself to death over the course of a few weeks. Scarlet A.pngsshole 00:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, I hate to keep pointing out strawman arguments, but I never said suffering was part of some divine plan. I've been pointing out that the existence of suffering does not contradict benevolence. Personally, I do not believe suffering is part of God's plan, even though I think God can bring about His plan in spite of suffering. Also, I think you missed the point of my last post; let me be more explicit -- Even though you have had to suffer through losing power in your iPod, I don't think you are in any position to comment on the perspective of somebody who is dying from dehydration due to dysentary. ;-) --Bertrc (talk) 00:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
You're saying God causes/allows (though in the context of an omnipotent being with total control over and a vested interest in the universe, the difference is moot) suffering "for our own good", as in eventually it pays off or all is better or, as you said above, "God can bring about His plan in spite of suffering". That's your argument. I'd like to see how this is different to "divine plan" or "mysterious ways" or any other well-worn canard. It's hardly a straw man argument to point this out. If you need help in defining good and evil for your purposes, you could try this video. Scarlet A.pngpostate 10:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
And no, I'm not dying of dysentery, nor do I even own an iPod so I can suffer such terrors as cracked screens and low batteries. However, if you are going to make excuses for the existence of undue harm, suffering and ills, you should be aware of what you're claiming. I'm not going to be able to know exactly what it's like to be a starving child in Africa shitting themselves to death while they're eaten alive by maggots (although I have come close to dying on occasion, it's been through other means) my human empathy can make a pretty good guess that they're not thinking "oh, this isn't too bad, God's letting me suffer for my own good. I don't understand right now, but let's suck it up for the sake of his plan". Scarlet A.pngbomination 10:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I am not saying God causes or ignores suffering. Any single analogy is woefully insufficient to cover all the aspects of suffering. The Shot analogy is not addressing the causes of suffering; it is merely trying to address our limitted understanding of eternity. You seem to infer that, since wordly, mortal doctors do cause pain, then I am saying God causes pain. You would be just as incorrect to infer that, since worldly, mortal doctors go through over a decade of education, I am saying God goes through over a decade of education. As soon as you stretch the analogy beyond "We do not understand just as a child does not understand" and "suffering does not necessarily mean a lack of benevolence" you have stretched it too far. Heh, seeing as you live a nice cozy life without so much as a cracked iPod screen, I really do doubt that you can conceive what the starving in Africa are thinking  :-) On a serious note, I honestly do think you should focus on the suffering you are going through rather than trying to compare it to what they (or anybody else) are experiencing. That is a mistake I feel both sides of this theological debate are always making. One side is saying "they must be turning away from God in the face of such calamity" while the other side is saying "they must be turning towards God in the face of such calamity." I think we should not pretend we can put ourselves inside their minds. (On an aside, maggots would not, actually, eat people alive; maggots only eat dead flesh) --Bertrc (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
All right, if you insist, we can use yours, although it's not substantively different: if your doctor could make you immune to allergies without a shot - say, with a pill that's just as effective and safe and a single dose - then wouldn't he do so? You are not changing the shape of things at all. In both cases, you're simply arguing that God isn't powerful enough to accomplish whatever good goal he might have (even supposing his ends justified his monstrous means) without inflicting evil and pain.--ADtalkModerator 01:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
What I meant is that, by your additions (Doctor being able to prevent a bone from breaking or avoid a shot) your are creating a new analogy. It no longer addresses what the original one did -- My point being that something we perceive at the time as suffering does not mean a lack of benevolence -- I think the thrust of your point is addressed in my second analogy: There is a reason I do not bring a car to pick up my junior team members and drive them to the end of the loop when they initially hit the wall. Doing so is within my ability; the fact that I do not does not mean I am not benevolent to them. I know that at the completion of the route, the entire experience is exulted, even the part of hitting the wall. Now, our lives to eternity is a considerably smaller ratio than the time of hitting the wall to the time of the overall route. If you are not a runner (or hate running), then this analogy might not be working for you. Are you an artist who can compare the completion of a work to the times you gave up instead of pushing through the difficult parts? Are you a broker who can compare the completion of a deal to the times when you had to end the process? AD , I guess my second analogy is trying to say you are thinking too small: You would simply use your omnipotence to prevent any suffering; I believe God goes one step farther and (among other things) uses his omnipotence to complete subvert suffering and turn it on its head. BTW, These are just a couple aspects of suffering; I'm sure that there are an uncountably infinite number of aspects to suffering. --Bertrc (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
A little girl was born last week. She has a rare genetic malformation leaving her unable to produce most antibodies. She will die of complications caused by this malformation within six months (actually through a combination of influenza and a series of rashes). Now, your argument appears to be that it is somehow actually good for this little girl to suffer miserably and then die, yes? God works in mysterious ways, so in some manner, her appalling fate is a good thing for her? From what I can understand, that's your argument. You don't know how or why, but you have faith in God's infinite wisdom and benevolence, and so you trust that she either deserved her fate or that it was actually good for her.
My argument to that, one echoed by others, has several components:
  1. Pain and suffering are objectively bad. To inflict unnecessary pain and suffering on a person is objectively bad. If God must inflict pain and suffering to achieve his goal, then he's not omnipotent. If he was omnipotent, he could attain his unknowable and mysterious goal without the torture of a small child. However much God is somehow "subverting" suffering, a rhetorical turn of phrase that appears to have no actual meaning, the fact remains that this child and many other innocents die horrible and painful deaths, and God is either unable to prevent that and still achieve his goal, or unwilling to prevent that (which just makes him a monster).
  2. As you will probably agree, you are trying to place God out of reach of human judgment. You are arguing that even though it appears that God is being unspeakably cruel on an unimaginable scale, inflicting or failing to prevent suffering, and that you actually can't even begin to guess why he might do so, you still trust that he's doing the right thing, because of your faith. But to an outsider, this appears some strange sort of codependence - he only hits you because he loves you? - and would make it hard to tell God from Satan.
  3. Your examples are all terribly flawed because neither you nor a doctor nor anyone else claim to be omnipotent. They are also flawed in other specific ways. For example, your running team all give consent to be there and to put themselves through that pain. The dying little girl does not. And for the record, I do not give consent, either. I do not want God to hurt me, or the little girl.--ADtalkModerator 00:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
*whew* A lot to address in that. I'll start by readily admitting my examples are inadequate and flawed. However, when it comes to flaws . . . I feel it is flawed reasoning to expect any finite analogy to address all the aspects of suffering; you are doing this when you complain my analogies are not perfect. Another flaw comes from stretching an analogy beyond what it is trying to address; you are doing this when you bring up that the members of the running team gave consent to put themselves through that pain. A third flaw comes when you miss the point an analogy is trying to make; you say pain and suffering are objectively bad in the face of a specific example (racing; I would drive the members who wanted to stop) where pain and suffering were not bad. Now I admit the racing analogy is just comparing hitting the wall to the completion of a race (I have had runs where I hit the wall and runs where I have not; both can be wonderful experiences in their entirety; I would not rank either above the other) I equally concede I am not in a position to say whether any of the starving in Africa believe that from a position in eternity, what they see as suffering will be turned on its head; however, as I said to Armondikov, I don't think you are in such a position either. To be honest, I can't even speak for those who have suffered the same things as me. Instead, I think we should rationally observe that, as the racing analogy points out, allowing suffering does not require a lack of benevolence --Bertrc (talk) 02:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
"Suffering turned on its head" is a meaningless phrase, and accordingly your reply is meaningless. From what I can tell, it appears to mean one of several things:
  1. The suffering inflicted on people serves a greater purpose; i.e. ends justify the means. I assume that you don't actually agree with this.--ADtalkModerator 06:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
    Nah, suffering is not simply for the greater good (A great run is not better because of or in spite of the wall; at the conclusion of the entire run, pushing through the wall, in and of itself, is an amazing, awesome experience) --Bertrc (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I will inform the next person I see writhing in agony from pancreatic cancer that his suffering is part of an amazing, awesome experience. But very well, you clearly don't believe the ends justify the means.--ADtalkModerator 22:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Sadly, that is, again, a straw man. I have never said that suffering is part of an amazing, awesome experience. I propose that through the will of an infinitely powerful being, it can potentially be transformed. There is a distinct difference. I'm glad, though, that we agree the ends do not justify the means -- More on that, below. --Bertrc (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
  1. The suffering inflicted on people is somehow not really suffering, or doesn't actually count in some ineffable way. This is nonsense.--ADtalkModerator 06:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
    Nah, suffering certainly does happen (within the run, hitting the wall hurts like Oedipus Rex; it is suffering when it happens)--Bertrc (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Good. I'm glad we have established that.--ADtalkModerator 22:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  1. The suffering inflicted on people is not bad because of... magic? Something else? But however it happens, there's a starving child out there who is deluded into thinking ill of the ache of his belly. This seems like your most likely intended meaning, but you refuse to connect the dots and explain how that suffering is actually not bad, instead deciding that it is inexplicable. --ADtalkModerator 06:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
    Nah, no magic is needed (at least, none that I am aware of; when I have had a great run, it seems to be part of the natural world). Also, if I may knock down another straw man argument you raise, I never said suffering is not bad -- In fact, I doubt you or I can even grasp how bad it is for a starving child -- I simply said the existence of suffering does not necessarily mean a lack of benevolence. Frankly, I believe the existence of suffering is such a bad thing that the eternal power of God Al-frickin'-mighty is needed to truly transform it; heck, I even believe it was the sacrificial death of said God almighty to make such transformation possible. --Bertrc (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I saw what you said. It just doesn't make any sense. "Suffering turned on its head," the phrase you have repeatedly returned to, is meaningless. I just explained why. On its face, it must mean that suffering isn't really suffering (which you deny), or that it serves a larger purpose and end (which you deny), or that some manner of deity-magic works in some other way (which you seem to deny, albeit less clearly this time). But short of evasion, justification, or sublimation (as I shall blithely call these three possibilities) I cannot deduce any meaning from that phrase, nor has your explanation helped. Rather than actually defining it or explaining how that starving child's pain is necessary (as it must be if God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent) you just say that it is "truly transformed." What does that fucking mean?--ADtalkModerator 22:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Sadly, I do not think you have seen what I have said. Suffering (on a vastly smaller scale then our truly tragic experiences) is transformed. Every day. In our normal, natural lives. It is not that it is not suffering (the wall can be agonizing; Fights with your loved one can be miserable; Writer's block can be crushing; if I may be flippant: Trying to figure out how to get that dang "3 in Three" across the moving elevators can drive you to hit your keyboard) In and of itself, it does not "serve a higher purpose" (A run does not need to hurt to be exhilerating; Love does not need fights; A work of art can simply flow from inspiration; flippantly: A strategy for having your gnome illusionis defeat the Uber-Dragon may be crystal clear) God's power may be needed to address suffering on the scale we face over our entire lives, but it is still a natural process; we do it ourselves in the earthly realm, on a vastly smaller scale, all the time (On my own, completing the run can retroactively change hitting the wall into exhilaration; after overcoming whatever self absorption was causing the fight, I am joyful for the entire event; Ditto for completing a work of art; Flippantly: There is a reason I keep playing ADOM) --Bertrc (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
