The existence of evil

[Gray]

On 10/31/2017 at 1:53 PM, pogi said:

I am taking into account the full spectrum of human suffering.  I never used the word "ordinary".  At no point on the spectrum does suffering become immoral/evil.

I have a very simple counter example. Your child is starving - dying of hunger in fact, and suffering every day. You have the power to feed her, and yet you don't, allowing her suffering to stretch on an on. You don't see anything evil there? 

[Gray]

On 10/31/2017 at 2:54 PM, bluebell said:

It sounds like the problem of evil is that the premise of the issue supposes that an all powerful, knowing, and good God must intervene to stop evil.  Am I understanding that right?

Yes, I think that's right. If God was all powerful but NOT all good, then the problem of evil wouldn't be a problem. 

I think even the "all" part of the equation isn't strictly necessary. If God is sufficiently good, sufficiently knowing, and sufficiently good, that's hard to square with the state of the world today. 

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

Sorry, by stop the evil, I mean prevent it from happen.

Apparently facing and interacting with and responding to evil is necessary for progression.  

And that progression can culminate in exaltation.  In becoming "joint-heirs with Christ."

And we all of us chose to come to earth, knowing that we would be facing and interacting with and responding to evil.

So you are faulting God for creating a plan that allows us to progress and grow, and for letting us choose to participate in that plan, because that plan involves temporary and transient pain?

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

I don't mean just comforting the victims eventually and punishing the wicked eventually.  In the LDS paradigm, God doesn't necessarily have total freedom to do anything He likes, but he does have the ability to intercede dramatically in people's lives to stop evil.

So the "problem of evil" now means . . . allowing it to exist at all?  Or is it that God does not intervene in the ways and at the times you personally prefer?

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

The question becomes, why doesn't he except for very selective instances in sacred stories? 

I think this is where our blinkered and finite perspective once again becomes very relevant.

The premise of your question (that God "doesn't {intercede} except for very selective instances") is not self-evidence.  At all.

I think we do not comprehend all the ways in which God intercedes in our lives.  Regularly.  In ways big and small.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Robert F. Smith]

9 minutes ago, Gray said:

This is where my eyes get crossed, as infinity isn't a real number, more of a counter intuitive abstract concept. But in the endless regression of chicken/egg. the egg (universe/existence) always precedes the chicken (God). 

No way, Jose.  In an infinite regress one can never posit which is first.  Why?  Because there can logically be no first in infinite regress.

9 minutes ago, Gray said:

There are some interesting things you can say about this idea and time as it relates to "infinity". Time, for instance, starts at the Big Bang. It makes no sense to say something happened before the big bang - before implies passage of time. So let's say at the Big Bang all the intelligences are hatched. These intelligences "always existed" because they've existed as long as time/being has existed. Some of them go on to become Gods. Is this a good enough analog for "infinity"? Where does the multiverse hypothesis come into it? Their time would not be our time. ......................

Lisa Zyga, “ No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning,” Phys.org, Feb 9, 2015, online at http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html .

Tia Ghose, “Big Bang, Deflated? Universe May Have Had No Beginning,” LiveScience.com, February 28, 2015, online at http://news.yahoo.com/big-bang-deflated-universe-may-had-no-beginning-140017504.html .  "In the new formulation, there is no singularity, and the universe is infinitely old."

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, Gray said:

Yes, I think that's right. If God was all powerful but NOT all good, then the problem of evil wouldn't be a problem. 

I think even the "all" part of the equation isn't strictly necessary. If God is sufficiently good, sufficiently knowing, and sufficiently good, that's hard to square with the state of the world today. 

How do we know that that premise is true?  

For example, from a toddler's perspective and with their limited knowledge, don't vaccinations appear evil?  And wouldn't a toddler, if they could express such a thing, expect that no good parent would ever knowingly subject a them to such pain?

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

How do we know that that premise is true?  

