Thomas Metcalf

I'm sure God wouldn't waste time preventing non-gratuitous evil, either.

But we don't need foresight. We know for a fact that any evil that successfully happens will be justified. So any time I do any evil, I am causing a greater or equal good to come into existence. As for trying to prevent some form of evil, what's the point in trying if I know that someone's death will produce a greater or equal good? It seems that if I prevent this greater-or-equal-good-producing event, the goodness in the world can only stay the same or go down. But if I let it happen, it might go up.

ManM

Thomas Metcalf,
God is trying to bring about the situation where there is no evil. Being moral is acting like God. Therefore we should oppose evil. The logic is quite simple.

I see your argument. We know there is going to be a good ending, no matter what we do. Therefore we have the justification to do anything. But it does not follow that allowing evil is preferable to preventing evil.

We start off with the premise that all events are justified, or else they wouldn't come to be. That means our prevention of evil is justified. Our prevention of evil brings about a greater good, and so not preventing evil will be counter-productive. But to say this makes a mistake. If all events are justified, then no event can be called into question. All we are left with is the conclusion that God will work with whatever hand we deal Him. While that may say something about the character of God, it certainly doesn't tell us which hand we ought to deal Him.

And so we know that both an evil and our prevention of that evil will be justified. Either we will prevent the evil (thus aiding good), or God will use the evil to bring about a greater good in the future. What characterizes an event is the way we react to it. Did God have to clean up our mess or were we willing to clean up after ourselves?

Thomas Metcalf

But by trying to create evil, we are in fact lessening evil, by increasing goodness. We can never create any gratuitous evil. I would say God tries to minimize gratuitous evil, not evil in general.

But we never can allow gratuitous evil in the first place. All we can allow is evil with a greater moral purpose, and that's not really evil, is it? At least, it's not evil that we should prevent.

Yes, but so is our allowance thereof.

In fact, whatever hand we choose to deal at all is a hand that will minimize gratuitous evil. God wouldn't let us choose it at all, if it didn't. God will certainly work with any hand we give Him, but no matter what we give Him, there will still be no unjustified evil. And I see no reason to make an effort to prevent justified evil, if it is, in fact, justified.

ManM

Thomas Metcalf,
God does not try to minimize gratuitous evil. God is trying to bring about the situation of no evil. Anything less would be unacceptable from a good God.

The same logic can be used to show that we should prevent it. Keep in mind that the 'greater good' is the total absence of evil. By allowing evil, you are not causing the greater good. Instead, you are opposing the greater good. However, you are not more powerful than God, and so He can make up for your failures. The fact that He makes up for your failures does not mean you should purposely fail.

Maybe an analogy will help. If you get sick, you know a doctor will fix you up. Your claim is that we should inject ourselves with the flu so that the doctor can make us well. Why would I do that when I could reach the same state of health without the flu? Furthermore, why would I stand and watch someone else inject themselves with the flu? I know the doctor will make them well, but why let them do go through the flu when there is an easier path?

No. It won't minimize anything. Rather it will increase the amount of evil in the world. The fact that there will be a good ending does not mean that the amount of evil at any given time is less than a previous time.

You see no reason to prevent the flu given that the doctor can take care of it. If the goal is health, I find it quite silly to passively allow sickness when we can fight it.

Blu

1) God (Universe) exists outside time and space. Characterists (what God is) does not have anything to do with what humans believe God to be. So God does not have emotions, a body, a mind, thoughts. Morality is a human invention.

2) People should think and do as they will. Negative actions inflicted upon others will be "punished" by a court of law. Negative actions committed by people against their own person will have consequences which will hopefully teach the appropriate lesson in order to bring about positive change.

3) See number 2. People will find happiness if they treat themselves and others in a positive manner and never stop learning and changing.

4) See number one. People create evil. God does not have any characteristics of a human being or a physical being so does not "act" in the way a human being or physical being "act."

5)See number 2 and 3. People cannot prevent evil from existing in the world. They can however work to prevent themselves from committing negative or evil actions and they can also fill the darkness with light by their positive actions and intentions.

tergiversant

As far as I can tell, nature is the domain of the naturalist rather than the supernaturalist. Why construe natural events as acts of supernature? This sounds either tautological or else fallacious. If the former, then you are simply claiming (twice) that I do not believe that Jesus rose. Otherwise, you are arguing that my lack of Christianity is somehow skewing my historical reasoning (i.e. circumstantial ad hominem). Either way, it does not move the discussion forward. It might, if you could demonstrate that it happened and that it prevents some evils. As it is, you have demonstrated neither. Much evil remains afoot and unprevented. Rarely have I seen such a glowing example of the circumstantial ad hominem
(which C.S. Lewis dubbed Bulverism) in print. In premise four? Why not? Evil abounds and most often goes unprevented. Ask any beat cop or D.A. As far as I can tell, you have no evidence whatsoever. I have not yet been afforded the opportunity to examine and interpret whatever evidence you might happen to have. Given this, I find it rather odd that you would peremptorily claim that "It never is a matter of evidence, but rather how we interpret the evidence." If God is trying he is not doing a very good job. Evil still abounds. One might begin to suspect that God is incompetent or else impotent in his attempts to utterly eradicate evil.

Goodness knows I would do a better job of it if I was given Godlike (or Superman-like, or even Underdog-like) powers.

[ September 09, 2002: Message edited by: tergiversant ]</p>

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by ManM:

"God does not try to minimize gratuitous evil. God is trying to bring about the situation of no evil. Anything less would be unacceptable from a good God."

Most apologists would disagree with you here. Some evils are necessary for some greater goods, aren't they?

tergiversant

_

If you do not assent to the first premise, which relates to one's personal theology, then the argument is not intended for you. It is intended for those who believe God is morally exemplary (e.g. adherents of Abrahamic religions).

-- tergiversant@OklahomaAtheists.org

HRG

I was struck by the following answer by ManM:

"Only a person who knows the greater good with certainty has the moral sanction to act in a utilitarian manner. God has perfect foresight, and so He should always be expected to act as a utilitarian. We do not have perfect foresight, and so we do not share the same moral sanction as God. There is your rational basis."

An utilitarian does not only need to calculate the utility value of a proposed action, he needs an utility function first. Perfect foresight can help only for the calculation part, but not for the choice of the utility function. This choice is a subjective preference, and not subject to objective evaluation: "My parents may want me to be a great pianist, but I'd rather be a computer programmer" (or vice versa).

IOW, God's perfect foresight is irrelevant if he calculates with the utility function that he has chosen - and not with the one that we chose for ourselves (or every single one of us chose for himself).

Pig farmers might define the utility function of a pig in terms of its juicy hams. I am certain that the pig itself would choose a different utility function, if we asked him.

Regards,
HRG.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

Ahh, the number of times I've been discussing 'God' with theists, and we've ended up 'chasing 'God' right out of the universe'--leaving 'God' to be something which exists in some alternate dimension unrelated to the 'natural' or 'physical' realm.

Then the theists pauses, and realizes that--if that is where 'God' is, no evidnece of 'God' could have reached us, and no interaction between us and this 'God' is possible.

You cannot have it both ways, folks. You cannot 'protect' God from rational inquiry by placing him in a supernatural realm, and still claim that a meaningful, interactive 'relationship' with such a 'God' is possible.

Keith.