No, suffering is not "transformed." That is asinine. The pain that we have endured is not changed or revised, it is just put into a new perspective and appreciated as part of the experience. You are exhilarated after the fact, in a manner that includes the minor pain and gives it meaning, but that pain is not erased or changed in itself - the past is not altered, only your ability to appreciate the pain you underwent.--ADtalkModerator 21:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
This is purely "sublimation" (referring to my new shorthand). You're arguing that God will change the suffering gone through in life into a positive feeling. Or as you might say, "completing the run" (i.e. dying) can "retroactively change hitting the wall" (the agony of starvation, cancer, AIDS, etc.) into "exhilaration" (some positive feeling/perspective/whatever). How? Well, you don't know: some kind of deity-magic, apparently.--ADtalkModerator 21:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
You don't seem to like it rephrased in this starker way, but that is what you are arguing through your tortured analogy: we suffer now, but after we die God will change our perceptions or ability to appreciate the painful experiences of life into something positive, via some unknown magic.--ADtalkModerator 21:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
see below --Bertrc (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I suspect it has no real meaning, and that you yourself couldn't adequately define it, and that your argument could be adequately summed as, "I just believe it" - without any serious underpinning of thought.--ADtalkModerator 22:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Sadly, I am obviously unable to adequately define it for you since you can't seem to grasp the concept from my description. However, the adequate summation would be: "I just experience it." or, more verbosely, "I have experienced suffering, on a vastly smaller scale than our truly tragic experiences, being retroactively transformed so I can conceive that an infinite power can transform suffering that is orders of magnitude greater." --Bertrc (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
This is, as I have explained, simply defining away the problem with a change of terms. It's as if God said the sky was red, and you want God to be correct, so now you're saying that the sky is red but we just don't understand why it's red.--ADtalkModerator 06:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm guessing you simply don't understand the racing analogy and have never had such an experience elsewhere (FYI, simply saying such would have been much simpler and clearer) As I said, the analogy might not work for those who do not run. I did try to give other examples of this happening, but if you have never had such an experience, then I do not know how to convey it. At the end of an endeavor, the entire task can become something wonderful. It is not that you did not suffer while in the midst and morass; however, in the totality of the accomplishment, it is as if those parts that were "suffering" are causally changed to something of wonder. So far, that is the only answer I have encountered that seems to resolve the problem of evil: That from a place in eternity, our entire, finite, short, wordly existence can be transformed, as reflected in the transformation of many of our more minor experiences (such as a race or creating a work of art). --Bertrc (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I ran cross-country during high school - I assure you, I am familiar with running and with the experience. It is unwise to assume things about strangers on the Internet.--ADtalkModerator 22:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Sadly, just because you ran cross country does not mean you understand my racing analogy. My guess is that you have never labored through a run, hating and cursing the hill, only to exclaim (or horsely gasp  :-) ): "Holy cr@p! That. Was. Awesome!!!" Not in spite of the hill; not except for the hill; not because of the hill; not simply the run in its entirety including the hill; but every individual nook and cranny of the run. --Bertrc (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I think anyone who runs seven miles in a piece is probably going to have "labored through a run" at some point. But your condescension is totally fun, thanks for that. --ADtalkModerator 21:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, achieving a hill can be just like achieving the whole run, if you want to switch to an analogy of a smaller scope. After finishing it, you appreciate the achievement, fun of it, etc. This does not change any part of the argument.--ADtalkModerator 21:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
see below --Bertrc (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
You don't seem to know what you mean. You are just speaking about how, after exertion, we do not regret doing it because of the resulting rewards, in spite of the pain. In the case of physical accomplishment, like running, this includes the endorphin boost, feeling of well-being, feelings of accomplishment and achievement, pride in performance, and other such things, as well as the actual pleasure of the activity itself (something to which you repeatedly return). But this is, in essence, simply an argument that the pain is an important part of the experience of the activity and vital to the end result (those positive feelings) we achieve at the end. Translated into the realm of the world's suffering, then, you are (apparently unwittingly) arguing that once we're dead, we will be happy to have suffered because it was part of the experience and necessary for living a full human life - or something like that.--ADtalkModerator 22:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Sadly, I think you don't know what I mean, but before I begin, let me first say: "HA! Yes, I guess there is an endorphin aspect to running."  :-D However, even after the endorphins leave, when I have had a good run, my appreciation for the individual pieces (even those I hated while in the midst of them) remains. To address your point, hitting the wall is not a necessary part in order for an entire run, along with the individual slices of it, to be appreciated; this directly contradicts your assertion that the part you suffered through is important or vital. I am not happy because I suffered during the wall; rather, after the fact, the wall will no longer have been suffering. To translate to the scale of suffering that is inconceivably orders of magnitudes greater than that suffering which you or I have experienced transformed (some of which, themselves, are orders of magnitudes worse than hitting the wall), you would have to have an event that is at least as many orders of magnitude greater than whatever transformed them. Fortunately, if you throw an omnipotent God into the equation, you can have an event that is infinitely greater than whatever transformative experiences you or I have experienced. --Bertrc (talk) 02:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, for the umpteenth time, I understand: after a run, you appreciate even the difficult and painful parts, though at the time they were unpleasant. Please stop repeating that same thing over and over as if it contradicts any point I made. My argument is that you are just making a case for "God works in mysterious ways" nonsense: after we die, God will change our perspective in some way so that the pain becomes a good thing in retrospect as part of our lives.--ADtalkModerator 21:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
see below. I didn't actually copy your post above; I feel this is just a re-wording of your claim that I attribute the transformation to "Deity-Magic" even though my examples are occurring in the earthly realm. If you think there is some crucial piece that this brings, feel free to copy this branch of the post below --Bertrc (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
This is clearly not true, though, as there are people who live lives almost free from suffering and then die peacefully. Are you arguing that a child who dies instantly in his sleep from a heart defect, after a few hours of life and no suffering, did not live a human life? If suffering is a necessary part of the human experience, then are those who suffer so little (like you and I) so much less human than an old man dying of bone cancer?--ADtalkModerator 22:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Sadly, I did not read this before making my previous post. Otherwise, I would have posted it here instead of there. --Bertrc (talk) 02:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Ooo! I thought of another example: A loving, comitted, covenant relationship. When your heart truly opens and is given to somebody, you will find that many things that irritated you or bothered you are now endearing. Oddly enough, even those occurances that happened in the past (before you considered them endearing) seem to have become wonderful. Heck, you may even look fondly on some of your most tearful fights. --Bertrc (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
This is just another example of a life experience where the pain is a necessary part of the process and has helped define the experience. But my wife and I almost never fight. Are we not as in love as a couple that fights all the time, yet reconciles? I assure you that if I could take back the fights we have had, I would. They are important as an element of conflict resolution and sorting out the hiccups that result from two people living such close lives, but they're not a good thing. If I could have achieved the solid marriage I have without fighting, I would do so. Because I love my wife and hate it whenever her feelings are hurt. But I am not omnipotent, so I can't avoid all fights.--ADtalkModerator 22:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Sadly, my previous post disagrees that suffering is necessary. All I can say here is that, although there are definitely some fights I would take back, there are a precious few that I would not give away for the world. --Bertrc (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that is all you can say. I agree.--ADtalkModerator 21:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
YAE: Learning. There are many things I have learned to do during which I, at times, found my self hating the process. However, once the knowledge or ability is gained or the concept is comprehended, even those agonizing steps are appreciated. Also, if I may be particularly flippant, there are video games. How many of you have gotten cheat codes when a game was frustrating? In light of that, how many of you can remember persevering through the parts that drove you mad with aggravation and then, later, looking back and liking the entire game, even those parts that made you want to commit technocide? (I guess I should have headed this edit with YME) --Bertrc (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Again, the same thing: you are arguing that the arduous nature of the experience was a part of the richness of the final result. This is only because we're human, and not omnipotent. If it was possible to plug my brain into a computer and learn French, I would do so immediately. Screw flashcards and Rosetta Stone, I want the end result. The argument could be made that I'd be missing the experience of learning the language yada yada, but this is just another flaw in your argument, because it delineates that I cannot achieve the richness of the experience without the suffering inherent in its achievement - because I am a limited human, rather than a deity.--ADtalkModerator 22:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Sadly, my previous post disagrees that suffering is necessary for an experience's richness. All I can add is that I would not change the experience of learning some of the things I love -- mathematics, programming languages, etc. --Bertrc (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes. That is all you can add, I agree.--ADtalkModerator 21:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
In other words, you are just arguing that God could not design a world that provided a human experience/free will/whatever that did not also include suffering. You are essentially ceding the point, and admitting God is not all-powerful.--ADtalkModerator 22:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Sadly, I am actually saying that God did not need design a world that provided a human experience/free will/whatever that did not also include suffering. I am pointing out that you think too small when considering the implications of being all-powerful. If it makes you feel any better, though, I will concede that I am, no doubt, thinking too small, as well. --Bertrc (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Why is that sad? Oh, wait, sorry, that's just part of that condescending theme you have going for that edit. My bad.--ADtalkModerator 21:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 :-D Actually, I was going for a "snarky" motif. Don't sweat it. --Bertrc (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
No, I'm not thinking too small. I fully appreciate that it allows you to make the argument that "God will just fix it somehow after you die, with magic." It's a very convenient argument and it works for everything. For example, you could justify geocentrism. The solar system may appear to go around the Sun, but in fact that's just an illusion done by God-magic. In the same way, the suffering of a bone cancer victim might be bad for him now, but after he dies, God will magic it up somehow so that it was actually not a bad thing.--ADtalkModerator 21:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
see below. I didn't actually copy your post above; your post briefly addresses "thinking too small" but I feel it is primarily just a re-wording of your claim that I attribute the transformation to "Deity-Magic" even though my examples are occurring in the earthly realm. Feel free to copy this branch into the new topic, if you think some crucial idea is added in it. --Bertrc (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I've got to say that I personally find the argument from evil unconvincing as an argument against god's existence unconvincing. Two reasons:

