The Problem of Evil (2015) • Hacker News Board

Re: The Problem of Evil (2015)

#71

Post by heythereguy » Sun, Jul 11, 2021, 6:59 PM UTC

pmoriarty wrote: post #65

heythereguy wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because every physical thing has a start. Some time-bending supreme being that creates time and existence itself can overcome that "start" because of it's super powers. That sounds dumb but it's more convincing than saying yeah it's just always been here. How has it? I'm too dumb to wrap my head around that. Everything has a primary mover unless it has the super power to transcend that.

"Because every physical thing has a start." Does it? Everything we know about the world is either due to observations or inferences from our observations. We have not observed what was at the start of the Big Bang, nor prior to it, so for all we know whatever that was was qualitatively different than what came after, and really did have no beginning. "Some time-bending supreme being that creates time and existence it…

Eh fair enough, I'm not satisfied with either side. Too bad either of us will ever know.

Do you have any good reading on the idea your postulating?

"A being that creates time has its own additional problems besides.. such as how could there be anything before time? What does that even mean?"

I can't answer. I have to go back to there being some all powerful god that had the power to create everything, so he has the power to transcend time. Or God could be an instantaneous and motionless creator, and could have created the world without preceding it in time.

Re: The Problem of Evil (2015)

#72

Post by alex_young » Sun, Jul 11, 2021, 7:00 PM UTC

pmoriarty wrote: post #26

alex_young wrote: post #3

If you can get to the understanding that all of the outcomes in human thought and behavior are based on inputs of some level, be they genetic, or nurture, or through interaction with others or impacts from the natural environment, then it seem truly odd to believe in a concept like evil.

"If you can get to the understanding that all of the outcomes in human thought and behavior are based on inputs of some level, be they genetic, or nurture, or through interaction with others or impacts from the natural environment, then it seem truly odd to believe in a concept like evil." Again, this doesn't explain at all why there is suffering caused by natural forces like hurricanes, earthquakes, and diseases.. a…

I think I understand the argument well, but I don’t see that there is much room for an ‘evil’ upon we could all agree given the observational reality we find ourselves in.

Leaving aside the religious matter of a higher power, I think it’s safe to say that evil in the general context means something more than merely undesirable; perhaps intrinsically wrong from all possible rational observers or something like that.

Finding that biological systems have desirable or undesirable situations and that they having higher order communication systems can agree on a set of shared undesirable outcomes still doesn’t quite get to that concept of evil does it? If not, then I think we can agree that hurricanes are bad for us in general, but not exactly evil unless there is some unobservable force acting upon us which sounds a bit like magic to me.

Re: The Problem of Evil (2015)

#73

Post by pmoriarty » Sun, Jul 11, 2021, 8:01 PM UTC

heythereguy wrote: post #71

pmoriarty wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Because every physical thing has a start." Does it? Everything we know about the world is either due to observations or inferences from our observations. We have not observed what was at the start of the Big Bang, nor prior to it, so for all we know whatever that was was qualitatively different than what came after, and really did have no beginning. "Some time-bending supreme being that creates time and existence it…

Eh fair enough, I'm not satisfied with either side. Too bad either of us will ever know. Do you have any good reading on the idea your postulating? "A being that creates time has its own additional problems besides.. such as how could there be anything before time? What does that even mean?" I can't answer. I have to go back to there being some all powerful god that had the power to create everything, so he has the p…

"Do you have any good reading on the idea your postulating?"

I'm not really postulating an idea.. just expressing my own skepticism.

But, for more discussions about this sort of thing I can recommend taking some philosophy courses on ontology, metaphysics, the philosophy of science, and the intersection of philosophy and theology.

Re: The Problem of Evil (2015)

#74

Post by pmoriarty » Sun, Jul 11, 2021, 8:05 PM UTC

smeej wrote: post #68

pmoriarty wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Claiming that a question is nonsensical doesn't make it so. Such questions are meaningful to the people that ask them. Someone who asks "can God make a square circle?" is unlikely to consider it to be equivalent to asking "gjqrio jtioajfs dklfjl?" (ie. a sentence made of words which really are meaningless) You can claim that these questions are meaningless, but then you have to prove why.. and there's been no such pr…

Setting aside that I've never once actually heard those questions asked in good faith, if someone were to ask them in good faith, pointing out that they themselves have created an unanswerable question by placing words together that don't make sense is easy. What makes a lie a lie? Its untrueness. So if you replace the untrueness with trueness, do you still have a lie? No. Your own usage of those words is incompatibl…

"The law of noncontradiction does not restrict God. It comes from God. It is a characteristic of God."

Does it come from God and is it a characteristic of God?

I'd be curious to hear how you know this.

I would agree, however, that an omnipotent god (if one existed) would not be restricted by anything, including any human conceptions such as logic.

