God & The Problem of Evil

I’m sure you did demonstrate all of this. Care to do it again?

I remember you mentioned the impossibility of a perfect circle in the physical world–is this an example of what you mean?

See, here you seem to be switching back and forth between two different arguments. Your last argument was that God being absolutely perfect is driven by competition and politics, not some logical necessity. Here, you’re arguing that the existence of evil is incompatible with God’s perfection (which isn’t such a bad argument, but it gets sticky where defining evil, perfection, in what way God is perfect, etc. is concerned).

True, bringing in dictionary definitions is useful if you want to show that a particular definition you are using is indeed a commonly used definition. And I’ll agree that one meaning of ‘perfect’ is: absolute, total, unqualified. This is a useful definition when we want to say that the closer one gets to one end of a certain measure (for example, the less evil you cause, the more benevolent you are), the better. In that case, ‘perfect’ just means as close to that end as possible, which, if the measure in question has no limits, can mean infinite.

I’ve never heard these definitions of ‘concept’ and ‘idea’ before. We can work with these if they are your (or Kant’s) definitions, but I don’t think it makes a difference. We could just say: there are empirical concepts (drawn from the physical) and there are non-empirical concepts (abstractions). Your point is that non-empirical things (abstractions) don’t exist, therefore neither does God. Doesn’t matter what we call such non-empirical things.

But it is a different argument from that which you were making before. Before you were saying that a god must be perfect (at least in terms of omnipotence) otherwise a greater god would destroy it, so if it wasn’t perfect, it would not exist. Unless you’re arguing this: the idea of gods always evolves towards perfection (by way of competition and political motives on the part of believers), and certain kinds of perfection are only possible in terms of asbolutes or infinities; this places them in the camp of abstractions, which are impossible, therefore such gods cannot exist.

True, but the point is that the drive to prove one’s god to be perfect is not logic or reason but competition and politics. Therefore, it is not logically necessary that the gods be perfect, which is what I was getting at with the Hellenistic gods. Of course, I don’t believe in them, but there’s nothing logically wrong with saying that they need not be perfect in order to exist.

No, it would just mean an empirical god would be imperfect. Of course, this depends on how you’re measuring perfection. I agree that in a physical context, it makes little sense to say that measures like the quantity of matter or energy are infinit. What does it mean to be infinitely powerful though? Doesn’t it just mean capable of doing anything? ← I think this is impossible too but not because of the limitations on physical quantities, but because of how the laws of physics work. However, a concept like omni-benevolence might be possible. All that would mean is that the god in question has not a single manevolent bone in his body. I don’t see why that’s impossible.

Again, the Hellenic pantheon is a good example of the idea of imperfect gods (at least in terms of omnipotence), some of which are more powerful than others, who get along without the most powerful one necessarily destroying the less powerful ones.

I may be supporting your point, but I wasn’t exactly saying that such a god is impossible. I was saying that the ontological argument doesn’t prove God’s existence. I was arguing that attributing existence to God (as part of what it means for such a god to be “greater than which cannot be conceived”) only forces one to believe in such a god, but belief alone doesn’t prove existence.

Yep. And your point is that perfection in such a god can only amount to absolute or infinite qualities (omnipotence, for example), which is necessarily abstract, which therefore doesn’t exist. ← Is that right?

I believe that is the same as I defined “perfect” to be - suiting an ideal, in this case, the ideal of “100”.

Again I insist your philosophical views are very shallow and narrow.

The term ‘absolute perfection’ is not mine but one that I inferred logically from the thoughts of theists and theologians.
The idea of the Ontological God, i.e. “God is a Being than which no greater can exists” represent an absolutely perfect God.
This ontological God is a result of a logical trend of progression in relation the idea [not concept] of a God because no theist would concede their God to be dominated by another God.

There is a range of perspectives and meaning for the term ‘perfection’ as qualified by various conditions.
To ensure God’s perfection is an unqualified one, theists need to insist their God is an absolutely perfect God, i.e. the Ontological God.
Who are you to decide otherwise for the theologians and the natural expectations of theists?

I agree theologians and theists can rationalize [purely] an absolutely perfect God but I am arguing such a God is an impossibility within empirical-rational reality.

I presume you meant,
It is like saying that item A is 100% pure black but item B is absolutely 100% pure black.