  • Firstly because most of the Gods which humanity has come up with have not been omnibelovelent so it's really only an argument against a minority class of gods.
  • Secondly because those who chose to believe in this version will have added a particular interpretation of divine omnibenevolence which enables them to escape from the contradictory consequences of true omnibenevolence. (Obviously they must have these interpretations or they would need to recognise an inconsistency.)

So it's an argument which mostly doesn't apply, and those Gods to whom it might apply have been invented with an escape hatch.--BobSpring is sprung! 09:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Where on God would such a hatch be found? --MtDPinko Scum 09:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I assume that god would be omnihatched - as he/she/it is "omni" many other qualities. Consequently looking for the location of one specific "hatch" would be futile.--BobSpring is sprung! 12:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
The fact that the escape hatch needs to be built into it is probably part of the argument. Scarlet A.pngbomination 10:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, the Bible does say that we were created in the image of God, so I would put money on His hatch being in his butt, like ours is. That does create disturbing visuals if you believe in an omnihatched God, though --Bertrc (talk) 02:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually I dislike this argument for another reason. Like almost all "arguments against the existence of god" it's unnecessary. The onus is not on the unbeliever to present arguments which disprove the existence of dragons or whatever. Believers like our friend above will always be able to redefine their object of choice - dragons, ghosts, Gods, UFO's or whatever - in order to get around any potential problem.

By accepting the burden of proof we legitimise their arguments. So it's a game I personally try to avoid playing. Let them present their evidence.--BobSpring is sprung! 15:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

While I agree on the burden of proof, evidence is presented in various forms: personal experience, the very existence of the universe, the Bible and so on. As skeptics it's up to us to issue what level the burden works at and justify why we reject certain types of evidence. The problem of evil, therefore, isn't so much an argument against God's existence, but a hurdle that must be jumped for the burden of proof to be met: i.e., "for me to accept an all-loving, all-powerful God as proposed, you must assert it in a way that is consistent with existing suffering". We then need to explain why and how responses to this tend to be escape hatch arguments in nature and establish a level of proof we require for this hurdle to be successfully jumped. Also, remember that the context is that the majority of people believe in certain things, so we have a remit to argue in reverse this way. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 15:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Well it's a popular argument so it's obvious many people don't agree with me. If people want to run with it that's fine. I dislike it for reasons stated, but I'm not not that excited either way. :-)--BobSpring is sprung! 15:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I do agree with you in principle, it's just that I think "burden of proof" should always be clarified with what the burden actually is. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 15:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Bob. I'd like to reiterate (I think I blathered about this somewhere above) that I am not actually trying to prove God's existence I am just confronting "The Problem of Evil" conundrum and trying to show that this specific quandary does not necessarily disprove God's benevolence. I'll leave proving God to God. I can barely handle this little bit (if at all) --Bertrc (talk) 03:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] How serious is this edit point

