In an earlier post I discussed the nature of God. There were three main questions/objections posed to his existence. I answered the first two then but left third for a later time. The problem of evil is what I will discuss here in this post.
How can God allow evil to exist and even be responsible for its creation if He is an omni-benevolent God?
A common response to this question is that God did not create evil but Satan did. The classic comeback to that statement is God is omniscient and would have known that Satan would create evil and, therefor, by proxy be party to its creation.
This thinking that God could do something evil is wrong headed. I originally thought this problem would be much more complicated but it is not. God could not have committed an evil act when creating evil because it doesn't follow logically. If God created evil then the act of doing so would predate evil's existence and therefore not be subject to being considered an evil act.
That solves the part of the question involving the creation of evil but now we are left with, "Why would God allow evil to continue to exist?"
The answer to this seems a little more complicated. The simplest explanation would be that it is required for evil to exist in order for there to be such a thing as good. Without evil humanity could not recognize the good. This is slightly problematic thought since now that evil exists the question becomes "But isn't God committing an evil act by allowing evil to exist?"
The answer to that is much more difficult. I would think that the answer is no. Otherwise we are all committing an unbelievable number of evil acts by not helping others simply because we have the ability to. The U.S. has the amount of wealth necessary to end starvation and cure disease in Africa but in order to do so we would have to give most of it up. The average American is not willing to do this. U.S. citizens are, for the most part, not responsible for all the evil things happening to others around the world but we refrain from interfering to stop them from occurring. This is in the same vain as God not interfering to end all evil even though he has the ability to. There seems to me to be more to the world than just good and evil or there are maybe more types of good and evil. Not causing evil could be said to be good but interfering to stop evil can also be said to be good. The question here is "Is putting an end to evil a greater act of good than simply refraining from committing evil acts?"
If the answer is yes then while God is good allowing evil to continue to exist is not the greatest possible good act available to Him. However, it is not evil so He can still be considered to be omni-benevolent. One would like to think that God exemplifies the highest possible good and allowing evil to exist when there is a greater possible good in eliminating it makes Him seem less great. However, evil is necessary for good so it may be that He is justified in not eliminating it and is thereby engaging in the greatest possible good by allowing it to continue to exist. Humanity on the other hand has no possible objection on the grounds of necessity to not choose the greater of the two goods and help others as much as they possibly can. The only answer to humanity's faults is that we are human and not angels or God. There is a good argument here that we should try to be though. There does not seem to be a straight answer to why God or humanity should not do the greatest good possible. It is also conceivable that there is nothing in this universe but good and evil and I am wrong in assuming that there is something other or more than one type of good. If this is the case, then I see no way to say that God is omni-benevolent since allowing evil to exist does not seem to be an act of great goodness and more closely resembles evil if there is no neutrality.
Showing posts with label God. Show all posts
Showing posts with label God. Show all posts
Friday, February 09, 2007
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Two of the Three Questions Answered
I am taking a philosophy of religion class. So far, we are going over the three main traits that God is generally thought to possess: omnipotence, omniscience, and omni-benevolence. We've covered some of the problems with each of these and a few possible answers but none of the answers have been satisfactory. Eventually during the class I want to get up yelling "No, no, no. That is not how you should think about it! Look, try this." It doesn't take me long to come up with solutions for the drawbacks to each answer. I don't like in class speaking so I'll just write my solutions here. Maybe I'll print it off and hand it to her one of these days.
The first problem is the nature of God's omnipotence. The classic question about this is "Can God create a stone so heavy even He could not lift it?" The answers given to this are generally paradoxical. Consider that God did make such a stone in our universe. It would have to have some sort of infinite force to oppose whatever force God uses to attempt to lift it. Since both forces would be infinite the stone cannot be lifted. Simple physics. However, God could just change the rules of the universe and make the stone possible lift again. The argument is that since God could lift it by doing this then there is something he cannot do; make an stone He cannot lift. Hence the paradox since omnipotence means He is all-powerful. I disagree with the direction of thought on this. It seems that omnipotence also has a component of will to it. Without God's will no such stone would come into creation in the first place. Until God takes an action that negates his own omnipotence he is omnipotent. Saying he could not negate His omnipotence would mean He is not omnipotent. If he were to commit an action, which negates his omnipotence, then he would not be any less powerful. The stone is a bad example since it does not specifically account for God changing the rules. Lets consider that He makes the rules in such a way that He cannot change them and creates the stone. Is the stone any greater than God who is omnipotent? No, the stone can never be more powerful than God because even with its infinite force it is no more than equal to God's infinite power. By refraining from creating the stone God is merely maintaining his omnipotence. So the definition of omnipotence should mean He could do anything He chooses to.