Note in the empirical world there is no possibility of 100% certainty.
Therefore ‘100% pure black’ is never a certainty and thus there are many other perspectives one can take ‘100% pure black’ to be as it depend on the criteria for ‘pure’ and ‘black’.
Is “pure” based on common observation, RGB codes, color wavelengths or what?
Pure black based on visual observations and confirmation by humans is obviously subjective so there can be disputes because humans has varied degree of color perception.
Thus to be more objective, can can determine pure blackness based on RGB codes or color wavelengths.
If color wavelength is the most objective, then we can say item B is absolutely 100% pure Black.
So there is a difference between 100% pure black and absolutely 100% pure black.
But as I had argued no matter how the term ‘absolute’ is used in the empirical world it is never unqualified.

However in the purely rational perspective, it is possible to used the term absolute in the sense of being unqualified or totally unconditional.
Now there is a difference between a ‘perfect God’ and an ‘absolutely perfect God.’
‘A perfect God’ is relative and has room to be dominated another more superior God.

As I had stated there is range of meanings and interpretations of ‘perfect’ by different people based on different criteria. Thus when someone claim their God to be perfect, another will claim his/her god is more perfect and so it goes on with other claims of greater perfection.
Therefore to ensure there no room for a more perfect God, the most effective theoretical term would be an absolutely perfect God, i.e. “a God than which no greater-perfect-God can be idealized.”

Get the point?
There is a refined difference between ‘a perfect God’ and ‘an absolute perfect God’!

Yes, the impossibility of an ideal-perfect circle.
Note a circle is an empirical concept but a theoretical ideal[perfect]-circle is an impossibility within empirical-rational reality.
God is not an empirical concept but a non-empirical abstract idea.

Yes there are two arguments which follows;

Argument 1
Absolute perfection is impossible - demonstrated.
God being absolutely perfect is driven by competition, politics, etc.
Therefore God is an impossibility.

Argument 2
God being absolutely perfect is driven by competition, politics, etc.
Absolutely perfect means absolute Good.
But evil exists
God is contradictory
Being contradictory, God [absolutely perfect] is an impossibility.

Actually my argument 1 is sufficient.
God is an impossibility so there no need to deliberate on God & The Problem of Evil.
This counter on a popular argument is just a additional reinforcement to justify why God is an impossibility.

The difference and nuance between a philosophical concept and a “philosophical idea” is very significant in a discussion of the idea of God, the independent Soul or the Whole Universe.
The point is abstractions can be related to

  1. empirical elements, e.g. beauty, love, etc. which is empirically possible or
  2. non-empirical elements like God, the independent Soul or the Whole Universe which is very distinct when attributed with the term ‘absolute’ or ‘unqualified’.

The drive to claim one’s god to be absolutely perfect is instinctual and inherent in human nature. As such is a logical necessity or rather a default.

Theists would not claim absolute perfection for their empirical-related god, e.g. monkey-liked[empirical] god [Hanuman]. There is no significant issue with empirical-liked gods where they can be accepted as imperfect.
The issue is with God in general which will gravitate ultimately towards an absolute perfect God naturally, inherently and be default as driven by instinct.

That is the point, as you said, the ontological argument does not prove God’s existence which support my argument.
My argument goes one step further, the ontological God, i.e. an absolutely perfect God [by pure reason only] is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.

Yep, the idea of an absolutely perfect God is a non-empirical abstraction and it is impossible to exists within an empirical-rational reality.
It is like “OUGHT” purely by itself cannot exists within an “IS-OUGHT” reality.

For someone who has displayed such extreme lack of philosophical education (don’t even know what an ontology is), your opinion on that matter means bupkis.

As you are constantly doing, you presumed incorrectly. I even explained precisely why I meant exactly what I stated.

Note that such is your theory.

According to your own theory, you cannot be certain that your theory is certain.

The number one fundamental error that you have been making since the start of this is that;

If something cannot be empirically proven, it is impossible to exist.

You keep presuming that as priori in all of your arguments, yet it is nonsense.

You are always off track from my points and creating straw man.

I claimed;
If something cannot be empirically-RATIONALLY proven, it is impossible to exist WITHIN AN EMPIRICAL-RATIONAL REALITY.

Rationally = reinforced with Philosophical-proper.

