The ‘problem of evil’ is a perpetual thorn in the side of the omnitheist — that is, someone who believes in an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God. For if God is perfectly good and all-powerful, why does he allow so much evil in the world? He’s powerful enough to eradicate it; and if he’s perfectly good, he should want to eradicate it. So why doesn’t he?
One response, known as the ‘Free Will Defense’, comes from Alvin Plantinga:
A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all. Now God can create free creatures, but He can’t cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if He does so, then they aren’t significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely. To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, He must create creatures capable of moral evil; and He can’t give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so. As it turned out, sadly enough, some of the free creatures God created went wrong in the exercise of their freedom; this is the source of moral evil. The fact that free creatures sometimes go wrong, however, counts neither against God’s omnipotence nor against his goodness: for He could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good.
Plantinga’s position has multiple problems and shortcomings, which we’ll no doubt end up discussing in the comment thread, but for now I want to present an argument against the Free Will Defense that is similar to an argument I’ve been making in the purpose of theistic evolution thread.
Let’s assume for the purposes of this OP that libertarian free will exists and that humans possess it. (It’s actually incoherent and therefore impossible, but that’s a separate topic.)
Here’s how I presented the argument back in 2012, in a comment addressed to Mung:
You haven’t thought this through. An omniscient and omnipotent God could prevent rapes from happening, and he could even prevent the desire to rape from happening, all without controlling anyone’s thoughts and desires.
Here’s how it would work. Suppose God creates each person with free will, so that everything he or she does during life is freely chosen. If God is omniscient, he knows what all of those choices will be before the person is even created. If God simply chooses not to create the people who will go on to commit rape (or even experience the desire to commit rape), then he has prevented those things from happening without depriving anyone of their free will.
If you object that selective creation would deprive the uncreated people of their free will, then you run into a big problem: There are already zillions of uncreated people for every person who is actually born. If leaving a person uncreated violates his or her free will, then God is already massively guilty of denying free will to zillions of uncreated people. The objection thus undermines the assumption that free will is important to God, which is the basis for the whole argument in the first place!
I know what you were responding to. What I don’t know is what your response has to to do with anything.
peace
Let me spell it out for you then. Just as a bowling ball can have painful consequences without being able to feel pain itself, evolution can have good and evil consequences without being a moral agent itself.
And I really AM a bit disappointed with your style of posting here, FMM. You knew perfectly well what I was saying.
hi walto.
But is the bowling ball the actual cause of the pain?
Your bowling ball example presupposes the existence of a creature that can feel pain. In the evolution example, no such moral creature exists, yet.
My evolution claim was simply that one cannot infer from the fact that evolution is not itself moral that it is incapable of producing entities that have moral codes. I wasn’t trying to prove that the evolutionary theory of descent of human beings is correct (though I believe it); I was simply pointing out that a certain argument I’d just seen was awful.
I am granting it because you said the Christian God produced them, so are you saying that all evil aspects create a greater good therefore evil does not exist or that something exists that the Christian God did not and cannot produce?
By the way we have not established the ends justify the means is morally good.
Does evolution intend to produce a mind?
Behold, this evil is of the Lord. 2 Kings 6:33
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. Isaiah 45:7
What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? Job 2:10
Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? Lamentations 3:38
Shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it? Amos 3:6
Thanks Patrick!
There’s one about God also being responsible for blindness. See if you can find that one. 😉
Passages like those are precisely why I try to be careful what I say about God and evil.
no, pain is what the recipient feels it’s subjective, Pain varies based on the makeup of the one who feels it. The same bowling ball to the foot will cause me of a lot of pain but Bruce Banner might not feel any pain at all.
I hope you agree that moral good and evil are different than that.
I knew what you were saying I just didn’t know why. I still don’t.
peace
nope, I’m saying that a single event can have two or more causes with two or more competing intents.
quote:
As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.
(Gen 50:20)
end quote:
peace
I never said the ends justify the means is morally good.
I said that an apparent evil is justified if there is a sufficient reason to allow it.
peace
That is some good advice. Extreme caution is in order when speaking about stuff so far above our pay grade.
