Problem of Evil: Logical Contradiction (2 of 5)

[QuatFax]

Your point about how god allows evil to bring about greater good is irrelevant. If god were all powerful, he would be able to bring about the greater good without allowing the evil.

[QuatFax]

I'm sorry, why would god not be able to do things that were logically impossible? If god had to follow the laws of logic, there would be some force outside of and superior to god. For god to truly be god, he would have to have created logic and be outside of its power.

[Xpatchris]

@QuatFax That's like saying that the fact that perfection can not also be imperfect, makes it imperfect. The question itself is faulty. If an entity has a certain characteristic it is merely being true to itself. Being true to oneself may seem to imply a rule that must be followed, but only if nebulousness is greater than identity. For Buddhists this may be the case, for the Middle Eastern religions it is not.

[QuatFax]

@Xpatchris Yeah, I guess I see what you're saying. I've sort of moved away from this argument. I still believe it's logically impossible for god to exist, but for different reasons.

[Xpatchris]

@QuatFax The sticky part then is, this must mean that while being perfect it can still create imperfection while remaining perfect. So it can create a realm that is imperfect and allow others to participate in imperfection while abstaining from imperfection itself. That's the hard part.

[polopowers1]

God's power is kept in Virtue by man's free will.?The definition of free will is the suspending of God's Virtues and attributes.Define how man can exercise a complete free will and not interfere with God being who He is by Nature.If God cannot absolutely overcome man's will that does not just limit power but love, mercy, truth, goodness,etc.

[pope6789]

"nor is god a genocidal maniac" well, if you're going by the bible then I'm going to have to disagree with you

[Perrine234]

And if you're saying that we should worship god because he created us, that's pretty retarded too. No one asked to be created, so why should we be grateful for that?

Why should a child born into poverty and starvation in Africa be grateful? According to you, even if they die before the age of one, they'll go to hell for not worshipping Jesus, even if they never even heard about Jesus.

[Perrine234]

So if my parents were genocidal maniacs, should I worship them simply because they are my parents? Because that seems to be what you're implying.

[tonyjones595]

If your god isn't all-powerful, why should we worship him? If he isn't all-powerful, then we humans can overthrow him.

[Eric91611]

@tonyjones595 LOL God isn't tangible hahaha any atheist can just go look up quantum physics if they think science disproves God. Almost all scientists believe in God. the way our universe works it had to be started somehow look up the big bang there once was nothing but a tiny dense mass of energy and nothing else literally nothing. but something had to interact with the energy causing the chain of events that lead to everything. So something beyond the physical universe started everything.

[tonyjones595]

Then why call him god? From the evidence we can see on this planet, he does nothing, and doesn't exist. He's irrelevant to our lives.

[Perrine234]

According to your arguments, he can do very little.

If he requires evil to obtain a greater good, he's not omnipotent. Not even close.

Omnipotent: adjective

1.almighty or infinite in power, as God.

2.having very great or unlimited authority or power.

Pray to the Invisible Pink Unicorn that she finds the benevolence to bless you with a single-digit IQ.

[Perrine234]

If your god is that weak, it's no wonder he died in a puff of logic.

[Perrine234]

Not to me. And not to many others.

I wouldn't value a "good" so highly that I'd inflict suffering just to attain it unless I had no other choice.

[Perrine234]

Another non-answer from a single-digit IQ fundamentalist.

If omnipotence doesn't mean the power to do anything (except internally inconsistent actions like making a pizza so big that even god couldn't eat it), then what does it mean?

[Perrine234]

Wow. Can you make a list of the other words you have redefined to suit your own ends, like the rest of the Holocaust-justifiers?

[Perrine234]

An omnipotent god would not NEED to allow evil to obtain a "greater good."

In the current world, you have to explain why god would value and protect the free will of a child molester or a mass murderer more than the free will of their victims.

[OnEarthTravel]

Everyone has different struggles and must take different paths in life, you shouldn't be one to say who can be christian or not. That is God's job and yes, it may clearly state that homosexual acts is wrong,HOWEVER, let the bible do the talking and shut your mouth because once you open it, you have committed the ultimate sin, Judging.