It is possible for a God to exists in the following restricted conditions;

  1. A God can exists based on pure thoughts and primal reason [kindergarten].
  2. A God can exists with a Morality framework,
  3. A God is real to a mental patient, schizophrenic, epileptic
  4. A God can be induced and experienced using hallucinogens and drugs.

BUT;
If God cannot be empirically-RATIONALLY proven, it is impossible for it to exist WITHIN AN EMPIRICAL-RATIONAL REALITY.

And by stating that YOU HAVE RATIONALLY ERRED in the exact way that I pointed out, REALLY.

And there is only one “REALITY”. It is certainly rational in the sense of being logical, but “empirical” is a subjective issue. To be empirical means that it can be seen, and certainly not all of reality can be seen.

Note my response to your very shallow and narrow philosophical views here.
viewtopic.php?p=2686305#p2686305

Nietzsche: “there is no truth, only perspectives”
neamathisi.com/new-learning/chap … y-of-truth

There are no facts, only interpretations.
from Nietzsche’s Nachlass, A. Danto translation

An absolutely one “Reality” is an impossibility.

Shows you how little Nietzsche actually knew, huh.

Yet another horribly naive presumption and preaching from the Prismatic pulpit.
:icon-rolleyes:

I would ask you to prove that, but … geeezzz… =;

Arminius wrote:

What do YOU mean by required?
What would make them require an evil God?
Wouldn’t it have been simpler to just explain that life at times just has no satisfactory, answerable questions as to why things happen though showing cause and effect in many cases may have just explained those things away?
Anyway, I wonder if any explanation would have sufficed?
We humans always need a scapegoat.

Those who wrote the OLd Testament - many during many centuries - had to find a “consensus”, and the consensus seemed to not allow another option than an evil god, a furious god.

Fear, angst, anxiety, awe, deep respect …

Yes, but not to them (at that time).

Yes, but not at that time (to them).

Instead of “we humans” I would say “a majority of the humans”.

Arminius,

Hmmm…I wonder why that would be? Instilling fear instead of love as a way to insure proper behavior?
Things still have not changed. Many Parents are still doing that to their children.

The OT God is also shown to be a loving, compassionate and forgiving God at the same time.
Perhaps the different writers of the OT perceived their God in different ways.
Perhaps those who were of a furious, unforgiving and judgmental nature, saw God in that way and those who were the opposite saw God in loving compassionate ways.
Who knows?
I think that for the most part, God is all about projection.

How can awe and deep respect conjure up an evil God?
Those emotions may cause one to desire to worship and to be faithful to their God but to instill a feeling of dread and fear?

I do not understand why. Although I do not believe anymore, subjectively speaking, I still see that there is much wisdom in the OT.
I suppose that a great deal of it WAS written as it was to inflict fear and to bring the people to their knees.
BUT I suppose that back then painting God as an evil one may have seemed to be the only way to get the people (not all of them) to live a moral purposeful life and to obey the Ten Commandments.

Well, perhaps I was wrong above. I think that for many of them a better more “realistic” explanation might have sufficed.
But then again, with the negative outlook, many may have simply said “What the hell! I’m going to be forever damned by God anyway.”

You have a point there. There are some who would probably never use others as scapegoats.

The use of others as “scapegoats” is part of an old strategy. In a more primitive way, “higher” animals also use others as “scapegoats”.

Does the author of the OP realize that “evil” is a metaphysical assumption that presumes a “good” against which it can be measured?

I understand there are two categories of “evil” i.e.

  1. Empirical evil, i.e. evil acts related to evilness.

  2. Ontological/Metaphysical Evil - related mostly to the theological, e.g. represented by Satan and the likes.

The OP is not related to ontological or metaphysical evil rather it refers to empirical evil as evidenced by empirical acts of evil.

My definition of “evil” is;
Evil is the nature of human acts that are a net-negative to the well being of the individual and therefrom humanity.
What is ‘net-negative’ and “well-being” will be explained in detail.
There is a degree to evil acts, i.e. from low [petty crimes, lying, etc.] to very high [serial killing with torture, mass rapes, genocides, etc.]
To avoid confusion with theological-based ontological evil, this definition of empirical evil must be supported by a “taxonomy” of empirical evil acts by humans.

Do you have any counters against my argument based on the above terms of reference?

It’s not necessary to have a counterargument. Evil defined as a “net-negative to the well being of the individual and therefrom (sic.) humanity” is meaningless without a supreme good against which it can be measured.