For example, from a toddler's perspective and with their limited knowledge, don't vaccinations appear evil?  And wouldn't a toddler, if they could express such a thing, expect that no good parent would ever knowingly subject a them to such pain?

I"d be confused by such an example...is being raped like a vaccination?  I think the concept of senseless evil rears it's ugly head.  Some seem to indicate, though, that something like rape is a vaccination for the victim, it seems.  We need evil to grow stronger.  The sad part is, sometimes, it appears the vaccination (rape) doesn't help.  It seems to hurt.  It may be that some scars carry over into eternity.  I guess we'd never know.  Maybe they don't.  But if evil is needed for us to become stronger, then will we ever achieve exaltation if evil carries an eternal effect upon us?  Isn't it someday God will just make all things right, by magic (as far as we can determine) and that salvation is not by what we do, but by the grace of God? 

I'm sure someday we'll have to look back and chuckle at our old selves as we fall all over ourselves pretending to know that which we don't. 

[pogi]

42 minutes ago, Gray said:

I have a very simple counter example. Your child is starving - dying of hunger in fact, and suffering every day. You have the power to feed her, and yet you don't, allowing her suffering to stretch on an on. You don't see anything evil there? 

No, starving and suffering is not a moral wrong in and of itself.  

Your argument is different from what I am suggesting.  Your argument is not that suffering is immoral, but that allowing suffering when one has the ability to alleviate the suffering is immoral.  That changes the argument completely.  You are not supplying me evidence that suffering is immoral in and of itself, what you are saying is that God is immoral.  And I would agree if God himself did not come down among men and suffer as we suffer through life; being tempted, persecuted, hated, forsaken of friends, beaten, and tortured on a cross after willingly taking upon himself and experiencing the suffering of us all.  "Knowest thou the condescension of God?" 

I would agree if God himself has not suffered for us that we might be healed, strengthened, and compensated through his grace, as he said: "my grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is make perfect in weakness. (2 Corinthians 12)."  I don't necessarily know, why, how, or what that means, but I believe that it is a lesson on suffering and its purpose, to which Paul responded: "Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong."

Is God evil,? No!  Is suffering evil?  No!  I might question God more had he not suffered with me through my own suffering. That is taken on faith, of course. It seems then that the only solution to the problem of evil is to...believe.  Sound familiar?

Edited November 2, 2017 by pogi

[bluebell]

44 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I"d be confused by such an example...is being raped like a vaccination?  I think the concept of senseless evil rears it's ugly head.  Some seem to indicate, though, that something like rape is a vaccination for the victim, it seems.  We need evil to grow stronger.  The sad part is, sometimes, it appears the vaccination (rape) doesn't help.  It seems to hurt.  It may be that some scars carry over into eternity.  I guess we'd never know.  Maybe they don't.  But if evil is needed for us to become stronger, then will we ever achieve exaltation if evil carries an eternal effect upon us?  Isn't it someday God will just make all things right, by magic (as far as we can determine) and that salvation is not by what we do, but by the grace of God? 

I'm sure someday we'll have to look back and chuckle at our old selves as we fall all over ourselves pretending to know that which we don't. 

My point was not that rape and vaccines are the same.  My point was that our perspective, compared to God's, is like that of a toddler compared to an adult.  It would be weird not to consider that when we try to answer the 'problem of evil'.

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

My point was not that rape and vaccines are the same.  My point was that our perspective, compared to God's, is like that of a toddler compared to an adult.  It would be weird not to consider that when we try to answer the 'problem of evil'.

I see.  I'm just pointing out the vaccines have a purpose.  So the pain from vaccines may in the end be good.  But, we can't be sure that something like rape has such a purpose.  "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger" is a cute saying, but I don't know that it's true.  I don't know that anyone does. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I have a very simple counter example. Your child is starving - dying of hunger in fact, and suffering every day. You have the power to feed her, and yet you don't, allowing her suffering to stretch on an on. You don't see anything evil there? 

I see malice there.  I see no conceivable motive except malice.

