The Problem of Evil: Which attribute should we drop from the Christian Notion of God as being all good, all powerful and all knowing?

Recently, a candidate for the Senate (Richard Mourdock) stated:

"I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God," Mourdock said. "And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."

Later, in the face of criticism, he disavowed what he said. I am not as interested with poor Mr. Mourdock's political considerations but with the problem that the existence of evil poses to a believe in an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient deity.

Perhaps we should drop the assumption that we truly understand what is evil?

So you view evil as a mystery?

That depends a little on what definition you are using for "mystery". One definition is "that which is not understood", so by that definition you are restating my proposition. I am not certain that we completely do understand what evil is and when it occurs.

There are certainly acts which appear evil to me and which I would unreservedly condemn. Rape is an excellent example. But just because I feel strongly about that one element does not mean that I completely understand evil.

so you are strongly disgusted by rape but it might not be evil because god let it happen?

Did I say that? Where?

If you want to debate something with me, I would be happy to participate. But if you just want to make up my comments and argue against them, just leave me out of it.

I'd say you're overreacting. A Senate candidate is not a religious leader. He might not even have a good grasp on scripture.

“The thief [Satan] cometh not but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I [Jesus] am come that they might have life and that they might have it MORE ABUNDANTLY.” (John 10:10)

To quote a pastor who most likely understands the bible better than a layman politician:


A) You are a work of God. (Eph.2:10)


B) God's mercies are over all of His works.(Ps.145:9)


A plus B equals C.


C) His mercy is over you right now, not His wrath.


http://www.johnhamelministries.org/g...ur_problem.htm

Existence.

lol.


i. rape appears to be evil
ii. just because something appears evil does not mean i completely understand evil
C. rape might not be evil


by your own logic, any thing that's widely considered evil might not be evil, because you don't know if you completely understand evil.

this seems like a very odd way to get out of the problem of evil.

isn't it much more logical to assume that god is not loving than to assume that things that appear to be evil might not be evil?

No. Let me help.

I feel very certain that rape is evil. Just because I feel certain that rape is evil does not mean that I completely understand evil.

Besides, God does not rape. It is man who rapes. It does of course require free will to separate God's will from rape. But assuming free will than the evil resides in man, not God.

You might not understand evil but an all knowing god does.
You might not be able to stop evil but an all powerful god can.

And since it's settled that evil occurs should christianity drop one of the three omnis?

Conceded.

Arguable. It depends on the definition of all-powerful. Since you are using it in your argument, it does fall on you to provide the definition. To help that along let me ask this question: Under all-powerful, do you then postulate that God could identify two integers a and b such that a/b = sqrt(2)?

I think we have to finish our definition of all-powerful to continue along these lines.

I disagree. There is nothing in the formulation of this issue that demands special definitions. You just want to avoid the question. Your right.

This is a fourth option and the easiest solution for a non Xtian. However, the problem remains if you hold the Christian belief that god is those 3 omnis.

"rape might not be evil" logically follows from this. and you can substitute any action for rape.


god has intervened in human lives many times. if we go by human testimony he intervenes in incredibly petty activities such as golf tournaments and the country music awards.

biblical examples of god's intervention include god messing around with abraham and job for no apparent reason and healing people who are blind, crippled, or dead.

there is abundant evidence that god sometimes intervenes in human lives. he could stop all rapes. so, he must not want to stop all rapes.

since rape is evil, god sometimes chooses to not stop evil. therefore, he must not be all-good.

saying god is not omni-benevolent is not the same as saying he is evil.

I do not think this follows, at least in a meaningful way. I will use an analogy.

Does a proton have mass? I would say "yes". In fact, I am quite certain that a proton has mass. Do I understand mass? No, not completely. I do not completely understand the origin of mass. I do know that more than 75% of what we perceive as mass in a proton is not rest mass. It is relativistic mass due to the binding energy of its constituent quarks. Are quarks fundamental? In the Standard Model they are, but the SM is not completely satisfactory. If quarks are composite perhaps their rest mass is also relativistic. Maybe there is no mass. Maybe it is all energy which we perceive as mass due to relativistic effects in our frame of reference.

