SRB

When the terms "good" and "evil" are used in the argument from evil, they are used in the way humans define them. That's because English words are defined by how English-speaking humans use them.

It is not good, as humans define the term, to stand idly by as one person tortures and murderers another innocent person just for fun, when you could easily intervene. Do you disagree? Since God is good, he would not stand idly by. If you object that God is "good" in some other sense that is compatible with failing to intervene, then you should use a different word, other than "good," to describe him. English words are defined by how English-speakers use them.

In any case, much, perhaps most, suffering is not caused by humans, but by other factors (e.g. natural disasters and disease). I repeat my question: why hasn't something been done by God to stop that?

If your answer is that God doesn't want to perform miracles in the world, then that is obviously in disagreement with many world religions. Futhermore, God wouldn't need to perform miracles. He could just set the world up from the start with naturals laws that are less likely to lead to suffering via disease and natural disasters. He could then take a hands-off appoach. Why didn't he do that?

SRB

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Stormy :

Well, that's a lot of ellipses. Are you therewith leaving out the parts wherein you explain why we should believe what you say? I can't understand why you would make all these claims and just assume we'd agree with you. We're atheists, and most of us are analytic philosophers. Therefore, we require more than just assertion upon assertion before we'll believe that theism is rational.

ReasonableDoubt

Free Thinker -

"Ok.. so what are your main reasons for believing in the god you describe? "

I didn't say I believed in this God. I was batting about ideas - I was trying to determine why it is that we value "non-evil" more than any other state.

What many religions postulate is not that relevant to my thoughts here. Although it is true that they should not be completely discounted, just because millions of people believe something about "God" does not mean that is the case, that seems obvious.

The consensus seems to be that it is immoral to not prevent some harm that one could prevent. Fair enough, however we must acknowledge that that is not always the case. For one thing, it is not illegal to fail to prevent harm. In fact, if I were to stand and watch someone inflicting a violent crime on another, and I do indeed have the power to stop it, and I do not, I am not legally criminally liable for that.

Morally, in that situation, yes, I would have a moral obligation. But do I have a moral obligation to give away all my 'extra' money and live on a subsistent level only, in order to give that money to save some starving people? Certainly we could all do that. We could all live in one room shacks with just enough to eat and provide the rest of our income for homeless shelters and overseas relief. But probably, most of us do not. Does that mean we have caused those people to suffer and die?

I realize this is not the exact same situation as an all powerful Being being responsible for averting suffering, which it easily could do. But if we grant that not all instances of failure to prevent harm are immoral, then we can start thinking outside the box.

Free Thinkr

This is all well and good, but the point I was trying to make was that, if defined properly, god is impossible to prove or disprove. Let's say there is a god that cares nothing for mankind, and interferes in nothing. How could I know that this god existed, and why would I care?

Heh, one would think! I wish everyone held this opinion.

I was under the impression that criminal idifference is indeed a punisable offense. Can anyone help me out here? Given the hypothetical scenario of a child drowning in a pool while someone who can swim watches, I believe that person can be prosecuted. Now, let's say that a gunman robs a liquor store and no one tries to stop him. I don't believe that'd fit because they don't necessarily have the ability to stop the gunman. God, if omnipotent, would always have the ability to stop suffering.

To a degree, it does. But remember, in order for us to help those people we must make a sacrafice ourselves. Humans tend to be selfish. This doesn't correlate with a god because god would not need to sacrafice anything to help humans out, but that's beside the point becaus no one would expect god to be selfish even if he did have to sacrafice.

Well, its certainly a sliding scale. At 14,000 a year, I don't have the means to prevent suffering that Bill Gates does. Could I help more than I do? Probably. But not much before I begin to hurt myself to the point that I need help. The question is would I help people if I had the absolute capability to do so. I know I would, why doesn't god?

Jamie_L

ReasonableDoubt,

I think there is plenty of evidence to support the notion that humans value "non-evil" more than complete autonomy.

If that were not the case, we would not have laws. The general trend in human society would be to allow people to maim, murder, torture, etc. to their hearts' content. Yet we do not. There are many people who support strict, religious governance, which is an extreme example of chosing "non-evil" over autonomy. In this case "non-evil" is described in terms of defying the tenants of the religion. Even in the United States, where individual liberty is valued highy (in theory), we still have laws enough to fill volumes and volumes of books.

I, personally, value not being subjected to pain much more than I value the autonomy of myself and others to inflict such pain. I think the evidence supports my conclusion that most other human beings share this feeling as well.

Now, on to what God wants.

If God exists, we do not know what he values. The Problem of Evil only exists when you define God as both Omnipotent and Omnibenevolent. Omnibenevolent is essentially defined as valuing "non-evil" over all else. Omnipotent allows a being to make his values reality. Given the reality of the world, such a being does not appear to exist.

Now, if one choses to define God differently, then the PoE goes away. Sure, if God values autonomy more than "non-evil", there is no PoE. However, I would say this means God is, by definition, not Omnibenevolent. Instead, he would be "omni-autonomy-desiring". One could just as easily go the other way, however, and say God is omnibenevolent, but not omnipotent. That is, he really does value "non-evil" above all else, but doesn't have the power to do anything about it.

Given the facts of the universe, the non-omnipotent God seems just as likely or unlikely as the "omni-autonomy-desiring" God. To my mind, however, both seem less likely than "no god".

Jamie

7thangel

Not really, because a potter can create something obnoxious to give it to you, though he is an excellent one.

Another is that where do we draw the line of judging one a good potter. Of which, when speaking of God, why do you think that your standards should meet as what is good?

Philosoft

Why shouldn't we? God allegedly created us with the ability to judge; there are some things God considers good that we also consider good. Why, then, are there some things God considers good that we don't? Why coudn't God endow us with the ability to correctly judge everything, not just some things?

Jamie_L

We humans have a concept of what is "good". We may not agree on the details, but we made the word and we generally agree on what it means.

If God is not "good" in the way we normally mean when we use the word "good", then we shouldn't call god "good". Because, he's not. He's something else.

God (if he exists) is certainly under no obligation to meet my standard of "good". However, he needs to meet that standard if he expects me to consider him a good being.

Jamie

johngalt

I don't know if stupidity is the price we pay for democracy. Democracy is one of the only forms of government that allows people to make stupid mistakes within reason and not punish them severely.

Alludium Fozdex

Interestingly enough, I can see where that notion would be a great source of comfort to the nebbish at the bottom of the totem pole.

Just think, everyone who ever screwed you will get their ultimate comeuppance. And, if you join the club, you'll get to watch.

Won't that be fun?