I do not attribute malice to God.

What you are describing is a matter of life and death.  By analogy, you would need to impute onto God a plan to deliberately and maliciously deprive His child of existence or salvation.  That is the analog, and it doesn't work.

The better analogy would be this: "Your child is hungry at 10:00 at night, and asks for a candy bar.  You offer her a slice of toast instead.  You have the power to giver her a candy bar, and yet you don't give it to her, allowing her to to choose between a slice of toast or being a little hungry until the morning."  Do I see "evil" there?  Nope.  I see a parent who knows what is good for the child, and what the child can and cannot handle, and should and should not have.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 2, 2017 by smac97

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I see.  I'm just pointing out the vaccines have a purpose.  So the pain from vaccines may in the end be good.  But, we can't be sure that something like rape has such a purpose.  "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger" is a cute saying, but I don't know that it's true.  I don't know that anyone does. 

From the perspective of the toddler though, vaccines have no purpose.  Just because the toddler cannot comprehend a purpose though, does not mean that the purpose doesn't exist.   Does it make sense to attempt to answer 'the problem of evil' without acknowledging that there is a lot that we simply cannot comprehend at this time?   

Besides that, i'm not sure how "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger" is a pretty or endearing saying.  Can you explain what you mean by that?

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

From the perspective of the toddler though, vaccines have no purpose.  Just because the toddler cannot comprehend a purpose though, does not mean that the purpose doesn't exist.   Does it make sense to attempt to answer 'the problem of evil' without acknowledging that there is a lot that we simply cannot comprehend at this time? 

I think it certainly makes sense to attempt.  I don't know that it means we have a good perspective to really know. 

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

 

Besides that, i'm not sure how "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger" is a pretty or endearing saying.  Can you explain what you mean by that?

I'd say if the analogy of a toddler getting a vaccine works, then it must be that we simply can't see the good in some evil that occurs; but there is purpose to it.  The saying sounds good, but we simply don't know if it's true.  We can say after the fact, "I can see how my mom dying has helped me" But we don't know if the mom did not die whether the person would have been helped more or not, because we can't rewind and redo.  The saying may help us move forward but it also might be meaningless in a sense. 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'd say if the analogy of a toddler getting a vaccine works, then it must be that we simply can't see the good in some evil that occurs; but there is purpose to it.  The saying sounds good, but we simply don't know if it's true.  We can say after the fact, "I can see how my mom dying has helped me" But we don't know if the mom did not die whether the person would have been helped more or not, because we can't rewind and redo.  The saying may help us move forward but it also might be meaningless in a sense. 

That's true, it might be meaningless (and I think it's never a good idea to say it to anyone else), but if it helps someone, that then, by itself, would seem to give it meaning.

[clarkgoble]

43 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I see.  I'm just pointing out the vaccines have a purpose.  So the pain from vaccines may in the end be good.  But, we can't be sure that something like rape has such a purpose.  "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger" is a cute saying, but I don't know that it's true.  I don't know that anyone does. 

This seems correct. (I'd give you a like but it didn't show up for some reason)

As I said I think Mormonism gestures towards a solution with a view that our sufferings allow our spirit to progress in some way. Where it falls down is in having anything like an answer for why our bodies seem the way they are. (The afore mentioned mental illness - especially those that clearly affect others or cognitive functions that take a traumatic event and cause it have significant repercussions for the rest of ones life like PTSD) We might point to evolution and God viewing freedom extremely expansively as a solution. (i.e. rather than taking the close control over developing a human body allows evolution to take it's course)  But again while that solves one layer of problem it creates an other. (Why allow evolution rather than simply adopting the traditional religious view of creating exactly the type of body we have with full control)

Effectively the issue is why this level of suffering. Again for just one example, if God eliminated serial killers who enjoy slowly torturing victims due to mental illness, wouldn't people still have sufficient experience to grow personally? After all most people aren't victimized by psychopathic serial killers. Saying that God has a purpose for that person by being raped and tortured - especially as a child - seems hard to believe.