For me the important thing about The Problem Of Evil is that it was an important part of my (de)conversion. As the doubts crept in about the religion I was brought up with the "how can god alow such suffering" was a major stumbling block. From there the path was clearer. Bad Faith (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but you only need to posit a non-good/indifferent god; or propose that evil, pain or whatever serve some higher "good" purpose and the argument falls. If it works for you then that's great, but I personally think that its both weak and unnecessary.--BobSpring is sprung! 21:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I can't go with the "god moves in mysterious ways" - he isn't measuring up to my standards and that's good enough for me. As for the non-good/indifferent god, well, what's he done to deserve my worship - fuck all. The sort of god the bible thumpers are pushing is the benevolent "good shepherd" and, as such he sucks. The problem of evil doesn't disprove any supreme being, it simply disproves a supreme being worthy of worship, and, in particular, the one which is pushed by the churches. Bad Faith (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not convinced by the "not worth of worship" angle there. It would still be the creator of the universe. A complete douche, yes, but still God with the Capital G - and so worthy pretty much "by definition". I see the "mysterious ways" thing as a hypothesis testing problem; a god working in mysterious ways doesn't really have any predictive value over no god at all. As a YouTube video I once saw pointed out, God answers prayers with "yes" "no" and "not yet" - so how is that different to a milk jug answering prayers with "yes" "no" and "not yet"? Scarlet A.pngd hominem 22:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Bad Faith, I can see that. I certainly wasn't measuring up to my toddler son's standards of how a parent should act when I was holding him immobile while he got his innoculations. I can't remember my own innoculations that well, back then, but I'm pretty sure my own parents weren't measuring up to my standards, either. Heck, I don't even need to go back to my innoculations; as a teen-ager, it just took some arduous chore assignments for my parents to disappoint me. That was certainly good enough for me, at the time. Ditto with the team captains at the start of the season back in college. --Bertrc (talk) 03:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Bob, personally, I've never accepted the "Higher or eventual good" explanation. One of the central tenets of Christianity is that you cannot make up for sinning by doing good (That is the whole reason we needed salvation by grace as opposed to salvation by works) If that is the case, then I don't see how a good result can make up for bad experiences. So far, the only explanation that seems plausible to me is the idea that one's experience of suffering can be utterly transformed, as per the running analogy. I guess an unfortunate corallary is that Joy can be turned on its head as well; I think one night of binge drinking is an easy enough analogy for that. --Bertrc (talk) 03:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Christianity Section

Okay, so I would like to re-write the Christianity section, only secondarily because I think it misrepresents Christianity. Primarily, it is a rather urinally impoverished paragraph (IMHO):

  1. I could find a huge number of "won't" examples for any "can't" example somebody can bring up in the old testament. Heck, I even disagree with the single "can't" example that is given.
  2. We say that the New Testament is primarily "won't" then we give Job as an example. Job is in th old testament.
  3. We bring up Jesus as a "won't" example. However, the vast majority of Christian religions seem to believe that Jesus is God. When using the allowance of suffering in a problem that seems to contradict an omnibenevolent God, I don't think it makes sense to use an example of Him allowing Himself to suffer.

So, given my blather in the earlier and later discussions, I was considering the following:

Christianity usually takes the stance that we view the existence of suffering as a contradiction to the existence of a omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent God because we are unable to comprehend the infinite power and perspective of such a being. God wouldn't seem so freaking vicious if only we could see the big picture. The standard idea is that the happy-fun land of salvation is so radically transformative that our entire existence -- past, present and future -- is changed into a thing of wonder and beauty once we have reached such a place in eternity.

This concept is mirrored in examples from our earthly lives where, upon the completion of an task, the entire endeavor is remembered fondly -- At the end of a race, even hitting the wall, though painful and detested at the time, is recalled as "exhilarating"; from within a blissful, loving relationship, our hearts can well up with joy at past memories, even at those of tearful altercations; and let us not forget the wonderful world of whatever-craft where, after slaying the Uber-Dragon, you can't understand why you had previously almost thrown your computer out the window in bitter despair and frustration -- Christians will usually acknowledge these are trivial examples, covering scopes of existence which are insignificant even within our finite perspective; the idea seems to be that, as we move to an infinite, unbounded existence, even truly tragic experiences could be transformed, in a manner similar to these, by a God of unlimitted power and ability.

--Bertrc (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

. . . so, any thoughts on the text above? More important, any thoughts on whether the existing Christianity section is sub par? --Bertrc (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
. . . Beuller? Can we at least fix the non-theological issues I pointed out above? --Bertrc (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I think it would be good to fix some of the errors you have pointed out. I don't think your proposed new paragraphs are very good, though, as I don't think they actually explain anything, but instead pave over a basic omission with some overwritten examples and the phrase "in a manner similar to these." A better version might be something like, "However, some Christians argue that after death, God will transform previous experiences of pain in a magical but inexplicable way."--ADtalkModerator 05:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Take II:

Christianity usually takes the stance that we view the existence of suffering as a contradiction to the existence of a omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent God because we are unable to comprehend the infinite power and perspective of such a being. God wouldn't seem so freaking vicious if only we could see the big picture. The standard idea is that the happy-fun land of salvation is so radically transformative that our entire existence -- past, present and future -- is changed into a thing of wonder and beauty once we have reached such a place in eternity.

They try mirror this with examples from their earthly lives in where, they claim, upon the completion of a task, the entire endeavor is remembered fondly -- At the end of a race, even hitting the wall, though painful and detested at the time, is recalled as "exhilarating"; from within a blissful, loving relationship, our hearts can well up with joy at past memories, even at those of tearful altercations; and let us not forget the wonderful world of whatever-craft where, after slaying the Uber-Dragon, you can't understand why you had previously almost thrown your computer out the window in bitter despair and frustration -- When asked how or why these earthly transformations occur, their responses are usually at the level of: "I dunno . . . They just do."

Christians will usually acknowledge these are trivial examples, covering scopes of existence which are insignificant even within our finite perspective; the idea seems to be that, as we move to an infinite, unbounded existence, even truly tragic experiences could be transformed, in a manner similar to these, by a God of unlimitted power and ability. When asked how such heavenly transformations could occur, their responses are usually on the level of: "Dude, I just told ya -- I don't even know how the earthly ones work." They seem satisfied with this state of affairs.

--Bertrc (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that looks pretty good, though I've never heard that argument myself. I usually hear something in the form of "blah blah mysterious ways blah blah" and/or something about Job and whatnot. I say go ahead and replace the section and we'll clean up/add to it as we see fit since it's not very good right now, but that's just me. (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 20:08, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
You haven't heard this version because it's seldom espoused. It is just a complicated form of that same "mysterious ways" thing.--ADtalkModerator 12:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
It's always "Mysterious Ways". "Mysterious Ways" is just the label given to that sort of argument to highlight the absurdity of most of it. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 12:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Done. Try not to get to much blood on the screen.  ;-) --Bertrc (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Can suffering be transformed

The previous discussion was getting too big to be wieldy. So I am moving a bit of it down here. I made slight edits in green so that the previous discussion would not be needed. This is turning into a 2 man debate, which is disappointing. I, obviously, cannot explain it well and AD, obviously, has never experienced it. Am I the only one on this site that has had an experience of suffering, become something wonderful after the fact? Come on, guys; AD and I are boring and repetetive because you are not adding any new flavor.

Suffering (on a vastly smaller scale then our truly tragic experiences) is transformed. Every day. In our normal, natural lives. It is not that it is not suffering (the wall, during a run, can be agonizing; Fights with your loved one can be miserable while in the midst of them; Writer's block can be crushing as you go through it; if I may be flippant: Trying to figure out how to get that dang "3 in Three" across the moving elevators in that video game can drive you to hit your keyboard) In and of itself, it does not "serve a higher purpose" (A run does not need to hurt to be exhilerating; Love does not need fights; A work of art can simply flow from inspiration; flippantly: A strategy for having your gnome illusionist defeat the Uber-Dragon may be crystal clear) God's power may be needed to address suffering on the scale we face over our entire lives, but it is still a natural process; we do it ourselves in the earthly realm, on a vastly smaller scale, all the time (On my own, completing the run can retroactively change hitting the wall into exhilaration; after overcoming whatever self absorption was causing the fight, I can be joyful for the entire event; Ditto for completing a work of art; Flippantly: There is a reason I keep playing ADOM  :-) )) --Bertrc (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