[OnEarthTravel]

don't be a hypocrite and so quick to judge. Homosexual acts is a sin, yes. But then again, don't we ALL allow ourselves to sin EVERYDAY? How are we all still christians? I'm not sure. (sarcasm)

I support that channel because they are doing something good for those who struggle with homosexuality.

It really angers me how naive and shallow your comment is.

[OnEarthTravel]

lol, are you serious? Why bother writing something discouraging on another christians page? Who are you to judge? Does God not teach us that ABOVE all things you must practice love? I could say the same thing to you, I find it idiotic to support Christians who don't practice one of the MOST repeated commands in the bible.

How can you possibly be christian if you don't have love for His people?

[randyhelzerman]

Ok, taking up the conversation thread here :-) I guess you advocate a free-will defence of God here. Well, first of all, this only addresses evil which has been created by agents. What about the evil caused by "acts of God" such as hurricanes, earthquakes, etc? A tsunami kills thousands of people and leaves thousands of orphans...it is not obvious why God would cause such a thing to happen. I can't see any way to use free will to justify this, can you? (cont)

[randyhelzerman]

(cont, to telemantros) now to evil which is caused by agents. Suppose I want to teach my son not to play with fire. So I have him watch my other son while he's playing with fire, and burns himself to death--lesson learned, right? :-) Well, I think we can still say I was an evil father, because there must be a better way to teach your kids not to play with fire. Similarly, how can we say that some of the evil which goes on down here is in service of any greater good? (cont)

[randyhelzerman]

(cont, to telemantros) Especially for an omnipotent God. There should be some better way to accomplish good than to let evil happen. Free will doesn't seem to offer a way out of this--if one of my kids wants to use his free will to burn people to death, it seems to me that I have an obligation to stop him, and it doesn't seem to be bad to thwart free will in such cases. The jails are full of peopel whose free wlll is thwarted, how come we can jail people but God can't?

[telemantros]

Hi Randy. What you need to consider here is that we are talking about logical inconsistency. In order to nullify a logical inconsistency all one need do, as stated in the video, is to demonstrate an explanation as possible (e.g. free will, greater good, protection from greater evil, finite knowledge of history).

We can point the finger but we need to be aware of logically possible alternatives and our limited (finite) time in history, knowledge, perspective. Peace.

[randyhelzerman]

Hi telemantros, but you have not shown how any of them provide an explanation. I'll ask the same question again: how can free will provide an explanation for God's evil acts of causing natural disasters to kill innocent people? The logical contradiction is as plain as the nose on your face: (1) A good God wouldn't murder people with natural disasters, and (2) God murders people with natural disasters.

[randyhelzerman]

(cont, to telemantros) the same contradiction is there for agent-caused evil. (1) A good God wouldn't just watch people kill each other, (2) God just watches while people kill each other. A good policeman wouldn't just watch while people killed each other. A good King wouldn't just watch while people killed each other. Neither would a good god. Free will doesn't even come into the question here, its just flatly contradictory.

[telemantros]

Afternoon Randy. The basic suggestion I would give, and hopefully this is clear in the video I made, is that the implicit contradiction seen between God and the events of the natural world (e.g. hurricane that kills 1,000's) is answered by the premise, "God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil." I hold this to be possible.

So i'll ask you this question, "Do you believe that the premise I cited is possible?" I'm not asking if it is plausible, but possible? If not, why not? Peace.

[randyhelzerman]

Hi telemantros, (minor nit, the contradiction isn't implicit, I made it explicit in my previous post) I wouldn't think its possible for God to have a good reason to permit evil. I would argue for that by adverting to what we mean by "evil". If you define "evil" in moral terms, i.e. as something which everybody has a moral obligation to prevent, then everybody is under a moral obligation to prevent as much evil as they can.

[telemantros]

There is no explicit contradiction between the co-existence of evil and God. An explicit contradiction would be Evil exists, evil does not exist. Therefore, it is implicit and one sees the contradiction by smuggling in a hidden premise, in your case the contradiction between benevolence and evil.

In order to answer your question randy, tell me something if you feel comfortable, are you pro life or pro choice?

