Beyond God and Evil

[Matt Gregory]

Let's assume that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, that everything he does is good and let's ask the question: why do bad things happen? For the sake of discussion let's take the killing of millions of Jews by the Nazis.

If God is all-powerful, then does he do everything himself and thus kill the Jews? And if so, does that mean that killing those Jews was good? If he doesn't do everything, did he just let it happen?

Since he's all-knowing, he had to have known the holocaust was going on, so didn't he therefore have the responsibility of stopping it? Why didn't he stop it? Did he not want to stop it because killing the Jews was good? Or was he powerless to stop it?

If God is all-powerful and all-knowing only, then we could just say that he does evil things sometimes. If God is all-powerful and all-good, then we could say he doesn't always know when evil things are happening. If God is all-knowing and all-good, then we could say he is powerless to stop evil things. But if God is all three, I don't think the situation adds up, unless you want to say that evil things are actually good.

[Tomas]

.


There was no holocaust ... get over it.


.

[Dan Rowden]

I think I know why Jesus wept.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Where's your mind these days, Matt? Damn!

The question of power cannot be asked in the same domain as the question of evil. So it's a basic category error.

The average Christian by the way, would explain this by asserting the value of free will in the eyes of God. He rather lets us wipe each other out than forcing us to do things differently using divine intervention, at least most of the time). It's that same dilemma as planting one forbidden tree in a free-for-all garden.

Perhaps the Christian case could be made stronger by asserting that an eternal type of being tends to think in spans of millions of years and might see other 'goods' and 'evils' than humans do with their puny lifespans. What price paradise?

[Carl G]

Matt,

You're making God out to be some guy?

[Tomas]

.


The names were changed to protect the innocent :-/



Matt Gregory - Let's assume that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, that everything he does is good and let's ask the question: why do bad things happen?

-tomas-
We all just happened to show up on this plane. As far as I can tell, its always been this way.

No beginning, no end.




-Matt dutifully rants from his schooldays-
For the sake of discussion let's take the killing of millions of Jews by the Nazis.

-tomas-
Lookee there slick, you want to sign up for religious class - you gotta be some kind of nut to submit to having your foreskin snipped. Or, your mama had no choice but to play along with the mens' programming.




-Matt further recites from His Story-
If God is all-powerful, then does he do everything himself and thus kill the Jews?

-tomas-
Those Jews are ethnic Russian, Slav, German, Czech etc.

David Koresh (the new Jew) wasn't bothering anybody but some nutcase lesbians (Hillary Clinton & Janet Reno) had to do something, as that religious shit was taking headlines away from Hillary's health care manifesto in early 1993.




-Matt continues in orbit around the flag-
And if so, does that mean that killing those Jews was good?

-tomas-
God, gays, guns = government!

David Koresh and those mothers with children had to do the Shadrach, Meschach & Amednigo...




-Matt recites the pledge of allegiance-
If he doesn't do everything, did he just let it happen?

-tomas-
On my honor - I will do my duty...




-Matt
Since he's all-knowing, he had to have known the holocaust was going on, so didn't he therefore have the responsibility of stopping it?

-tomas-
What's a couple million abortions among friends?




-Matt's now in a tizzy-
Why didn't he stop it? Did he not want to stop it because killing the Jews was good? Or was he powerless to stop it?

-tomas-
If it feels good - do it!




-Matt questions it all-
If God is all-powerful and all-knowing only, then we could just say that he does evil things sometimes.

-tomas-
The road to hell is paved with good intentions :-)




-Matt surmises-
If God is all-powerful and all-good, then we could say he doesn't always know when evil things are happening.

-tomas-
Dementia, senility, Alzheimer's - hey! we all gotta go sometime...




-Matt peers into the black mirror-
If God is all-knowing and all-good, then we could say he is powerless to stop evil things.

-tomas-
No, then there is no evil.




-Matt runs the maze-
But if God is all three, I don't think the situation adds up, unless you want to say that evil things are actually good.

-tomas-
The Great Pyramid is the geographical center of earth's landmass. You'll find your answer there.


Peace Up.



Tomas
Prince of Jerusalem
16 Degree
Scottish Rite Free Mason




.

[Philosophaster]

Let's assume that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, that everything he does is good and let's ask the question: why do bad things happen? For the sake of discussion let's take the killing of millions of Jews by the Nazis.

If God is omnipotent, then it must be the case that he allows what we call "bad things" to happen.

The only logically consistent way to maintain all three attributes (omnipotence, omniscience, always-doing-good) at once is to say that the way things actually turn out is the best possible way that they could have turned out. If God does not make things turn out the best possible way that they could turn out, then he is by definition not doing good -- because he could have done something better, yet refrained from doing it.