That's why while we may have faith that there is an answer, the pat answer of "it's for God's purpose" always seems dissatisfying. (I should note that the Book of Job effectively takes the solution others here have that we can't question God and he knows what he's doing -- but a lot of people aren't satisfied with Job)

Edited November 2, 2017 by clarkgoble

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

But that presupposes there is purpose. i.e. assuming the conclusion.

If there is no purpose then there is no problem of evil.  The presumption of the problem is that God is good and his purpose is to actually DO good things to help his children. 

[mfbukowski]

40 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

This seems correct. (I'd give you a like but it didn't show up for some reason)

As I said I think Mormonism gestures towards a solution with a view that our sufferings allow our spirit to progress in some way. Where it falls down is in having anything like an answer for why our bodies seem the way they are. (The afore mentioned mental illness - especially those that clearly affect others or cognitive functions that take a traumatic event and cause it have significant repercussions for the rest of ones life like PTSD) We might point to evolution and God viewing freedom extremely expansively as a solution. (i.e. rather than taking the close control over developing a human body allows evolution to take it's course)  But again while that solves one layer of problem it creates an other. (Why allow evolution rather than simply adopting the traditional religious view of creating exactly the type of body we have with full control)

Effectively the issue is why this level of suffering. Again for just one example, if God eliminated serial killers who enjoy slowly torturing victims due to mental illness, wouldn't people still have sufficient experience to grow personally? After all most people aren't victimized by psychopathic serial killers. Saying that God has a purpose for that person by being raped and tortured - especially as a child - seems hard to believe.

That's why while we may have faith that there is an answer, the pat answer of "it's for God's purpose" always seems dissatisfying. (I should note that the Book of Job effectively takes the solution others here have that we can't question God and he knows what he's doing -- but a lot of people aren't satisfied with Job)

It doesn't "seem dissatisfying" to me.  Crazy people exist and no one is responsible for that, not even God.  And we can postulate that God's purpose- since we admit he has one by being Mormon- somehow accommodates that through allowing us freedom to sin, a greater good to come forth etc  That is the whole point of postulating a "fortunate fall" therefore for me, the "problem of evil" doesn't exist.

I happen to think the postulated "good fall" is a major and positive portion of Moron theory.  It makes the whole theory tick- without it we are Sectarian Christians.

I mean if prophecies are correct in the real world, at some point iin the future it might be said that "God wiped out humanity".   Was that a good thing- or a thing he could have prevented?  Will it be decried as being a horrible thing God allowed to happen?

If one believes scripture literally, it is part of the plan to wipe out humanity.

"Dissatisfying"?  Yes to some.

Feelings always lay at the bottom of all these discussions about morals and beyond that point there is nothing to debate.  If murder doesn't bother you you are called a "sociopath". All morality is based on feelings.  Different things bother different people and I think we need to just accept that as part of life.

People have different testimonies of different "truths" and that is just the way it is.  There's nothing debatable about it.

It either works for you or not.

Edited November 2, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Brother Bear]

On 10/31/2017 at 12:12 PM, Gray said:

A big part of Jesus' message is that God will eventually dry the tears of the just. That doesn't make it so that those tears never happened, however, so I don't think that can answer the problem. 

Never mind, I need to research a bit more

Edited November 2, 2017 by Brother Bear

[pogi]

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

There's a big divide between forcing obedience though and simply making the world somewhat better.

Then people will complain that "somewhat" better is not good enough.  They will complain, "Why does God care about your suffering but not my suffering?"  "If God was absolutely good, why does he resolve your suffering but not mine?"  The only solution that all people will accept is absolute eradication of all suffering.  There is only one way to do that though - remove agency. 