Re: The Problem of Evil (2015)

#75

Post by pmoriarty » Sun, Jul 11, 2021, 8:09 PM UTC

alex_young wrote: post #72

pmoriarty wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If you can get to the understanding that all of the outcomes in human thought and behavior are based on inputs of some level, be they genetic, or nurture, or through interaction with others or impacts from the natural environment, then it seem truly odd to believe in a concept like evil." Again, this doesn't explain at all why there is suffering caused by natural forces like hurricanes, earthquakes, and diseases.. a…

I think I understand the argument well, but I don’t see that there is much room for an ‘evil’ upon we could all agree given the observational reality we find ourselves in. Leaving aside the religious matter of a higher power, I think it’s safe to say that evil in the general context means something more than merely undesirable; perhaps intrinsically wrong from all possible rational observers or something like that. F…

While the technical term in philosophy is "The Problem of Evil", it's really more about suffering and imperfection than it is about the loaded term "evil" as such.

It can be reduced to the general question "if god is perfect, why is the world imperfect?"

Or, to narrow the question a bit while still avoiding the use of the word "evil", we can ask "if god is omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent, why does suffering exist?"

We can agree that hurricanes, earthquakes, other natural disasters and diseases cause suffering, without getting in to the question of whether they're "evil" per se.

Such non-human causes of suffering don't seem to be necessary in a world created by an all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly benevolent god.. yet they still exist. Why?

Couldn't such a perfect god have created a world without all this suffering?

Re: The Problem of Evil (2015)

#76

Post by Zababa » Sun, Jul 11, 2021, 9:11 PM UTC

pmoriarty wrote: post #22

Zababa wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know much about theology but couldn't this be justified as punishment for the original sin, at least in the Christian/Catholic worldview? From what I understand, the real perfect world is in paradise, after you die. But during your life you have to """prove your worth""" in a world where evil exists. Maybe the problem is on the "benevolent" part.

"couldn't this be justified as punishment for the original sin, at least in the Christian/Catholic worldview?" Then why did god create humans such that they could sin (and would sin, as an omniscient god knew full well they would) and then punish them for it? It seems sadistic and perverse, and yes, it leads one to question whether god is really benevolent after all (which, if he/she/it is not would likewise shatter…

You're right, thanks for the explanation.

Re: The Problem of Evil (2015)

#77

Post by tablespoon » Sun, Jul 11, 2021, 9:32 PM UTC

pmoriarty wrote: post #60

tablespoon wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I agree; what I am trying to say; is there is no excuse for God. People have spent centuries making excuses most of them much smarter people than me. In a 21st century context it seems apparent that Gods possible excuses for creating a universe that mandates suffering are running out. I mean, an obvious "excuse" is that he's not optimizing for the one single quality you chose (absolutely minimized suffering).

"he's not optimizing for the one single quality you chose (absolutely minimized suffering)" God doesn't have to choose any quality over any other. An omnipotent god could make a universe perfect in every way... but the universe is not perfect in every way. Why not?

> An omnipotent god could make a universe perfect in every way... but the universe is not perfect in every way. Why not?

The obvious issue with a statement like that is that a god would have a very different perspective than yours, and it assumes that you could actually define perfect or know it when you see it.

Re: The Problem of Evil (2015)

#78

Post by NotSwift » Sun, Jul 11, 2021, 9:38 PM UTC

Something that I find extremely disturbing about this entire discussion is the implicit assumption that there is only one god. Some religions assume that there are many gods, e.g. Hinduism and most African religions. Other religions do not really assume the existence of gods, e.g. Buddhism or Taoism. Of course all atheists believe that there are no gods at all.

Re: The Problem of Evil (2015)

#79

Post by exo-pla-net » Sun, Jul 11, 2021, 10:10 PM UTC

NotSwift wrote: post #78

Something that I find extremely disturbing about this entire discussion is the implicit assumption that there is only one god. Some religions assume that there are many gods, e.g. Hinduism and most African religions. Other religions do not really assume the existence of gods, e.g. Buddhism or Taoism. Of course all atheists believe that there are no gods at all.

You find it "extremely disturbing"?

The Problem of Evil is an argument explicitly against a loving, omniscient, omnipotent god. The god that appears in various monotheistic religions. We're not discussing religion at large.

Re: The Problem of Evil (2015)

#80

Post by archduck » Sun, Jul 11, 2021, 10:32 PM UTC

NotSwift wrote: post #78

Something that I find extremely disturbing about this entire discussion is the implicit assumption that there is only one god. Some religions assume that there are many gods, e.g. Hinduism and most African religions. Other religions do not really assume the existence of gods, e.g. Buddhism or Taoism. Of course all atheists believe that there are no gods at all.

The problem of evil arises when all three of the following are true: 1) the deity is omniscient; 2) the deity is omnipotent; 3) the deity is omnibenevolent. If God knows all, can do all, and is all good, why does evil exist?

If any of those conditions is not true, the existence of evil is a lot easier to explain: - omniscient and omnipotent, but not 100% morally good - omniscient and omnibenevolent, but has limited power to change the bad things - omipotent and omnibenevolent, but isn't aware that evil exists

It's only when someone's making the claim that all three are true at the same time that it starts to get interesting, because some of the arguments get really hokey.

So to address your observation that there's an implicit assumption that one god exists, I would wager a guess that it's because polytheistic religions don't wade into the waters of theodicy much (if at all), as they don't deal in "omni-'s" to the same extent as monotheistic religions tend to.