No, suffering is not "transformed." That is asinine. The pain that we have endured is not changed or revised, it is just put into a new perspective and appreciated as part of the experience. You are exhilarated after the fact, in a manner that includes the minor pain and gives it meaning, but that pain is not erased or changed in itself - the past is not altered, only your ability to appreciate the pain you underwent. This is purely "sublimation" (referring to my new shorthand). You're arguing that God will change the suffering gone through in life into a positive feeling. Or as you might say, "completing the run" (i.e. dying) can "retroactively change hitting the wall" (the agony of starvation, cancer, AIDS, etc.) into "exhilaration" (some positive feeling/perspective/whatever). How? Well, you don't know: some kind of deity-magic, apparently. You don't seem to like it rephrased in this starker way, but that is what you are arguing through your tortured analogy: we suffer now, but after we die God will change our perceptions or ability to appreciate the painful experiences of life into something positive, via some unknown magic.--ADtalkModerator 21:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
AD, You ask, "How does God do it?" I can't answer that any more than I can explain how I (or life or living) do (does) it. Heh, yes, as you said, it might be endorphins for the run  :-D. However, I did not have endorphins when I was having problems understanding Goedel's incompleteness theorems. I literally detested my failure to understand; it almost drove me to tears and certainly drove me to angry bouts of screaming at people (the risk to my GPA may have had something to do with that) When it came clear, though, the entire learning process was transformed. It was not transformed physically. Rather, the suffering aspect was changed into something of wonder; I have never wished that it was clear to me from the start. Ditto for completing a brutal run, for a precious few of the fights I have had with my loved one and for achieving the Chaos God ending in ADOM. Now then, how did I (or life or living) do that? Was I (or life) moving in mysterious ways? Was it my-magic? Living-magic? Some unknown magic? Or was it simply a part of earthly life? Of course, much, if not most, of our suffering is orders of magnitudes greater than a tearful fight with the person you love, etc. However, according to the hype, salvation is supposed to be infinitely greater than reconciling with said person. --Bertrc (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what to tell you, if you feel that pain is sometimes transformed into a good thing after the fact. To me, that's crazy. I've already laboriously explained that from what I can tell, pain is important and necessary to certain processes (like learning or relationships) because of what it achieves, and how in retrospect it appears to have been worth enduring to attain a greater result. Thus I do not regret tedious hours of memorization, some conflicts with my wife, or the burning of my legs as I rounded the top of a hill. But in my own experience, that pain was not "transformed," and I find this and other formulations of that idea to be insane. I hate seeing my wife unhappy, and I hate even more those petty moments when we were so embroiled in conflict I momentarily found pleasure in such a sight. (Let me pause here to add that this is very unusual and just a harsh formulation of the mechanics of an emotional fight; my wife and I are very happy together and almost never come into conflict.) I recognize that those fights were necessary to work out conflict and build tools and consensus to circumvent future conflict (now I make sure to do the dishes immediately after dinner, instead of procrastinating). But if I could achieve that end result without causing either my wife or myself any pain, I would do it in a moment. I don't want to accuse you of anything, but your repeated insistence that you actually value and like the pain you endure and cause in a fight (or the like) in and of itself, not just for the end result, seems crazy to me. You have skipped past the actual steps involved here, so please explain to me why the suffering of the fight is important to you beyond what it contributes to the end result.--ADtalkModerator 02:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

My guess is that you have never labored through a run, hating and cursing the hill, only to exclaim (or horsely gasp  :-) ): "Holy cr@p! That. Was. Awesome!!!" Not in spite of the hill; not except for the hill; not because of the hill; not simply the run in its entirety including the hill; but every individual nook and cranny of the run. --Bertrc (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I think anyone who runs seven miles in a piece is probably going to have "labored through a run" at some point. But your condescension is totally fun, thanks for that. Yes, achieving a hill can be just like achieving the whole run, if you want to switch to an analogy of a smaller scope. After finishing it, you appreciate the achievement, fun of it, etc. This does not change any part of the argument.--ADtalkModerator 21:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
. . . I think you just made my point. You show how one can appreciate an experience after completion of the entire task, even if they were suffering during the event, itself. You even describe how scales can be made smaller, just as my examples are on scales vastly smaller than life as a whole. --Bertrc (talk) 23:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The fact that your analogy scales from smaller to larger perspective does not prove that (a) it is a valid analogy to our experience, since you are comparing minor and voluntary suffering that moves towards a positive end result to the pointless and brutal suffering on a staggering scale that occurs, and have not provided any reasons to overcome these fundamental differences in the sorts of pain that occur, and (b) you have not managed to actually articulate how pain is transformed. You describe vividly how much it hurts, and vividly how it feels afterward, but gloss over the middle with a "somehow."--ADtalkModerator 02:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, since it does happen, here in real life (in my life, at least) there must be a mechanism. I can articulate how it feels but not how it happens, since I don't know. However, to re-iterate, since it does happen, explaining how strikes me as interesting and possibly helpful, but not actually necessary. --Bertrc (talk) 05:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah, of course. So you feel pain during life, and then later something happens maybe, and it's not pain anymore. No, wait, sorry, it's still pain, but you just remember it differently. No, that's not it either. You still remember the pain, but it's part of a larger purpose - no, no, that's the whole "ends and means" thing you rejected. Ah, of course, the pain is transformed/changed/transmogrified - or some other term that indicates that it has been altered in some way that isn't actually altering your memory or its severity and that you claim is possible because you are capable of constructing a rough analogy that depends on your own subjective summary of your experience that you are unable to explain or communicate beyond the term "somehow."
Sounds airtight.--ADtalkModerator 12:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
As I said before, after a run the pain that we have endured is not changed or revised, it is just put into a new perspective and appreciated as part of the experience. You are exhilarated after the fact, in a manner that includes the minor pain and gives it meaning, but that pain is not erased or changed in itself - the past is not altered, only your ability to appreciate the pain you underwent. This is because the end result makes the suffering worthwhile. We cannot achieve the end result without the suffering. If we could, we would. If we could somehow extricate the exhilaration of laboring muscles from the associated burn of pain, I know that I would do it in a moment. But we're mortal, and the suffering is deeply entwined with the joy of exertion, and so we only appreciate it in retrospect. We are not omnipotent.--ADtalkModerator 02:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
You seem to be saying we appreciate the pain because the pain was necessary; that we "cannot achieve the result without suffering;" but I have equally enjoyed runs where I did not have pain (and there have been runs that I have not enjoyed, both with and without pain) Ditto for learning, etc. That seems to imply that the pain was not necessary. However, there are certainly times, after the fact (definitely not during) where I do appreciate the pain. Heh, if I may be flippant, I have a great example that shows we endure hardships that are not necessary. Two Words: "Save Scumming". There is a reason many people avoid it.  :-) --Bertrc (talk) 04:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. Pain is terrible and it's terrible we have to endure it.--ADtalkModerator 05:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Yep, totally wondrous - Now, you might think I'm being facetious here, but seriously think about what you're saying. Don't just brush it off, actually consider what actual suffering exists (and by any believer in a great and good God must conclude, is allowed) on this planet. This is anything but the feeling of "oh this 10 mile run is difficult". Scarlet A.pnggnostic 00:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Obligatory Slacktivist post. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 00:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Scarlet A.pnggnostic, I'd have to address that on a few fronts. Firstly, I'd have to ask you what you possibly know or understand about suffering on that scale or of the perspectives of somebody who is suffering so; let's face it: you really don't know any more than I do. Neither of us can say whether or not any particular parent of a starving child in Africa is thinking "God is holding me and suffering with me; upon salvation, my entire existence will be transformed so that I might exult in it completely." Stick to the suffering you know. Secondly, I'd ask if the fact you are changing the scale to such a degree means that you understand and agree with my proposal on lesser scales? If so, I would point out that all you are doing is changing scales. You are pointing out the tragedy of suffering on a scale that is orders of magnitudes beyond what we can comprehend; I'm proposing a transformative event that is similarly (infinitely, in fact) beyond what we can understand. On an aside, thank you for not fulfilling Godwin's law; there are certainly sufficient pictures for that purpose. --Bertrc (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Stop worming out of the point; starvation is starvation, pain is pain, and what actually happens in the world is, well, what actually happens in the world. If your point cannot address the scale of the entire world, then it is less than worthless. Essentially, what you're saying is "I don't know what this person is thinking, but they could be happy and because of God" - or alternatively they can be in agony and wanting to die and your notion of God being with them might be viewed as nothing more than rubbing salt into wounds, if not far worse. The technical term for this is "bullshit". Scarlet A.pngnarchist 01:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not saying they could be happy or might not be happy. The whole first part of my post was meant to show that neither of us can say that. IMHO, your technical term should be applied to anybody who has lived the lives we have lived but still thinks that they can speak for the starving in Africa. The second part of my post was addressing your issue of scale. Remember, this article is about whether the existence of suffering contradicts the possibility of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity. We are Rationalwiki, remember? The examples I gave are to show that it is possible to transform suffering. Are you "worming" out of addressing the lesser scale?  ;-) An omnipotent being should be able to increase the scale of a transformative event to match any change in scale you bring to the suffering. --Bertrc (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
If "neither" of us can come to a conclusion about how someone else views suffering then your point is mooted again because it might just be that they frigging hate it and would think you talking about God being loving makes you plain and simply sadistic. In fact, we'd be more justified in thinking that because empathy, that is the ability to imagine someone else's experience and think about what they must be feeling, combined with a bit of Occam's Razor, suggests just that - because I certainly wouldn't be very happy starving to death. Now you're just special pleading your arse off with the whole "an omnipotent being should..." because an omnipotent being should be able to accomplish its tasks without the need for suffering - No ifs, no buts, End. Of. Story. It should not be necessary in the first place unless God is not Good and is, in fact, a sadist. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 01:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
. . . But you haven't addressed whether or not you accept the examples on the lesser scale. Talking about how somebody views or feels about the suffering they are experiencing is not the point of this article. The article is asking if suffering precludes an omnibenevolent being. If such a being can retroactively change suffering so that you won't consider it to have been suffering, then I think the answer is "No." Heck, I don't think I ever said "an omnipotent being should prevent suffering" I have been saying "an omnipotent being could completely transform an experience so that it will not have been suffering." --Bertrc (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I guess what I don't understand is that this is supposed to be an actual logical argument, not a way for someone to try to deal with their persoanal suffering. My mom died when I was 6. (My father was a minister, remember, so church was important to all of them). Everyone around me told me how she was with god now, or how now she could always look down on me and protect me. They were trying to make me feel better. to give suffering meaning, I guess. But they weren't using logic. The were not showing how there is an actual, phsyical place souls go, nor were they offering any evidence that this had happened before. Your argument is not different. You want there to be a god, fine, for you there is. But saying "he uses suffering to teach us" or whatever you are *trying* (badly) to explain is not logic. It's just emotion. it's a wish. a hope. a need for there to be some kind of reason for all teh crap we suffer from.Pink mowse.pngGodotDear god, fucking grow up 00:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
WaitingForGodot . . . That sucks. Frankly, I don't think there is anything anybody could or should say to you beyond that. The fact that your Mom died, let alone when you were so young, is awful. I know you want something logical, but you shouldn't use logic to cope with emotions; emotions are meant to be felt . . . I guess that the only "logical" thing I can tell you is to not look at my proposal as some way to deal with emotions. I can't even bring myself to be snarky when pointing out that I never said God uses suffering to teach us; I think that is a horrible idea. If you want logic, simply for confronting the quandary of the problem of evil, I would ask if you understand at all when I talk about a transformative event retro-actively changing suffering. If so, then an omnipotent being should be able to create an event that can transform any level of suffering. However, this doesn't prove whether such an omnipotent being exists and it certainly doesn't change the suffering we are in the midst of. --Bertrc (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Ironically, it didn't "suck" the way most people think it would, cause at six, you understand these things are part of life. What surprised me was the need to explain suffering, death, sadness, as you are doing in your "argument". Just saying, it doesn't sound at all like a logically constructed argument, it sounds like a way to try to rationalize horrible things. Pink mowse.pngGodotDear god, fucking grow up 02:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Hmmmm, if by "explain suffering" you mean "explain the reason or meaning for suffering" then I actually think I am doing the opposite. Nothing I have said talks about why suffering is there. Heck, if you must know, I think suffering is an awful thing that is entirely unnecessary. However, as I have written ad nauseum, I think suffering can be transformed. This does not mean that there is a reason for suffering. If suffering can be changed by an event which is great enough, then it will no longer have been suffering. If you have never had experiences akin to the transformations I described, though, then you won't understand. --Bertrc (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
"I think anyone who runs seven miles in a piece is probably going to have "labored through a run" at some point." Oh please. Learn how to train. :P Sam Tally-ho! 00:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Free will theodicy section