In the face of things like genocide, this idea offends just about every empathetic and moral instinct that we have, of course, which is why most people shrink away from defending this idea and stop thinking about the problem.

[Iolaus]

Geez, Matt, are you serious or just playing with your navel?

Maybe God isn't a fucking babysitter. And maybe we aren't fucking babies. Ever think of that?

[divine focus]

If God is all-powerful, then does he do everything himself and thus kill the Jews? And if so, does that mean that killing those Jews was good? If he doesn't do everything, did he just let it happen?

This is only a question if you hold God to be the One Decider of everything in a pre-determined way. God's Power is only now, not past or future, and since people exist and choose only now as well, God's Power can only work through people (whether they are aware of it or not). God is not omnipotent if an individual chooses to operate under a power other than God, although he/she cannot fully give up their God Power. They can never leave the now, but they may be preoccupied with past and future and social ramifications such that they become unaware of Power. Whatever atrocities that may be committed were not committed with an awareness of God Power, even if God was used to justify them within misunderstanding. In a sense, God Power is used in every event and circumstance, by victimizer and victim, if they exist. Since there is always the now, and there always was and always will be, God Power is absolute such that benevolence and growth is the ultimate direction of every circumstance.

[Matt Gregory]

The question of power cannot be asked in the same domain as the question of evil. So it's a basic category error.

Well, think about this because I think this is the crux of the whole thing: If some evil is going to happen and someone has knowledge of it and the power to stop it but he just doesn't stop it then what would you say? Did he cause it or not?

[Matt Gregory]

The only logically consistent way to maintain all three attributes (omnipotence, omniscience, always-doing-good) at once is to say that the way things actually turn out is the best possible way that they could have turned out.

Yeah, that's actually a good solution to the problem. I can't think of any retort for that one.

[Matt Gregory]

God is not omnipotent if an individual chooses to operate under a power other than God,

You're talking about something different from what I'm talking about. There's no question that God is omnipotent because that's how I defined the scenario. I'm talking about the usual Christian type of god.

[brokenhead]

The only logically consistent way to maintain all three attributes (omnipotence, omniscience, always-doing-good) at once is to say that the way things actually turn out is the best possible way that they could have turned out. If God does not make things turn out the best possible way that they could turn out, then he is by definition not doing good -- because he could have done something better, yet refrained from doing it.

When you speak of God's "omnipotence," it is a too-convenient way to blame someone other than the actual perpetrators of iniquity, or to blame someone in addition to them. Both actions serve to dilute the responsibility of the actual perpetrator. If God were to make things "turn out the best possible way they could turn out," then things would be perfect, and any change in things would be impossible, since any change would make things less than perfect (since by definition, you cannot have degrees of perfection.)

Your "three atrributes" argument is more childish than childlike, Philo. It ignores the grand scale of evolution. That is, evolution in everything, our minds and spirits as well as our bodies, evolution of the very world we live in. Since we do not know what God's judgement has in store, we are bound to be participants in this evolution, which requires going through hardships as we grow. In your three-attributes world, no one would ever be hungry. Then why would our bodies have the capacity to feel hunger hard-wired into us? Why would we have the ability to fight, if fight were never required of us? A war is not just one battle, it is a lifelong series of them.

One Master has said: "The poor shall always be with us."

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The question of power cannot be asked in the same domain as the question of evil. So it's a basic category error.

Well, think about this because I think this is the crux of the whole thing: If some evil is going to happen and someone has knowledge of it and the power to stop it but he just doesn't stop it then what would you say? Did he cause it or not?

Good and Evil has a lot to do with the relation between different power potentials. For example god is Good because of his unchallenged power. Weak groups in a society can become Evil because of their lack of power. Check out the Axis of Evil countries nowadays, basically all extremely weak and hardly threatening countries, also because of their relative political isolation making their condemnation doable.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Forgot to leave in:

Your assertion that the happening will be something evil - therein lies also your assertion of power or at least becomes a power difference visible.

[Philosophaster]

The only logically consistent way to maintain all three attributes (omnipotence, omniscience, always-doing-good) at once is to say that the way things actually turn out is the best possible way that they could have turned out. If God does not make things turn out the best possible way that they could turn out, then he is by definition not doing good -- because he could have done something better, yet refrained from doing it.

When you speak of God's "omnipotence," it is a too-convenient way to blame someone other than the actual perpetrators of iniquity, or to blame someone in addition to them.

If it would be trivially easy for someone to stop a great evil from occurring, and yet he did not stop it, would you blame him? Or does basic moral reasoning not apply to the actions of "God" for some reason?

If God were to make things "turn out the best possible way they could turn out," then things would be perfect, and any change in things would be impossible, since any change would make things less than perfect (since by definition, you cannot have degrees of perfection.)