The second problem is that of omniscience. How can God be omniscient and humans have free will? Being omniscient means He is all knowing. The accepted definition of knowing is to have a justified true belief. Omniscience follows easily from omnipotence since He is all-powerful it would be possible for Him to be omniscient. The answer here is simple. There are a multitude of possible universes. Humans are free to choose so at each decision point they change the universe making it into one of the possible ones. The supposed catch is that if God is all knowing then He must have known which one you would choose. I reject this as foolish thinking because it relies on the idea that there is such a thing as a future. I propose that the only time that exists is the present. The future by its very definition does not exist yet. If something does not exist then there is nothing to be known about it other than its nonexistence. When a person makes a decision God knows what that decision is. There is nothing further he needs to do to show that He is omniscient since there is no future to know. But wait what about the past? If there is a past then we are that past’s future so doesn't that show that a future exists? No, because there is no past. The universe only exists in the present. The memories we have of what we call the past are formed and maintained in the present. They reflect states and changes to those states of the universe. Time equals change. So there is no past and no future only the present and change. God has an infinite memory by virtue of His omnipotence. End of story.
The third problem is the problem of evil. I think I'll wait to discuss this one. It’s a much longer subject than the first two.
The first problem is the nature of God's omnipotence. The classic question about this is "Can God create a stone so heavy even He could not lift it?" The answers given to this are generally paradoxical. Consider that God did make such a stone in our universe. It would have to have some sort of infinite force to oppose whatever force God uses to attempt to lift it. Since both forces would be infinite the stone cannot be lifted. Simple physics. However, God could just change the rules of the universe and make the stone possible lift again. The argument is that since God could lift it by doing this then there is something he cannot do; make an stone He cannot lift. Hence the paradox since omnipotence means He is all-powerful. I disagree with the direction of thought on this. It seems that omnipotence also has a component of will to it. Without God's will no such stone would come into creation in the first place. Until God takes an action that negates his own omnipotence he is omnipotent. Saying he could not negate His omnipotence would mean He is not omnipotent. If he were to commit an action, which negates his omnipotence, then he would not be any less powerful. The stone is a bad example since it does not specifically account for God changing the rules. Lets consider that He makes the rules in such a way that He cannot change them and creates the stone. Is the stone any greater than God who is omnipotent? No, the stone can never be more powerful than God because even with its infinite force it is no more than equal to God's infinite power. By refraining from creating the stone God is merely maintaining his omnipotence. So the definition of omnipotence should mean He could do anything He chooses to.
The second problem is that of omniscience. How can God be omniscient and humans have free will? Being omniscient means He is all knowing. The accepted definition of knowing is to have a justified true belief. Omniscience follows easily from omnipotence since He is all-powerful it would be possible for Him to be omniscient. The answer here is simple. There are a multitude of possible universes. Humans are free to choose so at each decision point they change the universe making it into one of the possible ones. The supposed catch is that if God is all knowing then He must have known which one you would choose. I reject this as foolish thinking because it relies on the idea that there is such a thing as a future. I propose that the only time that exists is the present. The future by its very definition does not exist yet. If something does not exist then there is nothing to be known about it other than its nonexistence. When a person makes a decision God knows what that decision is. There is nothing further he needs to do to show that He is omniscient since there is no future to know. But wait what about the past? If there is a past then we are that past’s future so doesn't that show that a future exists? No, because there is no past. The universe only exists in the present. The memories we have of what we call the past are formed and maintained in the present. They reflect states and changes to those states of the universe. Time equals change. So there is no past and no future only the present and change. God has an infinite memory by virtue of His omnipotence. End of story.
