Big Spoon

Ok, I believe that god is generally credited with having created the best of all possible worlds.
I also believe that the existence of god implies the existence of evil, and that without a god the notion of evil is redundant.

I would therefore propose that a world where evil doesn't exist is "better" than a world where evil does exist.

More explicitly, a world where god doesn't exist is better than a world where does god exist, so it is impossible for god to have created that best of all possible worlds. Now why would god create a world that was any less than the best possible? I'd love it if this implied the non-existence of god!

Darth Dane

Check this thread, it deals with the same idea. http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=53880



DD - Love Spliff

rainbow walking

Hi Big Spoon, welcome to the forums. My questions based on your postulates are:

How does one acquire this world sans evil without access to the omni-attributes? I fear your argument ends up reaching for a conclusion that a god does exist in this world.

If the BOAPW's entails no evil and no god, and since you imply that a god should have created such a world, do you see the contradiction? Your postulates argue that such a being should have committed suicide in the process of providing us with the BOAPW's. This seems contrary to omni-benevolence since we can logically assume that such benevolence would extend to this being himself as well as to us...yes?

I would propose that this current state of affairs is not the best of all possible worlds but the "best of all possible paths" to the best of all possible worlds.

This argument is consistent to evolution, man's progress and the possible purpose of evil and suffering.

One final thought...or perhaps question. In a world sans evil how does one know what is good?

Thus in this world with evil, if no such being existed, whence cometh good?

Pyrrho

I guess you don't believe in heaven. It is supposed to be a place with no evil, only good, and it is supposed to be better than the earth (that much is easily imagined).

Pyrrho

Please explain what you mean by the sentence:

"I also believe that the existence of god implies the existence of evil, and that without a god the notion of evil is redundant."

Why do you say: "...a world where god doesn't exist is better than a world where does god exist..."?


You might be interested in reading Voltaire's Candide. It is an excellent book that deals with the idea that this is the best of all possible worlds.

Big Spoon

Ok, i was wrong, nevermind!

Patroclus

The original post also begs the question, "why must evil co-exist with good?" I posted the following at other message boards. But, I think the argument is applicable here.
________________________________________________

The problem is that this argument denies an ultimate source. You are assuming that the source of evil is a paradigm of non-goodness. Your standard is in the unlike values. You are completely forgetting Plato. In the instance of a door, Plato would argue that we do not see a door for the sake of the wall, but for the form of the door. For instance, consider this picture:



I am not much of a Platonist. But I think the old man had something figured out here. There may not be a form of the door, but we have an idea what makes a door. In the same way, we may not have a “form of the good.” But, we can make some guesses concerning “good” acts and “good” food.

However, in Christian thought, there is a form of the good—God. God declares what is good (see Genesis chapter one). Further extrapolations can be made to reason that good is a manifestation of the will of God. Consider the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (even if you don’t believe it). God willed that human beings should eat the fruit in the garden. Therefore, in choosing between an apple and an orange, there was no varying level of goodness. This is the basis of human free will. Then, of course, there is the tree of knowledge, from which Adam and Eve are forbidden to eat.

I submit that this tree was probably not very special in and of itself. It was centrally located, and God had decided that Adam and Eve should not eat from the tree. Of course, here, one could easily say that this tree is the “evil” that balances the good. I submit that this tree is just as easily a symbolic representation of reliance on God. Genesis 3:4 says

Consider that the act of evil, which I now submit as that which is opposite of the will of God, may have been, itself, the knowledge of good and evil. Remember that God had already instructed Adam not to eat of that tree. So in a sense, Adam already had the “knowledge” of good and evil without the experience thereof. This dichotomy between literal and experience is further established in the serpent’s speech when he says “you will not die,” even though God had already told Adam that upon his disobedience “you shall die” (2:17). Verse seventeen is generally considered to be a conceptual and spiritual death. Their innocence is dead, and their souls now need redemption from spiritual damnation.

It is not the knowledge alone, but the unwise choice while possessing the knowledge. It is like the difference between knowing about politics by reading the newspapers, and knowing about politics by being the President. One is conceptual; the other is experiential. The serpent tempts Eve by saying that she will not suffer physical death, and offers her mind a kind of “new life” in the knowledge that God knows. Essentially, evil tries to preserve itself by sustaining the propagation of the experience of evil confused with the knowledge thereof.

Therefore, I believe that good can exist without evil, but that the knowledge of evil will always be present as long as people know anything of the will of God. It is the will of God that is the standard of goodness, and the standard against evil. Of course, this requires faith in God. But without God, good and evil really is subjective.