This argument presumes that there is only one possible way for the world to be perfect -- that it is not possible to make a change in the world that is neutral with respect to good or evil. I don't accept that premise.

Since we do not know what God's judgement has in store, we are bound to be participants in this evolution, which requires going through hardships as we grow. In your three-attributes world, no one would ever be hungry. Then why would our bodies have the capacity to feel hunger hard-wired into us? Why would we have the ability to fight, if fight were never required of us? A war is not just one battle, it is a lifelong series of them.

Basically you're just saying that things that seem "evil" to us now actually aren't, because they'll lead to everything turning out for the best in the end. This is merely another way of phrasing the idea I already stated: "the things that actually happen are the best possible things that could happen" -- i.e., what we call evil is merely "apparent" evil, because it eventually results in some greater good.

Well, okay. Any idea of when we can expect to see that "greater good?"

[Iolaus]

Brokenhead said,
Brokenhead said,

When you speak of God's "omnipotence," it is a too-convenient way to blame someone other than the actual perpetrators of iniquity, or to blame someone in addition to them. Both actions serve to dilute the responsibility of the actual perpetrator.

But this is exactly what I said only more briefly and with fouler language.
So Matt says that we must answer as he has posed the scenario, because that is how he laid out the question. But the question is childishly laid out.

Says Philosophaster,

If it would be trivially easy for someone to stop a great evil from occurring, and yet he did not stop it, would you blame him? Or does basic moral reasoning not apply to the actions of "God" for some reason?

OK, let's try again. We are not here to be babysat for all eternity. We are here to learn, grow and become. We would be no more interesting or worthwhile if we were baby sat for eternity than a beaker full of bacteria.

It is OUR responsibility to learn wisdom and goodness and ethics and consequences. And, if God has the 'ability' to intervene, that means he must? Why should he use force? Is it not possible for a good being to refrain from the use of force? Is that how you see a good entity behaving - the constant and forever use of force? Is that a life you want to live for eternity - an unconscious, uninteresting beakerful of human bacteria?

Intervening in our lives is the use of force. Evil has two main characteristics: deception and the use of force. God is not evil and does not use force.

The reason God does not intervene is because God is supremely good.

If I seem harsh it because I tire of babes in the sandbox blaspheming God.

Now, it is nap time.

[Dan Rowden]

The problem of "evil" has its own problem in that there's no reason to suppose that our moral interpretations of events are correct - or in line with God's (of course, if we understand the nature of such interpretations then we know they cannot be wrong, but that's another matter, somewhat). I'm not sure such a God would care all that much that we differ in our moral frameworks to him.

[Dan Rowden]

Anna protested:

If I seem harsh it because I tire of babes in the sandbox blaspheming God.

God is a sour elderberry that likes the bums of little boys, has genital warts, halitosis and a mean disposition!

There.

[Philosophaster]

Says Philosophaster,

If it would be trivially easy for someone to stop a great evil from occurring, and yet he did not stop it, would you blame him? Or does basic moral reasoning not apply to the actions of "God" for some reason?

OK, let's try again. We are not here to be babysat for all eternity. We are here to learn, grow and become. We would be no more interesting or worthwhile if we were baby sat for eternity than a beaker full of bacteria.

This is just another variant of the same response I already outlined; that what seems "evil" to us is actually for the "greater good," namely the "greater good" of having a more interesting world with more freedom or something like that.

Intervening in our lives is the use of force. Evil has two main characteristics: deception and the use of force. God is not evil and does not use force.

The reason God does not intervene is because God is supremely good.

So the reason that God does not intervene to stop rapists and murderers is because he is supremely good, right? And if some guy on the street sees a rape in progress and fails to intervene, then he is good by virtue of not using any force to stop it, right?

Are you really so sure that any kind of intervention is evil?

[Philosophaster]

The problem of "evil" has its own problem in that there's no reason to suppose that our moral interpretations of events are correct - or in line with God's.

But many (probably most) religious people do presuppose this, which is why the problem of evil "works" at showing the intellectual bankruptcy of their assumptions.

[Dan Rowden]

Yes, but, but, but, God works in mysterious ways! Who are we to question that? How can we fully know God's plan? Perhaps one day they'll write about us all like they did about Job...

[Iolaus]

Dan,

God is a sour elderberry that likes the bums of little boys, has genital warts, halitosis and a mean disposition!

There.

Oh! Oh! I feel I am about to faint. Smelling salts, please! Where are the smelling salts?

Philo,

This is just another variant of the same response I already outlined; that what seems "evil" to us is actually for the "greater good," namely the "greater good" of having a more interesting world with more freedom or something like that.

OK, but usually when people speak of a greater good they mean that things will work out right in the end due to a long series of unforeseen cause and effect.