Here is how some folks that I admire put it.
quote:
The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God, so far manifest themselves in his providence, that his determinate counsel extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sinful actions both of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, which also he most wisely and powerfully boundeth, and otherwise ordereth and governeth, in a manifold dispensation to his most holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness of their acts proceedeth only from the creatures, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.
end quote:
1689 LBCF
peace
Actually, it’s the Hulk who wouldn’t feel any pain.
Just setting the record straight where it really matters. My work here is done.
Patrick’s probably equivocating though.
good point
Think about it, the pain that is caused by the bowling ball is entirely dependent on the emotional state of the owner of the foot.
Angry no pain
Not angry lots of pain
surely evil is not like that
peace
Whether or not evil is like that, my post didn’t suggest it was.
Can we take a break in your stream of red herrings for me to ask whether it’s the Calvinist position that some of us are predestined to suffer eternal damnation? Is that correct?
That one sounds like a red hearing to me. but I’ll answer
I would say eternal damnation is simply the inevitable consequence for rebellion.
Eternal damnation does not mean eternal infinite torture it merely means the rebel gets what he most desires which is to be separated from the source of life forever.
It’s not so much that some of us are predestined to suffer eternal damnation it’s that some folks are by the grace of God predestined to eternal life despite themselves.
Here is a good summery.
quote:
And touching His creature man, God had in Christ before the foundation of the world, according to the good pleasure of His will, foreordained some men to eternal life through Jesus Christ, to the praise and glory of His grace,leaving the rest in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of His justice.
end quote:
1644 LBCF
peace
now I’m really confused
If evil is not like pain why did you bring pain up in a discussion of whether intent is necessary to do good or evil?
peace
FMM, I’m like you in some respects, in others not so much.
And yes, you are indeed confused.
So the short answer to my question is yes? It might be the case that I am or my wife or my daughters are going to suffer eternal damnation–and there’s not a thing any of us can do about this? Nice.
So an omnipotent, omniscient entity has no responsibility for the behavior of other entities that it created with full knowledge of how they would behave? How . . . convenient.
Disclaimer: I’m not a Calvinist.
But let’s say yes, that might be the case, but then, that might also not be the case. It could be that none of you are predestined to be damned. It might be the case that all of you are predestined to eternal life. If you could choose, which would you choose?
No, there is definitely something you can do.
You can stop your rebellion trust in the God that you know to exist to forgive you your sins through his Son Jesus Christ who died to take the punishment of those who believe in him.
You are alienated from God not because God has forced anything on you but because you willfully reject him because you love your sin more than you love the life he offers you.
You don’t need to be convinced of anything all you have to do is surrender.
All you need to do is repent an trust Jesus.
I pray that you do that. I pray that your family does that.
I pray that the only God who has the power to overcome your animosity and hatred will by his great Grace do just that.
In fact I stopped typing to pray just now to pray for you. I’m really not the guy that gets emotional but I hope you can sense my honest sincerity.
All this stuff is not just an academic exercise, unlike that bowling ball you someday will be held accountable for every moral choice you make.
The more you understand what that choice entails the more culpability you have .
peace
I would prefer not to be “predestined.”
Now you seem to be saying that I’m not predestined. Which is it?
You are a compatibilist.
You believe that freewill and determinism are completely compatible you have argued eloquently for that position on this very site.
You are not compelled to reject God you do that because you hate him. You won’t be judged because you are predestined but because you reject God.
You won’t be punished because of something that you had no control over but because of your own sin
If you don’t hate God I’m begging you to please have the courage to do what you know you need to do right now. Just surrender
peace
to your imagination.
Glen Davidson
Surrender to your nature. Surrender to your vulnerability. Surrender to your flaws. Surrender to yourself. Surrender to your desires. Surrender to your hate. Surrender to love. Find peace in the moment.
It’s a valuable practice when it isn’t corrupted by god beliefs.
There are no accidents, we are all here on the forum today for a reason. I expect that for some of us the reason is to give us one more chance.
You will be held responsible for what you read and what you know.