In response to this recent edit. I've reverted it for now. Let's talk about it here.

You seem to be chalking up just about anything to free will.

Yes. I tend to think cause and effect plays a large roll in the problem of evil and suffering.Tarnold777 (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

No, disease is not caused by free will in the majority of cases. Congenital diseases might be able to be blamed on the parents who decided to make a kid (whether or not they knew this would cause congenital defects is another story), but certainly the kid isn't at fault.

Never meant to claim that disease is caused by free will, only that human induction depends on an action of human will. We ingest contagions intentionally and accidentally. People choose to smoke or drink heavily, inviting emphysema, lung cancer, sclerosis of the liver, etc. Others choose to handle insecticides and asbestos materials unprotected. I didn't intend to affix blame for extending congenital defects. People are often oblivious to the genetic risks they take when they make babies. But that doesn't necessarily remove responsibility to assess any possible risk. This is precisely why marriage licenses request paternal blood screens. Of COURSE it isn't the kid's fault. I wouldn't even fault the parent(s) unless they were aware of the risk and pushed ahead anyway.Tarnold777 (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of what we are aware of, there are laws in play. Almost any court will rule that ignorance of the law is not an excuse And who put these "laws" into place in the first place? And why can't this supreme being just change them? Why not just get rid of malaria? I don't see how that would impinge on anyone's free will.

I was trying to keep the topic in the context of man's responsibility for disease, not God's. Introducing deity begs the question of "Which Deity?", thus opening up another can of worms. For instance, Judeo-Christian texts cite that all corruption (death, disease, pestilence, natural catastrophe) comes as a result of man's disobedience to God's order. However, citation of those texts will fall flat in front of another's religious belief system. The "laws in play" I was referring to are the corporeal laws of action and consequence congruent with human nature and human biology. According to my beliefs, God didn't "create" evil. Evil exists in the void of good, much like the Edmund Burke quote. Expunging Malaria is well within God's ability, but according to the Christian New Testament, all death came into being as a result of man's disobedience to God (Romans 5:12). If God just "got rid of Malria", he would be bound by precedent to get rid of all pestilence. It would also be retroactively controverting the free will action that led to the first human contraction of Malaria. Of course we don't see how it would impinge anyone's free will, but then, we aren't omniscient.

There's a myriad of other problems with your arguments, but those are just off the top of my head. Cow...Hammertime! 20:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Indented line

No commentTarnold777 (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Depends on what you count as "evil". If "evil" requires intent, then that point stands and free will is necessary for it. But that's a very restrictive version of what the "problem of evil" states. It would be better described as "the problem of suffering" or "the problem of shit happens". Scarlet A.pngnarchist 20:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Point well taken. In all honesty I didn't read any further than the free will theodicy section.
In my thinking there is intentional evil (i.e. murdering to take what isn't yours), and unintentional evil (i.e. forgetting to feed and water a pet resulting in its unsavory demise). In the first example, murder is an action of intent. In the second, forgetfulness is the void of doing any good. Actions and inaction cause the problem of suffering. "Shit happening" is also an action, itself. I find the problem of suffering inexorable to the problem of evil, and the problem of evil inexorable to the problem of wrong action. They are seemingly concurrent and a vicious circle.Tarnold777 (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The argument for omniscience and free will being mutually exclusive is a) labeled incorrectly, and b) logically flawed. I cannot see any logical connection between the two universally. I would agree that in the same entity they probably don't exist (but then omniscience probably doesn't exist, so there you go) but just because you know how someone will react to stimulate doesn't mean they don't have a choice in that reaction. If I know that taking crap about someone's mom will push him into physical violence, he still CHOSE to punch me.Dallium (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Why does God allow bad things to happen

Think about all the wars in history, or the holocaust, or dictatorships like North Korea or the Soviet Union with labour camps where they work people to death, or the countries in Africa like Congo or Somalia or Sudan or Eritrea or Zimbabwe with all the violence and child soldiers and poverty and famine, or all the diseases like cancer, or all the terrosist attacks or murders or abortions or all the car accidents or plane crashes or earthquakes or hurricanes or floods or fires or anything else bad that has ever happened to anyone in history. Every time any of those things happened God was there, and God saw it happening, and God could have easily stopped it. Sometimes the people even asked God to help them, and yet God never did. Maybe God was too busy punishing homosexuals to notice people like Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin or Kim Il Sung or his son Kim Jong Il or Saddam Hussein or World War 1 or World War 2 or the Holocaust or the Rape of Nanking or the prisons in North Korea (or the fact that just living in North Korea to begin with is already like a prison) or the POWs in Japan during World War 2 or all the Christians being persecuted FOR HIM or all the other bad things happening in the world. SORRY 15 MILLION JEWS IN THE HOLOCAUST OR 300000 CHINESE IN NANKING IM TOO BUSY PUNISHING HOMOSEXUALS RIGHT NOW TO SAVE YOU FROM A MASS GENOCIDE— Unsigned, by: CedricDoodlehopper / talk / contribs