[randyhelzerman]

Telemantros, I don't see the hidden premise. Let me lay it out again, you show me which premise is missing: (1)God is good. (2)A good being prevents all evil it can. Therefore (3)God prevents all evil he can. (4) God can prevent all evil. (5)There is evil. (6) Therefore, God does not prevent all evil. (7) therefore, god is not good, flatly and explicitly contradictory with (1) What is the missing premise? (cont)

[randyhelzerman]

(cont, to Telemantros). If you give up on (4), you get a God which is not omnipotent. You get a God who, literally cannot help us out--this is the path the free-willers take, but they can't explain evil caused by natural disaster. If you give up on (3) you do not get an omnibenevolent god, you get a calvinistic god who is good to some people and evil to others. Really, despite the sophestry of Craig, there is no way out of Hume's quandry.

[randyhelzerman]

Btw IM pro choice and I believe the authors and compolors of the new testament were as well. See my vid "abortion and the formation of the new testament cannon" for my reasons why.

[telemantros]

Randy you are an enjoyable non-theist to talk to. Let me get this straight:

When a hurricane kills hundreds while others live, a skeptic calls into question Gods moral character, saying that he has chosen some to live and others to die on a whim; yet you say it is a woman's moral right to choose whether a child should live or die. Does that not sound odd to you? When God decides who should live or die, he is immoral. When a woman decides who should live or die, its her moral right.

[randyhelzerman]

This is a bit of a red herring because we're not talking about the consistency of pro-life, we're talking about the consistency of omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and evil. Buy I'll answer your question if yoi answer the one I asked first:-). Where is the missing premis? Why isn't the arguement I laid out above 100% explicit?

[telemantros]

The hidden premise you assume is benevolence, when the problem of evil is arguing against God in general. If we were to assume that you argument is true then it will only disprove a benevolent God (e.g. Christianity), but not other conceptions of God (i.e. Allah, Hinduism).

Moreover, my question was not intended as a red herring but rather a picture to point out a foreseen contradiction in your worldview between God's allowance of evil and decisions that you think correct (abortion). Peace.

[randyhelzerman]

Hi telemantros, why you say that premise is hidden? I put it as (1) in my argument above!!! :) And the problem of evil is not a problem for an evil god, but again, I say that above. I really do wonder why Christians don't just embrace the way god describes himself in Is 45:7, as a God who, like most humans, sometimes does good things and sometimes does bad things. The problem of evil is not a problem for that kind of god, but (cont)

[randyhelzerman]

(cont) the problem of evil is a big problem for christians who say their god is all righteous and always does good, but yet who is all powerful. The problem of evil is that these three things are mutually contradictory: (1) a benevolent god, (2) an omnipotent god, and (3) the existence of evil. You have to give up on one of those three. I think (3) is non-negotiable :) Is 45:7 says you should give up on (1). You are left worshiping an evil god.

[Deliratio]

"If you define "evil" in moral terms, i.e. as something which everybody has a moral obligation to prevent, then everybody is under a moral obligation to prevent as much evil as they can."

Then your argument is evidential. You can't simply say "there is evil" and declare that everyone has to agree with it when you define evil as something God needs to prevent.

[randyhelzerman]

Hi Deliratio, I don't feel the force of your objection. I'm not trying to reason within an atheistic framework here, I'm trying to reason within telemantros's framework. Presumably he believes that there is evil, and he believes that evil is something everybody has a moral obligation to prevent. The problem of evil is a problem only WITHIN the theistic worldview. Of course you can criticize telemantros's premises, they are inconsistent.

[Deliratio]

Well, van Inwagen for example would even challenge the idea that God has to prevent all ungracious evil.

But then, using this definition of evil, the argument is not logical anymore, it becomes evidential.

[randyhelzerman]

That's not an objection to the argument though. It remains the case that the problem of evil is a real problem.

[Deliratio]

"It remains the case that the problem of evil is a real problem. "

I wouldn't challenge that.

[matmicmj]

perfect.,.,.,.,thxz..,.,.,

[LotusGreenX]

Btw, is this where all the cool Christians hang out because telemantros doesn't seem like a guy who does blows below the belt and I haven't been called a moron yet.

[telemantros]

I believe in intelligent and calm discussion Lotus, and the majority of my viewers do as well. You probably won't be called names here. I invite you to dialogue and hope to hear your views. Peace.

[FatGermanBastard]

Which software are you using for video editing ?

I think I will make a reply when I have seen the whole series.

[telemantros]

I use iMovie.

