The Problem of Evil: Irrelevant to God's Existence?

[rainchild]

Here's a brief statement of the Problem of Evil, phrased as an argument for God's nonexistence, from the Stanford Online Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/).

If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
Evil exists.
If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.
Therefore, God doesn't exist.

However, God doesn't have to have all of the characteristics listed in the first statement. Many concepts of God don't include all of them. Many alleged "proofs" of God's existence don't attempt to establish that God has all of them. With this in mind, does the Problem of Evil really challenge the notion that God exists, or does it merely challenge the notion that God has all of the characteristics listed in the first line above?

[Lomax]

Hello rainchild,

Given that God is a proper name, I will assume you are referring to the Judeo-Christian God. In which case, I suppose the question is: do the Holy texts claim that God has those features?

I agree that the argument is not a disproof of all gods: for instance, Zeus is not professed to be entirely benevolent.

Lomax

[CanadysPeak]

Rainchild,

The argument in the Encyclopedia is rather silly in that it stipulates the conclusion in the first statement. For those who believe in an omnipotent, omniscient God (I am not one of those), then it is the very epitome of arrogance to dictate to such a being how he/she/it should be.

Many in the Abrahamic tradition view their God as unknowable and consider it blasphemy to even say the name, let alone start telling him what to do. I'd recommend almost any late Merton or Martin Buber's Eclipse of God as illustrative of this line of thought.

For a really hoary philosopher, considered on a par with Aquinas, you might look at Moses Maimonides' The Guide for the Perplexed. Maimonides makes a long argument to the effect that God does not create evil, but rather creates existence, and the absence of God in that existence (presumably by the choice of man) is evil by negation.

[rainchild]

Hi, Lomax,

Given that God is a proper name, I will assume you are referring to the Judeo-Christian God. In which case, I suppose the question is: do the Holy texts claim that God has thes features? I agree that the argument is not a disproof of all gods: for instance, Zeus is not professed to be entirely benevolent.

You're right; I was talking about Yaweh, and the Bible does attribute immeasurably superhuman power, knowledge, and benevolence to him. But remember that God is supposed to be an actual being, which means that even believers can doubt whether the holy books' description of him is entirely accurate. Rabbi Harold Kushner, for instance, solves the Problem of Evil by asserting that God's power to intervene in his creation is limited. Meanwhile, though the so-called proofs of God's existence are propounded by believers, none of these "proofs" attempts to establish all of God's allegedly essential traits. This leads me into a can of worms: in the minds of believers, does God have fewer essential traits than listed in the holy books, or is a "proof" of God that establishes one trait analogous to the proof of the presence of a man by merely one index, such as a footprints?

[Lomax]

Hello rainchild,

You're right; I was talking about Yaweh, and the Bible does attribute immeasurably superhuman power, knowledge, and benevolence to him. But remember that God is supposed to be an actual being, which means that even believers can doubt whether the holy books' description of him is entirely accurate.

I see your point. I agree with your original conclusion then: we must revise the Bible's description of God in order for His existence to be logically possible.

Rabbi Harold Kushner, for instance, solves the Problem of Evil by asserting that God's power to intervene in his creation is limited.

I'm not convinced this is a solution. I mean, if we still grant God omniscience and benevolence, then He would have known what was coming, when he set up the universe in the first place. We have to postulate one further thing: that even in the creation itself, God did not have it all His own way.

Meanwhile, though the so-called proofs of God's existence are propounded by believers, none of these "proofs" attempts to establish all of God's allegedly essential traits. This leads me into a can of worms: in the minds of believers, does God have fewer essential traits than listed in the holy books, or is a "proof" of God that establishes one trait analogous to the proof of the presence of a man by merely one index, such as a footprints?

I think it is probably the latter. I do notice that many philosophers and theologians relax their usual standards of logic when attempting to establish the existence of their God; for instance, Descartes rigorous method of Cartesian doubt goes out the window when he tries to show God's benevolence, perfection and necessity; all the embarrassing mistakes in Liebniz's Monadology are to do with his "proof" of God; Kurt Godel's "proof" is far below the standard of most of his work. I think it may be, as Bertrand Russell says, because they already know their conclusion before they state their premises.

Lomax

[rainchild]

Hi, Lomax,

I see your point. I agree with your original conclusion then: we must revise the Bible's description of God in order for His existence to be logically possible.

Shall we try?

[Lomax]

Hello rainchild,

Shall we try?

Haha, you are welcome to. For my part, I do not think it is a particularly important question. Just so long as Biblical inerrantists are aware that their god is logically impossible.

Lomax

[reconsiderate]

Whoever said that metaphysics relied on absolute logic to work? Logic is only needed insofar it is instrumental to convey the intended subjective meanings. Trying to undermine metaphysics/theology with logic is like trying to use logic to undermine fashion sense. There is a certain amount of logic in fashion but not enough that it is impossible to find logical contradictions between what is considered fashionably attractive or unfashionably unattractive.