That would be the crux of it, yes. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 17:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

If you saw somebody hurt and you could help them and they were asking you to help them would you just ignore them? Nobody in their right mind would do that. Yet God apparently just ignores everybody in the world asking for help from things only he could help them with. CedricDoodlehopper (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course this argument only works in respect of a "good" God - probably some variation of the multiple Christian versions of God. If you posit an evil God then there is no problem with such a God allowing evil acts.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 19:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
BUT... then why does the evil god allow good acts to happen? Scarlet A.pngd hominem 20:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Because evil can't exist without good. You gotta have ups to appreciate the downs. Nullahnung (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Surely such a thing is not beyond an omnipotent evil god. Scarlet A.pngbomination 20:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I one-up you with a non-omnipotent evil god! Or how about a duo of gods, one evil, one good, who are constantly struggling against each other to tip the scales in favour of good or evil, but never succeed. Nullahnung (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Good point about a evil God allowing good. I therefore posit an indifferent God.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 20:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Now you guys are just making up crap that makes even less sense than the Bible and Christianity. CedricDoodlehopper (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure, why not. Nullahnung (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I doubt that we have enough imagination.--Weirdstuff (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

[edit] "Problem of Hell"

A BON has added this "lower realms" argument:


Still others mention the contents of the lower realms:

  • A thorough scientific analysis of the ground beneath our feet has failed to find Hell.
  • Without Hell, there can be no Satan.
  • With God and without Satan, there can be no suffering.
  • However, suffering does happen.
  • Therefore, God does not exist either.


I somehow doubt this would convince anybody. Are there any significant religions which literally teach that Hell is underground? In any case this would be the "Problem of Hell" and not the "Problem of evil".--Coffee (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I've already deleted it. It makes about as much sense as "Scientists have not found evidence of Heaven in the sky. Without Heaven there can be no God.". Nullahnung (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Indeed.--Coffee (talk) 18:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Pandeism

Pandeism has been classed as a logical derivation of German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz's proposition that ours was the best of all possible worlds. Lane, William C., January 2010, Leibniz's Best World Claim Restructured, American Philosophical Journal 47-1, pp 57–84. Lane contended that:

"If divine becoming were complete, God's kenosis--God's self-emptying for the sake of love--would be total. In this pandeistic view, nothing of God would remain separate and apart from what God would become. Any separate divine existence would be inconsistent with God's unreserved participation in the lives and fortunes of the actualized phenomena."" —{{{2}}}

Acknowledging that American religious philosopher William Rowe has raised "a powerful, evidential argument against ethical theism," Lane further contended that pandeism offers an escape from the evidential argument from evil:

"However, it does not count against pandeism. In pandeism, God is no superintending, heavenly power, capable of hourly intervention into earthly affairs. No longer existing "above," God cannot intervene from above and cannot be blamed for failing to do so. Instead God bears all suffering, whether the fawn's or anyone else's. Even so, a skeptic might ask, "Why must there be so much suffering,? Why could not the world's design omit or modify the events that cause it?" In pandeism, the reason is clear: to remain unified, a world must convey information through transactions. Reliable conveyance requires relatively simple, uniform laws. Laws designed to skip around suffering-causing events or to alter their natural consequences (i.e., their consequences under simple laws) would need to be vastly complicated or (equivalently) to contain numerous exceptions." —{{{2}}}

— Unsigned, by: 166.137.244.115 / talk / contribs

So this replaces "won't act" with "Can't act"? Why not just go with the utterly indifferent deist God? Either way it moves the definition a long way from the biblical Christian God who was apparently quite happy to intervene in a rather heavy-handed way.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 15:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Mysterious Ways

This is regarding my changes to the Mysterious ways section Raising this with a broader audience and giving Nullahnung more room to explain his or her position. The Christian position (well, among certain Christians, I suppose) really centers on this concept of transformation. It's hardly scientific, but the argument looks at the suffering we face and examines those instances when something that was suffering ceases to have been been suffering. Supposedly, since something within this limitted universe can transform some of our minor' suffering (such as the heartache of a fight with your significant other) then an unlimitted being should be able to transform our major suffering.

  1. I think my text better conveys, emphasizes and underscores transformation and is thus a better representation of this particular argument. Thus, I think my text in the body should be used.
  2. There are certainly numerous issues that can be brought against assumptions this argument -- that suffering has a matter of scale; that there are no qualitative or quantitative differences between types of suffering which might prevent any transformation; etc. -- but since it uses something that actually occurs in real life, I believe that it can be critically analyzed. Thus, I don't think it is appropriate to claim it makes critical thinking blissfully redundant.
  3. I think my bit of snarkiness is much funnier (Not quite reductio ad absurdum, but similar) Thus, I think my postscript should be included.

Thoughts? --Bertrc (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, let me address your edits in more detail:
1.) First of all, the "(including experiences of suffering)" bit in brackets is unnecessary, as that bit of info is woven into this sentence already by virtue of being read after the previous sentence which already mentions the experience of suffering in the same context.
2.) The next bit you edited included brackets, which is clumsy writing, and used uncommon words like 'earthly' and 'transformation' in place of easier-to-read-and-comprehend phrasings like 'everyday' and 'when viewed in perspective'. The only thing I would argue for keeping with that edit was replacing 'same' with 'similar', as that still conveys the meaning effectively, but more accurately.
3.) The previous version of the last bit was short and effective, whereas the new version is wordy to the point of losing effectiveness, failing to capture the critical comedic timing that the previous version succeeded in.
4.) That last bit is also more vulnerable to argument, as it is appealing to "anguish at loved ones passing away" from an "earthly" perspective. Someone who buys into the whole transformation thing would just tell you that death is sad from an earthly perspective, but death may not be such a sad thing anymore when you're conversing with your previously lost loved one in heaven, or some similar argument like that. Basically, all they need to do to brush off your reasoning is say that "you do not comprehend yet!!!1!". Hence, our response should be that this makes critical thinking blissfully redundant.
Thoughts? Nullahnung (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
1.) I would disagree. Tying the transformation back to suffering is crucial to understanding the apologist's point. That bit in parentheses underscores the connection.
2.) . . . Maybe my education was different. Can we get any other opinions on whether "earthly" and "transformation" are uncommon words? Additionally, since earlier in the section, we explicitly mention "Heaven", I think "earthly" is particularly appropriate.
3.) I guess everybody's sense of humor is personal and mine has often been criticized. Does anybody else have an opinion? I thought the previous postscript ("critically thinking is blissfully redundant") was merely snide, whereas mine playfully pointed out the extreme situation you could encounter.
4.) . . . The postscript I added was juxtaposing a cold clinical analysis of suffering against reality. It wasn't meant to be part of an argument. I guess, if you really wanted to argue with that postscript, you could try to argue that you should compare the suffering the parent is experiencing to some suffering that was transformed, after the fact. But that is all besides the point -- The post script I added wasn't an argument. It was just a bit of tongue in cheekiness. --Bertrc (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
1.) It may be crucial, but it's already implied by the previous sentence coming before and setting the scene for this particular sentence. The text is compacter and more effective this way as well as still holding all the crucial information.
2.) Ok, I should be more precise. They aren't uncommon words to me as such, but they are relatively... well... uncommon/stilted/more-taxing-to-the-reader than what was there before, which was short, effective and expressed in more "everyday" terms, which fits.
3/4.) That may have been all you wanted to point out with it, but it still reads like it's trying to make a point and argue with it. As such, the previous version made a more effective point in terms of an answer to people who buy into the transformation thing, namely that it diminishes critical thinking, which is a point not conveyed enough by the preceding material. Nullahnung (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Assume Judeo-Christian Morality

Why? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 03:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Since we have to use some kind of moral system to define evil, I figured the one that the Judeo-Christian God is supposed to care about should provide that basis (the Judeo-Christian morality). I mainly did it to reduce the amount of unstated assumptions in the presentation of our logic. Nullahnung (talk) 03:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Because topic bias: we write about what we know.--Miekal 03:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
[statement moved to new section below]
My thoughts: remove statement, add to later section "Does Evil Exist?". Philosophically, logically proving evil exists is basically impossible, but proving thecontradiction between the existence of an OO entity and truth of most moral systems is not. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 04:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Uniqueness section

"The problem of evil is unusual in objections to religion in that many apologists accept that it is a persuasive and rational criticism of theism."