Thanks for actually watching the whole series and waiting to make points to see if they are answered. Look forward to it.

[Heraclitean]

it seems to this sympathetic listener that you're very invested in your mind. but are you your arguments? are you your beliefs? maybe not. maybe you're that which entertains such thoughts.

[theman77777777232]

Do you ever do debates telemantros?

You definitely should. You're hardcore, bro.

[theowarner]

Me?

[theman77777777232]

You what?

Don't you agree telemntros should do debates?

[theowarner]

I think that's a matter of his own preference. While I would enjoy them, I'm not particularly adept at in the moment debate, either. Perhaps through videos. I'm contemplating a response, myself.

[theman77777777232]

"Perhaps through videos."

I meant youtube debates. He should start respnding to people. Don't you think he's one of the smartest theists on youtube?

[theowarner]

Uh... Well, that's not what comes to mind. Most of what he's saying, although presented well, is rather unoriginal, which I think he acknowledges. It's not like he's making it up... so, I'm not sure how to assess his smartness. He's certainly more emotionally self-aware than Veritas48 was, for example. Does that help?

[theman77777777232]

I'm aware these aren't his arguments since I've heard them all before. lol

But he puts them together quite well and comes across very clear, probably even as good or better than Veritas in some ways.

I just thought it would be cool to see him respond to people in debates.

[theowarner]

Yeah, I agree with that. Well, we'll see.

[theman77777777232]

What a coincidence. Mike just put out a video with a title saying he spanked you.

You seen it, yet?

I'm on my way there now.

Peace.

[theman77777777232]

Hey, theowarner. I noticed you got to Mike's video before me (he was a bit mean). I laid out a question for you over there regarding a prophecy and I am very, very curious how you account for it:

watch?v=8_PCGHag9RY

[telemantros]

I've thought about doing debates before, but my original plan was to create a source of information on typical rebuttals first and then reference such videos as I made more novel videos to other youtube users. That time may be coming soon though.

[theman77777777232]

"I've thought about doing debates before"

I think you'd be awesome, bro!

"but my original plan was to create a source of information on typical rebuttals first and then reference such videos as I made more novel videos to other youtube users."

Good idea!

"That time may be coming soon though."

SWEET! Can't wait.

[LotusGreenX]

I'll be waiting for when you deal with the establishement of God's existence based on nature that is full of evil, or fine tuned with inevitable flaws if you will. Btw that was not hume's argument of the problem of evil. That is just a premise for his argument, but his argument is a probabalistic argument that deals with natural evil and how nature cannot be used to establish the existence of a moral God.

[LotusGreenX]

telemantros:

I hope you deal with the problem of hell because for me that's a bigger gripe I have against fundamentalist Christians handling the problem of evil while being consistent with a 'literalist' interpretation of scripture.

[telemantros]

"... handling the problem of evil while being consistent with a 'literalist' interpretation of scripture."

Did you you mean 'inconsistent?' If you didn't, you're going to have to rephrase your sentence for it is not clear to me.

[LotusGreenX]

No, I said consistent and meant consistent. What I'm saying is some people solve the problem by reinterpreting the scriptures which is inconsistent with a literalists hermenuetic. I'm not speaking in technical terms but I hope you understand what I mean.

[Deliratio]

There are some philosophers who argue for a universalist interpretation because that way, the problem of evil is completely solved.

On the other hand, the POE usually argues from unmerited suffering, which can be avoided given the right judgement.

[LotusGreenX]

Deliratio: It's still a faith move. You can answer the problem of evil, but there's no way to establish the existence of an infinitely moral God by only looking at nature which is mixed with good and evil. Without some revelation from an omnibenevolent God I don't see any reasoning that could establish one does exist despite evil. Hume makes this point well. In fact he argues more against the establishment of God's existence based on nature than actual positive evidence against God.

[Deliratio]

lolwut I wasn't talking about that at all

[LotusGreenX]

"unmerited suffering"

If suffering doesn't produce good for you or the person suffering why is it any good for even Adolf Hitler to suffer forever? There must be a point in suffering for ever in hell if it is supposed to be God's loving action on most of humanity.

Universal salvation is completely unbiblical, but it does make a ton more sense because then God would be loving by ultimately giving everybody the greatest good he can give.

[Deliratio]

Man, most of your complaints are answered if you read a basic treatment of the POE (or universalism).