The third problem is the problem of evil. I think I'll wait to discuss this one. It’s a much longer subject than the first two.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
A Response to The Don
Before I get into the philosophical discussion here let me tell you a little about how I stand as far as theology goes. I am NOT an atheist. I wish to clarify that since Don's chosen opposing viewpoint to his argument is atheism. I am not really an agnostic either though I generally claim to be whenever I am asked. My basic viewpoint is Not that God does not exist or that no one can know. I believe that God does exist. I just happen to believe He is not like what many people believe Him to be. More specifically I am against taking the Bible as absolute truth. This is where I pick up with disagreeing on the foundations of The Don's argument.
The Don's examples of negatives to the position q are as quoted:
"Position q faces some existential negatives:
1. Lack of moral law - moral relativism in which right and wrong are indeterminate.
2. No meaning - life loses meaning without some greater purpose, i.e. a theos directing things.
3. No hope - the atheist is unable to cope with evil and death, because there is no higher answer.
4. Pascalian wager - the Christian, if wrong, has fulfilled the atheist's test of life: happiness and fulfillment. The atheist, if wrong, has not fulfilled the Christian's test, and is subject to eternal judgment."
Part one is incorrectly conceived since moral relativism is not the belief that right and wrong are indeterminate. Moral relativism is the idea that there is no objective morality. Therefore the only determinable right and wrong that exist to moral relativists is subjective. It does however make one blanket law: Any system of ethics, which claims to be absolute truth, is incorrect. For a moral relativist there is no absolute truth. They follow moral rules simply because they have chosen those as the ones they value. They can still view other systems as evil or opposed to their system especially the ones who believe there is an absolute truth. Also it does not follow that a person who is an atheist is a moral relativist. Atheists can believe that there is an objective morality even if they don't believe in God. For instance if an atheist believed it was always wrong to cause others who have not attacked him physical pain. Pain is an objective stimulus that one can observe. If this statement did not have the always in it then it might be made by a moral relativist but it does and it is based on objectivity and the reason that one should adhere to it to create a stable society of people who don't hurt each other. Believing in an objective without action is good and evil is against everything a Moral Relativist stands for.
It is incorrect to think that atheists do not have a higher purpose. They may not believe in God but they can believe in higher values (i.e. courage, honor, justice etc.) whether or not those values coincide with the morality of the Bible. In essence they can choose or create their purpose. I am a firm believer in creating one's own purpose in life even though I do not believe in atheism. In order to keep this point one would have to objectively prove that God's values are the highest values regardless of God's existence and only by following them can a person live a fulfilling life.
It is wrong to suppose that atheists lack hope. Just because one lacks faith in God does not mean one lacks faith in other things. I would think a person could have faith in their fellow human beings since not all are evil. Humanity having been around a long time should continue to exist for quite some time to come this could be a comforting thought. In order for it not to be one would have be a pessimist and think of humanity as mostly evil. Coping with death without God or by that means an afterlife is not a problem for the atheist since if you cease to exist at your death you have no need for benefits afterward. Also a person would need to fear nothing afterward since one will feel nothing. With this outlook the only thing that matters is what one does in life. I shall write more on the idea of humanity as good or evil later.
Part four the Pascallian wager is wonderful in demonstrating the benefits of believing in God. However, it does not tell us what sort of God we should believe in other than one should believe in a God who provides infinite benefits in the afterlife. There are many Christian denominations with variations in their beliefs. Which version of worshiping the one deity that can provide these great benefits is correct? It cannot answer that for us.
The Don goes on to attempt to establish that the one true morality is that which is found in the Bible. He does so in three ways the first he maintains that the Bible is logically consistent and contains no contradictions. I disagree with this completely since the Bible does indeed have contradictions. One of which is the following:
"And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew the men of SEVEN HUNDRED chariots of the Syrians, and forty thousand HORSEMEN, and smote Shobach the captain of their host, who died there." 2 Sam 10:18
"But the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew of the Syrians SEVEN THOUSAND men which fought in chariots, and forty thousand FOOTMEN, and killed Shophach the captain of the host."