With that in mind I ask you to be careful.
Peace
As I (whether eloquently or blabberishly) argued here (maybe on this very thread–I can’t remember), I’m not comfortable with being ordered around by someone, even if I’m OK with being determined by nature. Those seem different to me.
ETA: it’s like the difference between falling in a hole (and dying) and being intentionally shot in the head. One is a sad accident, the other egregious. If I’m going to suffer eternal damnation, I don’t like anybody who has done that to me, thank you very much.
well there you go.
Is this one of your meditations?
Why, so I can try to threaten people, like you do?
Glen Davidson
like I have always said, This will in the end come down to the question of other minds. You are OK with God as long and God is not a person. Your fine as long as you are dealing with an impersonal “universe” and not someone who you can know and who can know you.
I might be all wet but I think that is because relationships are hard and there are moral consequences when we hurt others.
You have said in the past that an impersonal god is not worthy to be called God and I would agree, the question is why you are so confident that “nature” (or what is behind it) is not a person?
peace
That is not a threat but a sincere warning.
Like when I see a car headed for a cliff and I say “be careful there is a cliff in front of you.”
peace
If you are judged it will not be God who is responsible but your own choices.
You have just now argued that an impersonal thing like a bowling ball can do moral things (good or evil). Are you having second thoughts about that?
peace
It’s part of one. I rather suck at it, but once in a great while I get there briefly.
So, look at it this way. All you have to do is continue to deny that God is a person and you can be happy in the eternal damnation that it has predestined you for.
There really is nothing that will ever compel you to believe that there is a mind behind it all.
That is what the problem of other minds is all about after all.
peace
I can imagine God/the universe using this logic to determine your status as a person
I’m not comfortable with being hated and rejected by someone, even if I’m OK with being resisted by a natural phenomenon . Those seem different to me
If it’s good for the goose 😉
peace
Here’s the difference. If you’re right, I can’t do anything about the situation, but God can.
I think it’s interesting that you have no problem with someone who’d condemn your loved ones the flames, and make sure that theres to be nothing they can do about it. I think the term for that is “reprehensible.” If there really were such a God, I’d advise you to hate him. Alas, there is no such thing.
But there is something they can do about it. Did you not read what I just wrote? .
All someone has to do inherit eternal life and escape “the flames” is stop his rebellion.
God does not compel anyone to reject him, They reject him because they hate him and love their sin.
A being like that would not be God.
I think part of your problem is a misunderstanding of what Judgement and Hell is.
What you call “the flames” is simply the future that every rebel most wants.
A future where justice reigns and everyone gets exactly what they deserve and no one is forced to love God against their wishes.
Since the personal element is what seems to bug you It might be helpful to think of “the flames” as impersonal karma perhaps ending in the nothingness of nirvana
peace
Sure you can, God does not compel you to reject him you reject him of your own free will.
Of course God can if he chooses change your nature so that you no longer hate but love him it’s called being born again (regeneration)
I would venture to guess that you would not want him to interfere with your freedom in this way and would resist it with all your strength.
OTOH if I’m wrong If regeneration is what you want I suggest that you God ask for it. That is one prayer that I guarantee he will grant if asked sincerely
peace
walto,
You might find this to be helpful
peace
Submit or rebel! Those are your only choices! Indifference is not an option!
It’s not even a possibility, according to that theology.
It simplifies things into absurdity and contrary to the actual evidence, but it preserves the intellectual holes that some find comforting to inhabit.
Glen Davidson
Indifference is rebellion when it comes to the very foundation of knowledge.
Indifference to truth is embracing the lie
peace
The intellectual holes are called “indifference” and “neutrality” and instead of preserving them it exposes them for the mirages they are.
peace
“I am the Lord your God, and I say unto you, you must hate me or you must love me! You must choose freely and accept the eternal consequences of your choice! Hate me and be damned, love me and be saved! You must choose! And you cannot ignore me! Not even you, walto!”
I think you’re all over the place with respect to predestination, Fifth. If I’m predestined to gain heaven I will, if not, not. Please don’t try to hide your Calvinism here.