As defined, Evil is the nature of human acts that are a net-negative to the well being of the individual and therefrom humanity.
I have given examples of the range of evil acts.
Are you saying the genocides by Hitler, of the Yazidis by extreme Islamists, the mass rapes, and the various evils are meaningless?? so we do not bother these evil acts?
The wisdom is there is no need for a definition of ‘supreme good’ in this case to understand the above listed acts are evil and thus the need for actions.

I am not sure of your ‘supreme good.’ If you are referring to God as the ‘supreme Good’ then that is baseless and illusory.
Nevertheless I do agree an idea of ‘supreme Good’ can be relevant depending on how one use the term.

The concept of evil is a two-edged sword. As defined, “evil” is an arbitrary metaphysical concept. True, it does pose a problem for theism, but it also poses a problem for secularists or “world citizens.” Who in your world determines what constitutes a “net-negative”? You? What makes you qualified to to meet the highest interests and welfare of the universe and the children of time? How do you propose to coordinate and harmonize the world’s rivalrous interests, races, and nationalisms without a universally accepted ideal? Are the “progressives” on college campuses doing you any favors by shutting down free speech?

The examples of evil you give reflect a much deeper problem than you are willing to admit. The world is filled with lost souls, not lost in the theologic sense but lost in the directional meaning, wandering about in confusion among the isms and cults of a frustrated philosophic era. Too few have learned how to install a philosophy of living in the place of empirical authority.

Note I have already stated there are two concepts of ‘evil’ i.e.

  1. empirical based evil acts and
  2. the Metaphysical/ontological evil

I have already the OP is not about the Metaphysical/ontological evil which is proposed by theology-God and such evil do not exists.

Empirical based acts of evil are those acts that can be observed and identified as ‘evil’.

If you want to insist on evil in the Metaphysical and Ontological sense, you will have to open up a separate thread. Btw, ensure you prove such evil exists before anything else.

It is not “me” to determine what is net-negative. This project will be done by the collective of all humans as far as possible.
We can start this exercise by assigning rating to a list all known evil acts.
Then we produce a list of agreed evil acts starting with the acts with the highest degree of evilness.
Now if I proposed ‘genocide’ mass rapes, serial murders are net-negative to the well being of the individual[s] and to humanity, I am confident all normal human beings will agree to that. Do you disagree?
We then work down the list to obtain 100% consensus for as man as possible and somewhere down the list there will be contentions and disagreements.

The point is we will be able to have a reasonable list of acts that are agreed by all normal [not psychopaths and the mentally ill] human beings as net-negative evil.
Where are are disputes of various degrees we can work at it to establish greater consensus, where we cannot then we will leave it as “agree to disagree” in the meantime.

Another critical point is you cannot assess what I am proposing based on our existing [2017] collective state of morality which on average is very low and bad.
What I am proposing is for the future, say 75-100-200 years’ time when we have an established Framework and System of Morality & Ethics with a very high average Moral Intelligence within humanity. What is critical is we must start now to establish the foundation.

Yes, at the present we are in a bad state relative to normal expectations and ideals. What is critical is you cannot give up hope that there is a possibility of continual improvement and progress.
I have given evidence [babies, mirror neurons], all humans has the potential drive for higher morality.
This is proven by the obvious trend of improving moral standards and practices over the last 100, 200 and > 1000 years, e.g. emergence of the Golden Rule, banning of slavery, etc.

While I am optimistic with potential positive systems, Why are you so pessimistic and defensive on there is a potential for all humans to improve and progress in Morality and all other fields of knowledge and technology?
With your defensiveness, you are not a net-positive citizen of humanity.

Human beings like scapegoating their own actions on ridiculous extrapolations of gods and devils concerning so called evil because it helps themselves not looking at themselves in a mirror. It helps saying something else is the cause of all of our problems rather then ourselves and the success of religion throughout the ages reaffirms this.

The concept of evil is an elaborate conception or ruse of historical collective irresponsibility. It is an irrational reaction.

You did not read my link?
The concept of evil [empirical based, not ontological] is getting very popular within the philosophical community. Note this from SEP;

As I stated the OP has nothing to do with metaphysical or ontological “evil” as represented by the existence of Satan the Devil in the Abrahamic religions.

What I am referring as ‘evil’ is related to evil acts, e.g.