1 Chron 19:18
This contradiction can of course be explained as an ERROR in transcription. There are other errors of this nature in the Bible. Although it may not be possible that God can make mistakes humans certainly can. The Bible carries the transcribed word of God not the uncorrupted word written down by His own hand. Now that I have shown that the Bible does indeed contain errors I will continue to attempt to show that it contains ones, which make it questionable as an only unquestionable source of truth.
"Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers."
Isa 14:21
"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."
Deut 24:16
This contradiction refers to the idea that children bear responsibility for the sins of their fathers. This causes a problem for the idea of original sin since if the second line is true then no one bears responsibility for the first sin of Adam but Adam himself. But if the first line is true then the second line false since something cannot be both true and false at the same time according to the law of noncontradiction. Another problem with the idea of original sin is that it relies on value being intrinsic. The idea that man is evil not by his acts but of his existence itself is unreasonable. Original sin proposes that evil can exist as a characteristic of something without a standard of value to judge it by. Therefore, it does not have a reason for why something is evil. According to original sin humanity just is evil.
"For by grace are ye saved through faith . . . not of works."
Ephesians 2:8,9
"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."
James 2:24
This is a very obvious contradiction. One line rejects the idea of works as being a way to salvation the other does not. I believe these examples to be sufficient to show major philosophical and theological contradictions. If not I do have more examples that I will gladly provide.
The second argument given is that the empirical evidence supporting the argument is overwhelming. I would have liked Don to go into further detail explaining the cosmological and microbiological evidence. However, I will make do with the mere mention of them. I disagree with this argument since the fossil record gives a great deal of evidence to support that the Bible is incorrect about the time man has spent here on earth. Yes there are gaps in the fossil record but these gaps are not any greater than the contradictions and errors I have shown to be in the Bible. It follows that it would be illogical to trust either the Bible or the fossil record as being unquestionable truth. Scientists are still questioning the fossil record today. New methods of DNA testing have shown that species thought to have once been related are not as close as appear and are in fact related to creatures of different sorts. Given its logical fallacies it would be logical read the Bible as valuable document of learning but not to view it as unquestionable infallible truth.
Continuing on this brings me to Don's third point that the Bible has experiential relevance. At the end of my last paragraph I do not completely disagree with this statement but continue that from the problems with the first two points it would be wise not to view its relevance as complete, unquestionable, or infallible.
I believe this satisfies the argument that Christianity cannot be seen as logically sustainable while viewing the Bible as the completely infallible truth. I hope my argument did not confuse anyone. If you have questions or comments please make them as I will be happy to answer.
The Don's examples of negatives to the position q are as quoted:
"Position q faces some existential negatives:
1. Lack of moral law - moral relativism in which right and wrong are indeterminate.
2. No meaning - life loses meaning without some greater purpose, i.e. a theos directing things.
3. No hope - the atheist is unable to cope with evil and death, because there is no higher answer.
4. Pascalian wager - the Christian, if wrong, has fulfilled the atheist's test of life: happiness and fulfillment. The atheist, if wrong, has not fulfilled the Christian's test, and is subject to eternal judgment."
Part one is incorrectly conceived since moral relativism is not the belief that right and wrong are indeterminate. Moral relativism is the idea that there is no objective morality. Therefore the only determinable right and wrong that exist to moral relativists is subjective. It does however make one blanket law: Any system of ethics, which claims to be absolute truth, is incorrect. For a moral relativist there is no absolute truth. They follow moral rules simply because they have chosen those as the ones they value. They can still view other systems as evil or opposed to their system especially the ones who believe there is an absolute truth. Also it does not follow that a person who is an atheist is a moral relativist. Atheists can believe that there is an objective morality even if they don't believe in God. For instance if an atheist believed it was always wrong to cause others who have not attacked him physical pain. Pain is an objective stimulus that one can observe. If this statement did not have the always in it then it might be made by a moral relativist but it does and it is based on objectivity and the reason that one should adhere to it to create a stable society of people who don't hurt each other. Believing in an objective without action is good and evil is against everything a Moral Relativist stands for.