So the reason that God does not intervene to stop rapists and murderers is because he is supremely good, right?

Right.

And if some guy on the street sees a rape in progress and fails to intervene, then he is good by virtue of not using any force to stop it, right?

No. But it is a good point, and I have not quickly found the explanation. God, to whatever extent he may be a personal being, is in a different position to us who are incarnated here together more or less equally, to learn. But even for us, refraining from the use of force should be our ideal. It always grieved me that it was not completely possible with small children.

[earnest_seeker]

The only logically consistent way to maintain all three attributes (omnipotence, omniscience, always-doing-good) at once is to say that the way things actually turn out is the best possible way that they could have turned out.

That's almost a solution to the problem, but not quite. To say that a state of affairs is the best out of all possibilities is to imply that God is limited by possibilities, which contradicts the notion of omnipotence. Omnipotence means that one has the power to do anything, including finding a better state of affairs.

Having said that, I'm perfectly willing to entertain counterarguments, because in my opinion the meaning of the notion of "omnipotence" is very debatable, and the argument that I've just presented simply serves to illustrate that. One might argue that "omnipotence" does work within limitations, such as the inability to perform illogical tasks like making a square circle, and such as not being able to improve upon a perfect state of affairs.

The other problem that I see with your solution is that it's hard to believe that this universe is the most perfect that it can be. From the Christian perspective, a place exists where its inhabitants experience perfect bliss i.e heaven. So why the need for earth and hell? Why not just heaven? Wouldn't that more perfect that including realms of suffering?

Geez, Matt, are you serious or just playing with your navel?

Maybe God isn't a fucking babysitter. And maybe we aren't fucking babies. Ever think of that?

and later,

So Matt says that we must answer as he has posed the scenario, because that is how he laid out the question. But the question is childishly laid out.

Anna, usually I find your posts to be coherent and insightful and on the right track. In this instance though I think that you're reacting without careful thought. Matt's post was impeccably and thoroughly laid out. It was far from childish - in fact it was very adult in its reasoned questioning. In my opinion the only person who's responded effectively to it so far has been Philosophaster, as quoted above. I have long thought similarly to Matt: the notion that the God of our universe is simultaneously omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent is absurd, given the amount of suffering that exists. Wouldn't you be better off to honestly acknowledge this contradiction, and to attempt to reform your view of God, rather than to attempt to (inadequately) defend it, and to rail out emotionally against anyone who points out flaws in your conception?

I wrote "inadequately", and I suppose that you'd like a justification for that. Take this exchange:

Iolaus: The reason God does not intervene is because God is supremely good.

Philosophaster: So the reason that God does not intervene to stop rapists and murderers is because he is supremely good, right? And if some guy on the street sees a rape in progress and fails to intervene, then he is good by virtue of not using any force to stop it, right?

Iolaus: No. But it is a good point, and I have not quickly found the explanation.

Let's face facts: there's unlikely to be a reasonable explanation. Your response is inadequate and you must know it. Rather than search for tenuous explanations to support a contradiction, wouldn't you be better off to consider how to remodel your understanding of God's character and capacity such that the contradiction no longer exists?

If I seem harsh it because I tire of babes in the sandbox blaspheming God.

I'm sympathetic to this. I do believe that a non-contradictory conception of God is possible, and I also believe that God exists and is respect-worthy beyond compare. Blasphemy is understandable given that the typical conception of God presented by mainstream religions is - as the opening post in this thread explains perfectly - contradictory. Although it might be understandable, however, it's not acceptable. We all have that little voice in the back of our mind that - if we listen to it - reminds us of what is sacred.

[brokenhead]

The other problem that I see with your solution is that it's hard to believe that this universe is the most perfect that it can be. From the Christian perspective, a place exists where its inhabitants experience perfect bliss i.e heaven. So why the need for earth and hell? Why not just heaven? Wouldn't that more perfect that including realms of suffering?

It is evident that this universe is not the most perfect that it can be. First of all, there can't be a "most" perfect anything, because perfection isn't comparative. Something is either perfect or it is not.

Why is it so difficult to understand that in a world of space and time, there can be no such thing as perfection? There is only perefcting.

God has chosen us to be the instruments of this process of perfecting. We are not bystanders. We participate.

So the reason that God does not intervene to stop rapists and murderers is because he is supremely good, right? And if some guy on the street sees a rape in progress and fails to intervene, then he is good by virtue of not using any force to stop it, right?

You could not develop as a person if there were never an opportunity for you to intervene, Philo. You are making an infantile error. This is an evolutionary world. It exists in time. The human species appears and develops and individuals within it also must grow. No doubt there are worlds where this is not the case, where day-to-day living would seem like paradise to us.

There is no hell but the one we are in.