But to say that God has done nothing to improve our condition and suffering is nonsense.  The fact is that our condition is somewhat exceedingly and immeasurably better than what would have been without God's intervention and atonement.  God has made our condition better through the atonement of Christ.  What we deserve, as sinful beings, is eternal damnation and death according to eternal law.  So yes, I would argue that God has made the world "somewhat" better.  Not only has he taken upon himself our sins, but also our physical/psychological suffering. Now why would he do that if there was no purpose to it?  Why not just magically eradicate all suffering instead of willingly experiencing it all himself if there was no purpose to it?  Why would he do that if he was not good?  So yes, the Mormon version of God does show that there must be purpose to it and that he is good.

 

Edited November 2, 2017 by pogi

[stemelbow]

51 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

It doesn't "seem dissatisfying" to me.  Crazy people exist and no one is responsible for that, not even God.  And we can postulate that God's purpose- since we admit he has one by being Mormon- somehow accommodates that through allowing us freedom to sin, a greater good to come forth etc  That is the whole point of postulating a "fortunate fall" therefore for me, the "problem of evil" doesn't exist.

I happen to think the postulated "good fall" is a major and positive portion of Moron theory.  It makes the whole theory tick- without it we are Sectarian Christians.

I mean if prophecies are correct in the real world, at some point iin the future it might be said that "God wiped out humanity".   Was that a good thing- or a thing he could have prevented?  Will it be decried as being a horrible thing God allowed to happen?

If one believes scripture literally, it is part of the plan to wipe out humanity.

"Dissatisfying"?  Yes to some.

Feelings always lay at the bottom of all these discussions about morals and beyond that point there is nothing to debate.  If murder doesn't bother you you are called a "sociopath". All morality is based on feelings.  Different things bother different people and I think we need to just accept that as part of life.

People have different testimonies of different "truths" and that is just the way it is.  There's nothing debatable about it.

It either works for you or not.

I normally enjoy your posts, then you put out something like this? 

Cant' hit homeruns all the time. 

 

Edited November 2, 2017 by stemelbow

[mfbukowski]

21 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I normally enjoy your posts, then you put out something like this? 

Cant' hit homeruns all the time. 

 

Can't be politically correct all the time either.

Yeah rotten things happen in life and it is not up to us to fix them for everyone anymore than it is God's job to take them all away.   Honestly I see the two concepts hopelessly entwined.

Life is unfair.  We have to get used to that.  It will get worse, too.   

 

[mfbukowski]

31 minutes ago, pogi said:

Then people will complain that "somewhat" better is not good enough.  They will complain, "Why does God care about your suffering but not my suffering?"  "If God was absolutely good, why does he resolve your suffering but not mine?"  The only solution that all people will accept is absolute eradication of all suffering.  There is only one way to do that though - remove agency. 

But to say that God has done nothing to improve our condition and suffering is nonsense.  The fact is that our condition is somewhat exceedingly and immeasurably better than what would have been without God's intervention and atonement.  God has made our condition better through the atonement of Christ.  What we deserve, as sinful beings, is eternal damnation and death according to eternal law.  So yes, I would argue that God has made the world "somewhat" better.  Not only has he taken upon himself our sins, but also our physical/psychological suffering. Now why would he do that if there was no purpose to it?  Why not just magically eradicate all suffering instead of willingly experiencing it all himself if there was no purpose to it?  Why would he do that if he was not good?  So yes, the Mormon version of God does show that there must be purpose to it and that he is good.

 

That is the bottom line all right!

We are always looking to this world to be heaven.   It ain't because we are still here.   

If this world was perfect there wouild be no reason to look forward to the next one.    "Hope for things unseen"

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It doesn't "seem dissatisfying" to me.  Crazy people exist and no one is responsible for that, not even God.

Why do you think human brain biology isn't something God could change? If he could, then isn't he intrinsically responsible? He might have a good reason but that doesn't make him somehow not responsible.

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I happen to think the postulated "good fall" is a major and positive portion of Moron theory.  It makes the whole theory tick- without it we are Sectarian Christians.