It is incorrect to think that atheists do not have a higher purpose. They may not believe in God but they can believe in higher values (i.e. courage, honor, justice etc.) whether or not those values coincide with the morality of the Bible. In essence they can choose or create their purpose. I am a firm believer in creating one's own purpose in life even though I do not believe in atheism. In order to keep this point one would have to objectively prove that God's values are the highest values regardless of God's existence and only by following them can a person live a fulfilling life.
It is wrong to suppose that atheists lack hope. Just because one lacks faith in God does not mean one lacks faith in other things. I would think a person could have faith in their fellow human beings since not all are evil. Humanity having been around a long time should continue to exist for quite some time to come this could be a comforting thought. In order for it not to be one would have be a pessimist and think of humanity as mostly evil. Coping with death without God or by that means an afterlife is not a problem for the atheist since if you cease to exist at your death you have no need for benefits afterward. Also a person would need to fear nothing afterward since one will feel nothing. With this outlook the only thing that matters is what one does in life. I shall write more on the idea of humanity as good or evil later.
Part four the Pascallian wager is wonderful in demonstrating the benefits of believing in God. However, it does not tell us what sort of God we should believe in other than one should believe in a God who provides infinite benefits in the afterlife. There are many Christian denominations with variations in their beliefs. Which version of worshiping the one deity that can provide these great benefits is correct? It cannot answer that for us.
The Don goes on to attempt to establish that the one true morality is that which is found in the Bible. He does so in three ways the first he maintains that the Bible is logically consistent and contains no contradictions. I disagree with this completely since the Bible does indeed have contradictions. One of which is the following:
"And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew the men of SEVEN HUNDRED chariots of the Syrians, and forty thousand HORSEMEN, and smote Shobach the captain of their host, who died there." 2 Sam 10:18
"But the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew of the Syrians SEVEN THOUSAND men which fought in chariots, and forty thousand FOOTMEN, and killed Shophach the captain of the host."
1 Chron 19:18
This contradiction can of course be explained as an ERROR in transcription. There are other errors of this nature in the Bible. Although it may not be possible that God can make mistakes humans certainly can. The Bible carries the transcribed word of God not the uncorrupted word written down by His own hand. Now that I have shown that the Bible does indeed contain errors I will continue to attempt to show that it contains ones, which make it questionable as an only unquestionable source of truth.
"Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers."
Isa 14:21
"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."
Deut 24:16
This contradiction refers to the idea that children bear responsibility for the sins of their fathers. This causes a problem for the idea of original sin since if the second line is true then no one bears responsibility for the first sin of Adam but Adam himself. But if the first line is true then the second line false since something cannot be both true and false at the same time according to the law of noncontradiction. Another problem with the idea of original sin is that it relies on value being intrinsic. The idea that man is evil not by his acts but of his existence itself is unreasonable. Original sin proposes that evil can exist as a characteristic of something without a standard of value to judge it by. Therefore, it does not have a reason for why something is evil. According to original sin humanity just is evil.
"For by grace are ye saved through faith . . . not of works."
Ephesians 2:8,9
"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."
James 2:24
This is a very obvious contradiction. One line rejects the idea of works as being a way to salvation the other does not. I believe these examples to be sufficient to show major philosophical and theological contradictions. If not I do have more examples that I will gladly provide.
The second argument given is that the empirical evidence supporting the argument is overwhelming. I would have liked Don to go into further detail explaining the cosmological and microbiological evidence. However, I will make do with the mere mention of them. I disagree with this argument since the fossil record gives a great deal of evidence to support that the Bible is incorrect about the time man has spent here on earth. Yes there are gaps in the fossil record but these gaps are not any greater than the contradictions and errors I have shown to be in the Bible. It follows that it would be illogical to trust either the Bible or the fossil record as being unquestionable truth. Scientists are still questioning the fossil record today. New methods of DNA testing have shown that species thought to have once been related are not as close as appear and are in fact related to creatures of different sorts. Given its logical fallacies it would be logical read the Bible as valuable document of learning but not to view it as unquestionable infallible truth.
