Evermore

IMO, The theistic refutations for the "problem of evil" are not only incompetent, they're not even terribly imaginative. I'm forced to hear over and over that "free-will produces evil as a by-product" as someone else here has mentioned already, and "God can't negate evil without inhibiting free-will".
What utter crap. An all-powerful entity could simply allow free-will while instituting a governor-like device into our minds and the universe which would make us unable to choose evil actions. A bit like a governor on some of the new cars. You can drive at any speed you want, but the device stops the car from breaking the highway speed-limit.
I currently accept the "problem of evil" to refute the existence of the traditional theistic god as I have yet to read, hear, or even think-up myself any way to rationalize the issue. The only method theists have ever had for debating this issue with me is to bring in their respective dogmas and catechisms as "justification". At that point it becomes a point-by-point debate over their entire faith and we all know how far that gets...

Atheos

We've certainly been over this many times in the past but the discussion is always fresh when new people get involved.

The Problem of Evil is traditionally defended with three arguments:

• The free will defense
• The greater good defense
• The mysterious ways defense

The free will defense argues that it would be impossible for god to create individuals who had free will without them doing evil things. This defense is soundly defeated in a number of ways. One of the most obvious ones is the accompanying doctrine of "Heaven" -- a place where people who have free will serve god for all eternity without ever doing anything evil. If there's no free will in heaven then why call it heaven? It's just a place for robots.

The "Greater Good" defense argues that although there is pain and suffering it's for the "greater good" and in the long run it's for the best. This is a more subtle argument and on the surface it seems difficult to counter, but when you follow the implications to their conclusion you run into some serious questions that undermine its effectiveness. It doesn't account for gratuitous suffering and implies that all suffering is for the greater good. It doesn't account for infants or aborted babies who go straight to heaven even though they didn't receive the benefit of the "greater good" from pain and suffering the rest of us have to endure. It doesn't do anything about the philosophical implications of consigning even one soul to eternal torment. What can a person do in a finite lifetime that would merit a thousand years of torture? A million years? A billion years? Yet eternity is just getting started after billions upon billions of years of excruciating torment. How is this in any way for any greater good? :huh:

The "Mysterious Ways" defense is the last refuge because the other defenses are so easily beat into the ground. It sounds good on the surface -- "Who are you to question God!?!" The problems with it is that (1) It's begging the question that this alleged god exists in the first place and (2) It's a tacit admission that this whole "God" thing doesn't actually make any sense after all when you examine it critically.

In summary, the simplest explanation is that we live in a dispassionate universe and compete with millions of other life forms (and fellow humans) for resources on this planet. The universe is a hostile place and our world, while offering much in the way of resources, is also quite hostile at times. This fits all the evidence quite well. An all-loving, all-powerful and all-knowing god is 100% incompatible with the evidence.

Power

Evil as some call it, is benefit to others. The holocaust and world war II boosted the economies of the world as well as caused suffering for 6 million jews.

It doesn't change the fact that nothing acts towards it's detriment. Free will allows the doing of acts that impinge on others rights.

If one follows things deeper, however, he realizes that without evil, good loses all meaning.

Then again, does one define "good" and "evil" by some absolute standard? Or by a utilitarian one?

When one sees clearly, he realizes that without an absolute standard of goodness and evil, the two don't really exist. As for the existence of god, he didn't really create anything. And he certainly didn't create good nor evil.

Zebulon

Omnidiotic?

Tom Sawyer

Congradulations! You just invented the best word in the English language (aside, of course, from spelunking, which is just plain funny sounding).

:thumbs:

connick

As I read this statement at the end of the paragraph my train of thought was tempted to pursue a similar avenue. I think, however, that this seemingly natural progression of thought leads us away from the central issue like a red herring. Any example of a seeming evil can be contorted into a "greater good" by a skilled apologist. I think the same objections raised against the free-will defense are pertinent here. That God needn't introduce evil in order to achieve a greater good, is an oft-claimed attribute of gods, but not in so many words. His alleged omnipotence means that the only defense remaining is the mysterious ways defense. Here is a thought: An omnimax god needs only to desire for something to happen in order for it to happen. If said god wants peace, love, happiness and peace, then it should simply be that way. I think the fact that it isn't that way shows that there either is no god, or that he is not an omnimax entity.

BlessNot

He doesn't hate it. He loves evil because he is evil. He's also a freakin liar too.

:rolling:

Atheos

Well I think the real answer to the "greater good" argument is, if God is capable of doing anything and God's so uber-smart then God could think of a way to create a world where everyone could exercise their free will without ever harming anyone else in the process. The fact that gratuitous suffering exists is proof positive that at least one of the following is true: (1) God isn't very powerful (2) God isn't very smart (3) God isn't very nice or (4) God isn't. Option 4 makes the most sense.

Evermore

Exactly what I was trying to say

And the way I see it, the "mysterious ways" defense apologists often use works more to an argument against the existence of god than for it.

connick

So can we sticky a post that says:

PoE soundly refutes omnimax gods.

?