[kudayta]

And much like fashion, religion is a thoroughly irrational topic that rakes in billions of dollars each year.

[CanadysPeak]

And much like fashion, religion is a thoroughly irrational topic that rakes in billions of dollars each year.

That is so unfair. Those ministers set the offering plates on the altar for the gods to take what they want, and the ministers only keep what's left afterward.

[Natural ChemE]

And much like fashion, religion is a thoroughly irrational topic that rakes in billions of dollars each year.

To be fair, new shoes can be pretty snazzy.

[Lomax]

Hello reconsiderate,

Whoever said that metaphysics relied on absolute logic to work? Logic is only needed insofar it is instrumental to convey the intended subjective meanings.

Well, rather: logic is a formal means of presenting arguments salva veritae. If metaphysics is to be useful or reliable, it must progress salva veritae (which it never has), and so must the claims of the metaphysician.

But anyway, I suppose this is off-topic.

Lomax

[reconsiderate]

Well, rather: logic is a formal means of presenting arguments salva veritae. If metaphysics is to be useful or reliable, it must progress salva veritae (which it never has), and so must the claims of the metaphysician.

I had to look up "salva veritae." Thanks for broadening my vocab. Unfortunately, wiki doesn't give an example. Could you? Possibly having to do with religion since it's the topic of this thread?

[reconsiderate]

And much like fashion, religion is a thoroughly irrational topic that rakes in billions of dollars each year.

That is funny. But just think about how lucrative global warming theory would be if cap and trade would go through. There would be some serious payoffs to be had at that point, I bet.

edit: did I say "payoffs?" I meant . . . er . . . special professorships and distinguished scholar awards.

[Lomax]

Hello reconsiderate,

I had to look up "salva veritae." Thanks for broadening my vocab. Unfortunately, wiki doesn't give an example. Could you? Possibly having to do with religion since it's the topic of this thread?

My mistake, I mistyped; I meant salva veritate. Anyway, what I meant was, "saving truth". The truth of the conclusion must be at least equal to that of the premises, so the following argument...

1. Zeus is a god
2. All gods are powerful
3. Therefore, Zeus is not powerful

...is not logically valid, because it is possible for the conclusion to be false while the premises are true. My point was that an argument is no use if not logical; and some specific argument should not be above this standard just because somebody has decided to label it "metaphysics". If an argument cannot "save truth", then it is no argument at all.

Lomax

[reconsiderate]

My mistake, I mistyped; I meant salva veritate. Anyway, what I meant was, "saving truth". The truth of the conclusion must be at least equal to that of the premises, so the following argument...

1. Zeus is a god
2. All gods are powerful
3. Therefore, Zeus is not powerful

...is not logically valid, because it is possible for the conclusion to be false while the premises are true. My point was that an argument is no use if not logical; and some specific argument should not be above this standard just because somebody has decided to label it "metaphysics". If an argument cannot "save truth", then it is no argument at all.

Ok, thanks. I would call that logical cohesion. It is only useful for undermining something. Consider that a story might be logically fallible but still convey some concept or meaning. E.g. what if I said "gravity pulls things to the ground + the moon doesn't fall to the ground = therefore the moon is not influenced by gravity. Well, that would actually be an example of something logical that's not true; but the point is that even if the overall story is logically falsifiable, it could contain insights or elements of knowledge that are useful. So, someone who didn't know that gravity causes things to fall to the ground or didn't know that the moon doesn't fall to the ground would benefit from those statements even though the conclusion was ultimately false. Do you see my point.

So theology ultimately works like that, imo. Originally I discovered the undermining logical, ethical, and other problems and inconsistencies and used that to underwrite atheism. Then I decided I didn't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and decided to salvage what good there was in the bible by studying the ideas and discerning which could have potentially positive effects or provide general philosophical insight. I am not trying to claim that the bible is exclusively perfect or that it can't be undermined in numerous ways. In fact, I think like any other text it is practically infinitely interpretable. However, when people post these threads about evil, God's existence, etc., I just explain a possible viewpoint that might provide some insight from another point of view. You could logically undermine everything I say or everything in the bible and I wouldn't flinch because I did that myself a long time ago. I'm not defending anything as logically perfect - just salvaging meaning despite the logical problems.

[rainchild]

The argument in the Encyclopedia is rather silly in that it stipulates the conclusion in the frst statement. For those who believe in an omnipotent, omniscient God (I am not one of those), it is the very epitome of arrogance to dictate to such a being how he/she/it should be.

Yes, I can see how believers would think it silly to disapprove of God's playing God with peoples' lives.

:-)