[LotusGreenX]

Deliratio: Your right I don't read religous liberal literature, but my problem is more with fundamentalists who don't deal with these issues or accept science. I'm sure the universalists don't pull the backing out of their asses, but their philosophy seems to be the trump card when interpretating of scripture.

[Ichthus91]

Universalism has no justice in it's system. Universalism states that every human being will be reunited with God. However, it's easily seen that this is unjust and God wouldn't care if we were reunited with him unless he loved us. If God loves us then he must be just. The father who loves his children will discipline them for his/her wrong doing. The same applies with God. Universalism thus makes no sense according to what I've said.

[LotusGreenX]

"If God loves us then he must be just."

Have you noticed that our justice system does punishment for the good of our society? Does God really need to allow most of humanity to suffer excruciating pain forever with no redeemable reason to allow it? God sure isn't affected by our sins because he's totally pleased with himself by his very nature. I see no reasonable justification to think hell is a just punishment for anybody.

[Ichthus91]

There is no love without discipline. Thus, the greatest possible act of love is the biblical one. God sending his only begotten son to die for our sins. In this way; God is being just and loving. If you don't accept Jesus to take your sin in his place then you will have to pay for them.

[LotusGreenX]

Ichthus91:"If you don't accept Jesus to take your sin in his place then you will have to pay for them."

Thanks for reminding me that I can burn forever in a fictitous hell for not worshipping your imaginary God. As a former Christian who has thought a hell a lot about hell I will stop because I have way too much to say on that topic. But be rest assured I have sought out answers for many years and know your mainstream Christian answers and more.

[Ichthus91]

Well, you don't go to hell for not worshiping God. You go to hell because you don't accept forgiveness of your own sin. Have you looked within the history of, about, and surrounding the bible during those years of study?

[df8o]

IM sorry Lotus, you cannot be a former or x christian. To imply you were ever Christian means you believed at one point that Jesus is the son of God and died for your sins. If you truly believed this, then you would be following Jesus, living a new reborn transformed life for him, not refuting him. If your not a transformed new born again, with the holy spirit you cannot be considered a follower of Christ or a Christian.

[df8o]

All of that means, you basically never truly believed in Jesus as your savior, which means you never truly were ever a Christian.

[cmikemr7]

What are you talking about?

I used to believe in that stuff; i don't anymore.

What makes you think that Lotus was never a Christian, and now he realize the delusion he was living in?

[theowarner]

So... have listened to this and to the previous video, what I'm left with is the problem of not having a very good definition of evil. I'm not sure that conflating evil and suffering into one is proper, of example. I'll ponder this.

[ABAisSCIENCE]

Man need not be conditioned by any specific stimulus other than an environment which is apart from God & having parents who are separated from God to be conditioned to be hedonistic.

Jesus on the other hand pushed up on nailed feet to say, "Forgive them for they know not what they do."

[ABAisSCIENCE]

Skinner's right about morals & freedom. Wrong only on philosophy. Man is not a "caged ape," but rather able to condition more fully by thought then by action in environment. Still thought is controlled by external stimulus, but thought conditions more. Hence your free will is merely a sharpened discriminative control.

Ray, B. (1969) Selective attention: the effects of combining stimuli which control incompatible behavior. J. of the Exp. Analysis of Beh., 12, 539-550.

Now is it interesting?

[ABAisSCIENCE]

Telemantros, you should speak so that a 3rd grader could understand you.

Man is wicked with no morals, ethics, or righteousness.

God is good having the following traits: just, merciful, & righteous.

If you accept the premise that people are by nature hedonistic that is, that we seek pleasure & avoid pain then you will recognize that its not easy to deal with the truth, & its not easy to change it. Dr. Phil (1999) p. 121 in book Life Strategies: Doing what works; Doing what matters.

[ThePeaceMaker7]

Telemantros, are you going to discuss Dr. Alvin Plantinga's Free Will Response in detail?

[telemantros]

Perhaps in the future; such a discussion would take a while and I'd need to delve into it deeper to make sure that I get all the nuances of it. For now, at least, i'm going to settle for using aspects of it.

[ubi2002]

Hey Thanks for the series, I have been thinking about this topic a while back.

And welcome back, you have been very missed. :)