Comments on: The Problem of Evil

By: Stuart Mitchell

Stuart Mitchell — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 18:56:52 +0000

You two seem to be arguing about the size, color, and shape of fairy wings.
- “All thinking men are atheists”
Ernest Hemingway
- “If people are good only to avoid punishment and seek reward, we are a sorry lot indeed”
Albert Einstein
- “Reason must be destroyed in all Christians”
Martin Luther

By: abadmin

abadmin — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 16:15:57 +0000

Your response was about what I expected. Yes, there were some ad hominems in my statement (which I knew you would catch), but there was also substance.

The one thing that surprised me in your response was your apparent explanation for evil: “shit happens.” Yes is does, and the atheist worldview explains it. But I have yet to see it reconciled with the existence of an all-powerful and all-loving god.

So, let’s put the shoe on the other foot. What’s your best excuse for why the all-loving, all-powerful god you believe in has created the conditions for, and expressions of, natural evil that we observe?

By: Dandi144

Dandi144 — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 02:11:07 +0000

What I expected. You, as so many of your compatriots who purport an adherence to logic , have no concept of the term. Any logical argument has three and only three structural pieces that MUST be established: the clarity of the terms, the truth of the premises, and the validity of the arguments. By obfuscating the terminology and truncating the premises, your arguments become nothing but a straw man attack. You engage in pure sophistry and not much more. Sorry if this is too complicated for you; sorry if it takes too much effort; sorry if you feel it’s not worth the effort.

What is ironic is that the same arguments that you put forth have also been introduced by – and answered by – the likes of Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, C.S. Lewis and a multitude of other theistic adherents. None of whom, by the way, hesitated to expend as much time and effort as possible to guarantee that their understanding of the problem, its terms and its conditions, was solid.

Since you prefer to argue ad hominem – a revered propagandist technique – rather than attempt to lay a logical framework, allow me to offer a response to your purely emotional appeal on the same level: Natural evil IS a problem. You don’t eliminate the problem by eliminating the possibility – in your mind – of God. Perhaps you will be volunteering at a Children’s Hospital or helping to clean up after a natural disaster. And you will realize that the only response you can make to mitigate the suffering of those in your care is: “Shit happens.”

Enjoy yourself when you try to peddle your “solution” in the trenches.

By: abadmin

abadmin — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 17:50:42 +0000

My entire article is about natural evil. It is obvious you cannot reconcile it with a god that is both all-loving and all-powerful. So, you go off into these meaningless diversions.

I have witnessed this tactic before. Highly educated people who should know better than to believe in gods but who, for emotional reasons, still feel a need to cling to one. So they go off into these wandering side trails as a diversion. It is a diversion not only for the person they are debating but also for themselves, so they don’t have to deal with the primary question at hand.

It’s basically the strategy of challenging practically every word, phrase, or concept by pretending they are inadequate. It occurs to me that I will never be able to answer your diversionary tactics to your satisfaction. Your defensive labyrinth is a refuge, but it’s too dense and leaves you wandering in circles.

Some day, perhaps, the Problem of Natural Evil will hit you in a way you cannot evade it. Perhaps you will be volunteering at a Children’s Hospital or helping to clean up after a natural disaster. And you will realize that the reason you’re doing “the Lord’s work” is because “the Lord” isn’t doing it himself. Then you might be brave enough to ask yourself the question “If he’s all-powerful and all-loving, why did this happen in the first place?”

Until that day, you can fool yourself into believing that your diversionary tactics address the problem. But I suspect you are too smart to fool yourself much longer.

By: Dandi144

Dandi144 — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 04:32:12 +0000

Evil is not a proactive agency and therefore cannot cause harm or suffering, regardless of any extenuating circumstances. To believe otherwise, we’d call ourselves Zoroastrians, not Christians.
You’re defining “All-loving” by using the word “love”, which is circular. Also, it’s a bit too anthropomorphic; I’d suggest “all-good” as an alternative. It’s more inclusive and I don’t think your arguments suffer from its use.
“All-powerful” is a bit too expansive. As you state, it is not a denial of divine perfection that he cannot create a meaningless contradiction, like a three-sided square. But, additionally, God’s omnipotence is, in a sense, limited by His own nature: He cannot sin, for example. Nor would omnipotence encompass the mutation or abrogation of one of His own decrees or actions.

And, no; I have not addressed the question of natural evil. I have issue with both your definitions and as I stated on the 26th, with your original premise set.

By: abadmin

abadmin — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 15:41:50 +0000

Who is this comment addressed to and could you explain it a bit more? Thanks.

By: ROn08

ROn08 — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 14:29:47 +0000

If you’ve just been a philo major. then everything wud’ve been clear

By: abadmin

abadmin — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 03:04:40 +0000

Evil: That which causes foreseeable harm or suffering with no redeeming excuse.
All-loving: Feeling and expressing the greatest amount of love possible towards all of creation.
All-powerful: Capable of doing anything it is logically possible to do.

You have not addressed the issue of natural evil.

By: dandi1144

dandi1144 — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 02:41:17 +0000

Again, one hinge point is the definition of omnipotent. I’ve already commented – twice – on the fact that August’s arguments are contingent on a proper definition fof terms, including “evil”, and “all-loving”, in addition to “omnipotent” (i.e., “all-powerful”). I am far from evading the issue – what I am specifically trying to do is to DEFINE the issue so that we are not having a discussion at cross-purposes.

Please address THAT issue. Or, if you feel strongly that having a common set of definitions is evasive, please explain exactly why that is so.

By: Ric

Ric — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 10:53:36 +0000

You’re evading. AB is quite clearly not referring to evil acts of human agency, such as when a person draws a gun and kills another person with it. He’s referring to natural disasters such as volcanic eruptions, droughts, earthquakes, hurricanes and the suffering they cause for human beings. Now, I don’t think you or anyone else here is going to seriously argue that these occurrences are caused mainly by humans. For example, in the case of hurricanes, it may be said that human actions have increased the frequency and strength of hurricanes (if you believe in the anthropomorphic global warming theory) but even then humans are not solely responsible.

In the Christian understanding of God, He created all of nature and the physical laws it runs by. Natural disasters occur. They kill people. By definition, natural disasters are part of nature, which God created. So why would He create something that kills people?

Please address that issue.