Hopefully I've been clear I accept the idea of a good fall. However the question in a Mormon context is why there is this level of evil. i.e. it seems difficult to accept there's a functional utility for some evils. We might take on faith that there is, yet the question seems a good one.

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Can't be politically correct all the time either.

Yeah rotten things happen in life and it is not up to us to fix them for everyone anymore than it is God's job to take them all away.   Honestly I see the two concepts hopelessly entwined.

Life is unfair.  We have to get used to that.  It will get worse, too. 

This seems wrong somehow. I think we can recognize there are two different kinds of responsibility. If I intentionally hurt someone I'm responsible in a sense of commission in a way that that I'm not if I simply don't help someone. Yet we're commanded to help people. While our finite nature means we can't help everyone, we recognize we should be doing what's within our power. Indeed, as I read the scriptures, a common condemnation is that we're not doing enough when we could. The problem is that God's power is far greater than ours. Thus if this command applies to us, and such things are teaching us to have a godlike character, then shouldn't God have such a godlike character?

The reason we don't expect God to take such things away is because there's a purpose for them. But if there's a purpose for them then isn't is also our responsibility to also leave them? In other words if it's not God's duty to save a drowning child why is it mine? Now of course there are responses we can make for this, but I think we have to take the challenge seriously.

[changed]

11 hours ago, Gray said:

I have a very simple counter example. Your child is starving - dying of hunger in fact, and suffering every day. You have the power to feed her, and yet you don't, allowing her suffering to stretch on an on. You don't see anything evil there? 

and for everyone who wants to become god ↑↑ that is what your heaven will be, sitting around watching your children suffer on the world you created, after which you can condemn them to outer darkness because they did not pass your test.

[changed]

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

Apparently facing and interacting with and responding to evil is necessary for progression.  

And that progression can culminate in exaltation.  In becoming "joint-heirs with Christ."

And we all of us chose to come to earth, knowing that we would be facing and interacting with and responding to evil.

So you are faulting God for creating a plan that allows us to progress and grow, and for letting us choose to participate in that plan, because that plan involves temporary and transient pain?

So the "problem of evil" now means . . . allowing it to exist at all?  Or is it that God does not intervene in the ways and at the times you personally prefer?

I think this is where our blinkered and finite perspective once again becomes very relevant.

The premise of your question (that God "doesn't {intercede} except for very selective instances") is not self-evidence.  At all.

I think we do not comprehend all the ways in which God intercedes in our lives.  Regularly.  In ways big and small.

Thanks,

-Smac

It is not temporary pain, everyone does not progress, and it must not be necessary for progression as many spirits (children who die young, Jesus, etc.) never have to sin to progress.

I would be ok with it if:

- Everyone was saved at the end

- no one was tested beyond their ability to endure

- everyone was given similar tests

- everyone was given adequate education prior to their tests

I am a teacher.  I do not administer unfair tests, I give reviews before tests, I teach the material before the test.  If one of my students fails the test, I take part of the responsibility for it - I will tutor them, and help them until they succeed, because that is my job.  There are humane, and inhumane ways to teach concepts.  Most concepts can be learned without pain.

Edited November 3, 2017 by changed

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, changed said:

It is not temporary pain, everyone does not progress, and it must not be necessary for progression as many spirits (children who die young, Jesus, etc.) never have to sin to progress.

I would be ok with it if:

- Everyone was saved at the end

- no one was tested beyond their ability to endure

- everyone was given similar tests

- everyone was given adequate education prior to their tests

I am a teacher.  I do not administer unfair tests, I give reviews before tests, I teach the material before the test.  If one of my students fails the test, I take part of the responsibility for it - I will tutor them, and help them until they succeed, because that is my job.  There are humane, and inhumane ways to teach concepts.  Most concepts can be learned without pain.

How does one learn to handle pain?

Got a book for that? 

But I suppose a painful life is not a first world problem, and most cannot even imagine it.  We are very fortunate.

Edited November 3, 2017 by mfbukowski