So is it true that protons may not have mass? Well ok, if one gets very broad and very theoretical I would have to say that protons might not have mass. But that has no meaning as things stand. I would still say that protons have mass and I doubt that any physicist would object strenuously to the comment.

Evil is like that. In any meaningful conversation or debate that we could have, I would be quite confident that rape is evil.


This argument does not really mean much to me. I do not admit as fact any human testimony of any intervention. In our discussion it does not advance your argument.

Again this does not follow. The question of free will and the nature of evil enters in here. If a man intends to rape but is stopped by another man's intervention, was evil prevented? Where is the evil? Isn't it in the will of the rapist to intend that evil? It was not prevented. The rapist is still evil. What happened is that someone else exercised their will to create good.

Although again, we need to get a definition of "all-good". Do you have one? I do not use the term, so I do not.

It is not really useful. The problem of evil is used to argue that God as typically conceived can not exist. For that to have value you must show a logical flaw within the context of God and evil. If you state "no God" as a solution you have simply created a circular argument with no weight at all.

It is in fact reduced to a statement of belief. Which is fine, but atheism as a belief is fundamentally not different from theism.

RLK, what do you think of the idea that God could of created us in such a way as to retain our free will, but not have the capacity to commit evil? (I believe the two to be compatible, but you might disagree) I cannot, at the moment, see why God wouldn't choose this option if he were an omnibenevolent being.

I'm not sure about capacity for evil. Free will I would think implies the capacity.

If we assume God has free will, and is never evil, then it seems to me that he must have had the capability to create humans that were knowledgeable/empathetic/kind/whatever enough never to utilise our capacity for evil.

I would basically agree. I think that for there to be a God who is basically good coexistent with evil, it must be not possible to create beings with free will and no capacity for evil. I say "basically good" because I am not sure what "omnibenevolent" means. Does it mean no evil? Or does it mean greatest good? It may be possible that the greatest good can only arise in the presence of some evil, for example.

I don't think so. Our capacity to commit certain actions is usually limited within a particular set of boundaries, but that does not imply that we are not free within those bounds. For instance, let's say I want to go outside and jump. Am I free to choose how high I jump? Yes. But that does not mean I can freely turn off gravity and jump to the moon.

Sure, I agree.

What I mean is that (assuming free will) I have the capacity to murder. I do not however have the intent or desire to actually murder.

So it is not necessary that I have the desire to commit evil in order to say that I have the capacity for it.

It doesn't seem to contain any problems to say that God could create us, and give us the knowledge (or empathy, or whatever is needed) that we never actually choose to be evil.

This is where we hit the problem: God has obviously created us in such a way that some of us have both the capacity and the desire to commit evil. And that seems to imply that God wanted man to commit evil acts.

Edit: Certainly, unlike willing yourself to fly, free will is only important as a theological concept if it allows us the capacity for evil.

Mr. Mourdock chose to drop from his theological doctrine "all good." He won't admit so in plain language because it is a horrifying thought for a Xtian to recognize that even a basically decent human being would, if possessing the powers attributed to the Xtian deity, stop the evil that it became aware of.

The Xtian God doesnt have to be evil, just completely uncaring for us to drop omnibenevolence or even basic decency.

It is part and parcel of an undigested Calvinism pervasive in American Christians. Everything is preordained by the divinity, which in order to have omniscience would have to somehow either exist outside of time or have perceptions outside of time itself.


We do not have to drop omnibenevolence. We can drop instead omniscience. The prime mover set the universe in motion and now is occupied with other matters. The problem with dropping ommniscience is that this not a God that you can bother to pray to. You are on your own and Xtians do not make the claim of being abandoned by their god.


We can instead drop omnipotence. But we would have to drop all the way down to almost impotence.

Existence amirite

Isn't that a moot point when we consider that god clearly isn't omnibenevolent. There are many many examples of 'His' wrath, anger, punishments dispensed, plagues visited, not to mention all the awful things he/she/it has allowed to occur in the name of god.

I think we can start from the point of god being fairly malevolent when it suits?