I know that a lot of apologists accept this, but they need not. If the starting point is (1) Assume Judeo-Christian morals, then there's a problem with (3) From definition: An omnibenevolent entity would remove all evil if it can. The biblical account plainly affirms that its omnibenevolent God makes no attempt to remove all evil; he merely chooses to restrict it in specific instances. A classic case can be found in Genesis 4, where God intervenes to prevent Cain from being murdered (verse 15), but does not intervene to prevent Cain from murdering Abel (verse 8). What's interesting is that even the most liberal scholarship dates Genesis and the rest of the Torah to sometime between the 800s and the 400s B.C.E. Epicurus however wasn't born until 341 B.C.E. So for generations before he came into the world, the ancient Jews had been passing down their teachings about a God who was omnibenevolent and who did not prevent the existence of evil. For generations, they had accepted this combination as the reality of who God was. Then along came Epicurus and his followers, insisting that such a combination was impossible. How did something both possible and real to the ancient Jews suddenly become impossible in the eyes of the Epicureans? The only explanation is that their concept of omnibenevolence differed from the ancient Jewish concept. Conclusion: (1) and (3) from the long form of the argument are contradictory, rendering the argument itself invalid. --Jdamley (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Well that was a long winded version of "not ALL conceptions of god!". Does anyone know if we have a page for this kind of quibble? If we don't, we need one. Brianpansky (talk) 01:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Also, the section said "many". That means not all. Even still, I can see your citation, and its description, are probably fine contributions. Brianpansky (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Apologies for the long-windedness; apparently my point got lost entirely. Please note the key conclusion here: The argument itself is simply invalid. As in a case of fallacious reasoning. Because (3) does not follow from (1); in fact, (1) contradicts (3). --Jdamley (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually I basically understood that to be your conclusion. The only thing I missed was that the particular long form of the logical contradiction version of the argument on our page assumes "Judeo-Christian morals" at the start. (Though my point, about there being uncountable concepts of what those morals are, remains until one correct version can be proven) As such your line of reasoning is potentially correct here, I assume your citation (to Amley, J. D.) attempts to back up the facts required. Brianpansky (talk) 01:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
But if there are in fact "uncountable concepts" of what exactly constitutes "Judeo-Christian morals," then the burden rests on the long form of the argument to identify the "correct version" -- or, at the least, it must identify the intended version. Otherwise the long form of the argument is invalid due to ambiguity in its first premise.--Jdamley (talk) 09:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the "assume Judeo-Christian morals" bit. Still, "good" and "evil" need to be defined at some point before considering the logical problem of evil, and that is only possible by first assuming a set of morals. Nullahnung (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Without a definition for "good" and "evil," there can be no clear definition of omnibenevolence -- which renders one of the premises ambiguous at best, and potentially false at the worst. My own solution to this problem was to define good and evil via "biblical" morals, along with defining which specific compilation of the Bible I was referring to. This eliminated the ambiguity, but unfortunately it also rendered the entire argument invalid due to a straw man fallacy. (Biblical morals do not require God to prevent the existence of evil; thus the argument ended up militating against the existence of a God who was not the God described in the Bible.) I don't see any way to justify the use of a different moral system -- say, that of Epicurus -- as a test of omnibenevolence for the biblical God. It would be like trying to enforce soccer rules in a football game, and calling a foul on any player who touched the ball with his hands. My conclusion: the Problem of Evil argument is hopelessly invalid, and its conclusion is therefore not compelling.--Jdamley (talk) 12:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Should omniscience be included?

I mean you now have an excuse of not knowing about the existence or whereabouts of the Evil you want to get rid of if omniscience is come into question. K61824"6+18=24" 19:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] God's act of creation and act of judgement being the same and therefore making the 'problem of evil' a crank idea

God's act of creation and act of judgement being the same and therefore making the 'problem of evil' a crank idea

Hi I believe the page has just been unreasonably protected from pointing out that the problem of evil is a crank idea; are some of you guys biased or what? One of the main points of this web site is to expose the existence of crank ideas, so the problem of evil should be highlighted as one in its introduction. ha ha ha, bla bla bla

Why has the page being 'protected' from exposing the problem of evil as a crank idea? It is the opposite of protection; not allowing this exposure is an attack against the ethos of the RationalWiki website; mutiny! Treachery!

Together, John Joseph Haldane's Wittgenstinian-Thomistic account of concept formation[1] and Martin Heidegger's observation of temporality's thrown nature[2] imply that God's act of creation and God's act of judgment are the same act. God's condemnation of evil is subsequently believed to be executed and expressed in his created world; a judgement that is unstoppable due to God's all powerful will; a constant and eternal judgement that becomes announced and communicated to other people on Judgment Day. In this explanation, God's condemnation of evil is declared to be a good judgement. — Unsigned, by: 2.26.42.218 / talk / contribs

First, you keep putting an argument into the introduction. At least put it into a section in the arguments section.
Second, the "creation-judgement-same-action" idea is already in the article. If you wanna expand that section, that's fine. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 00:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Thirdly I'm a reasonably educated person and what you write just sounds like word salad. WTF does "temporality's thrown nature" actually mean? Why can't you express it in words that are comprehensible to the lay person? Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 11:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
The BoN's last paragraph is directly copied from the Wikipedia article, hence the lack of context and the unlinked footnote numbers.--ZooGuard (talk) 12:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
And guess who added that paragraph to the Wikipedia article. (The same BoN.)--ZooGuard (talk) 12:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
It seems that thrownness[wp] is a thing. It also seems that disputants who consider themselves philosophers tend to speak in a special code, a compressed jargon that depends heavily on references to previous arguments, some of them centuries old. Can you say "courtier's reply"? I knew you could, and am so proud of you.
It can be difficult to distinguish between allusion-rich discourse and word salad. That former kind of discourse is suitable for a philosophically sophisticated audience, not the general run of RW readership. N.B. that "sophistication" may mean falsification or contamination.
I, for one, prefer plain language comprehensible to the lay person. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Here's the real secret: obscure jargon-like terms with incredibly specific meanings can be kosher to any discussion, but the thing that tends to separate "word salad" whose intent is to disguise a flimsy argument and extraordinary specificity tends to come in the form of introduction(and sometimes as you suggest, audience). Obscure concepts, when you're using them, should be introduced to the reader. If I used my own education background(computer science) and started throwing around statements about finite state machines modeling the universe, and how that means causality is real or something, I'd be guarding a flimsy argument with terminology I'm familiar with.
If I first introduced the notion, mentioning that a finite state machine being relevant because every input describes the next state of the machine perfectly, it might make it more clear I'm just regurgitating determinism. It's basically a question of intellectual honesty. Ikanreed (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
What I make up from the jargon-istic word salad: God simultaneously creates and judges (e.g. God lets there be light and judges it as 'good'), which might indicate that God creates stuff to explore the bounds of 'good' and 'evil/bad' (like a kid splashing paint at a wall and deciding "this looks nice" or "this looks stupid"). In addendum, perhaps the universe we observe is simply God's way of creating and contemplating concepts (whatever God thinks automatically manifests in reality). Anyway, this judgement apparently pervades all of reality and on Judgement Day it's to be made blatant to all in existence. God's judgement is, of course, inherently good etc. yadda yadda.
What seems pretty obvious here is that God's judgement isn't inherently moral from our point of view. Unless you consider light morally superior to darkness, for example. The bigger point, though, is that God doesn't need to take our concept of morality into account. If God exists as an eternal, immortal, infinite being, this means that our moral judgement is infinitesimal in relevance compared to God's judgement. And since God is supposedly gonna reward everyone that lives according to his commandments with eternal bliss, there is no problem of evil since finite suffering can never mathematically measure up to infinite happiness. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support