Continuing on this brings me to Don's third point that the Bible has experiential relevance. At the end of my last paragraph I do not completely disagree with this statement but continue that from the problems with the first two points it would be wise not to view its relevance as complete, unquestionable, or infallible.
I believe this satisfies the argument that Christianity cannot be seen as logically sustainable while viewing the Bible as the completely infallible truth. I hope my argument did not confuse anyone. If you have questions or comments please make them as I will be happy to answer.
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Two Different Questions
I have been reading quite a few articles on the court case in Pennsylvania regarding intelligent design's place in the classroom. The book Of Pandas and People, which was in the school board’s statement, sparked my interest so I decide to look it up. On Amazon.com I read the book's description and then the comments several people made. Most of these comments were less than favorable, one even being sarcastic. The main complaint I garnered from the comments was there was little evidence given supporting intelligent design. This didn't come as a big surprise since intelligent design is not considered a theory and evolution is. Based on the lack of scientific evidence for intelligent design it shouldn't be taught in a science classroom. I fail to see how intelligent design is an alternative to evolution not because of the lack of evidence but because it doesn't deal with the same questions. Evolution describes the process, backed up by evidence, by which life changes over time. Intelligent design claims that because of the complexity of life an intelligent being must have created it. Evolution tries to explain how and intelligent design tries to explain what or who. There really is no reason an intelligent being could not have created and changed life through using the process of evolution. One comment I found in favor of the book was of interest to me.
"Put your faith in the Big Prankster. He's just messing with you. He created the fossil record at the same time he created all the living beings on this planet. This is a test of faith.
Doesn't it comfort you that God would play such a joke on mankind? He gave us the intelligence to figure out the logical progression of life from clues he planted intentionally to fool us, then he gave us a book whose wisdom challenges the logical progression he laid out and told us to believe in it, or else.
Now he's waiting to see whether he can float us on a cloud or roast us on a spit for all eternity based on our decision.
These thoughts are what help me to sleep peacefully at night." quoted from Tony P. Konig on Amazon.com a review of the book Of Pandas and People
I fail to see why Tony's argument that an all powerful being, who plays games with your immortal soul by creating false evidence and telling you to believe otherwise, should be comforting. If anything it should be very scary. Tony's argument also brings into question whether such a God could be considered good since he is lying to us by fabricating false evidence. I prefer to think that God isn't lying to us through fossil records and other evidence. It seems better to think that we are lying to ourselves by seeing conflicts where there really are none and that we are misguidedly trying to convince ourselves otherwise by looking to sources with little evidence.
"Put your faith in the Big Prankster. He's just messing with you. He created the fossil record at the same time he created all the living beings on this planet. This is a test of faith.
Doesn't it comfort you that God would play such a joke on mankind? He gave us the intelligence to figure out the logical progression of life from clues he planted intentionally to fool us, then he gave us a book whose wisdom challenges the logical progression he laid out and told us to believe in it, or else.
Now he's waiting to see whether he can float us on a cloud or roast us on a spit for all eternity based on our decision.
These thoughts are what help me to sleep peacefully at night." quoted from Tony P. Konig on Amazon.com a review of the book Of Pandas and People
I fail to see why Tony's argument that an all powerful being, who plays games with your immortal soul by creating false evidence and telling you to believe otherwise, should be comforting. If anything it should be very scary. Tony's argument also brings into question whether such a God could be considered good since he is lying to us by fabricating false evidence. I prefer to think that God isn't lying to us through fossil records and other evidence. It seems better to think that we are lying to ourselves by seeing conflicts where there really are none and that we are misguidedly trying to convince ourselves otherwise by looking to sources with little evidence.
Monday, September 19, 2005
The Gospel of Thomas
I have taken an interest in these sayings since I watched the movie Stigmata. The Catholic church rejects many of these sayings which many scholars believe to be the written words of Jesus of Nazareth. http://www.gospelthomas.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
