# God and the Problem Of Evil. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 31, 2012, 8:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-the-problem-of-evil/639411 "2012-10-31T08:57:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2012, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-the-problem-of-evil/639411/121 "2012-11-03T04:26:12Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Tell that to people who suffer from incurable illnesses. We’ve learned to cure so much; sure we’ve got much more to learn, but we’re getting there. > [@vivalostwages](#): > > Or people who were harmed or who lost houses or family members due to natural disasters. Surely, if you put yourself at risk, then you have to accept that risk? If you live on a volcano, then you accept the risk that it might erupt. If you live in an area susceptible to hurricanes, then you build your houses to resist them. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2012, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-the-problem-of-evil/639411/122 "2012-11-03T04:47:05Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > We’ve learned to cure so much; sure we’ve got much more to learn, but we’re getting there. And a god - even a pretty pathetic god - could have fixed it all thousands of years ago. > [@Quartz](#): > > Surely, if you put yourself at risk, then you have to accept that risk? Plenty of people die in natural disasters without putting them at risk. And a _supposedly_ inferior human who stood by and did nothing while someone died in a disaster would be considered scum. It’s interesting how much lower a moral standard people are willing to apply to a supposedly morally superior god. A god that sits backs in Heaven doing the divine equivalent of drinking some beers while he watches children drown is “morally superior” to us mere mortals. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2012, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-the-problem-of-evil/639411/123 "2012-11-03T05:22:57Z")
> [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > . . . So, again, pain and suffering seem like bad things in no context because they’re unpleasant, but just like the imperfect line or imperfect note, they serve as part of a greater context. That context is learning, growth, experience, existence. If this were true in moderation, I might agree. Skinned knees are nature’s way of teaching kids to be careful. A broken heart makes later romance more profound. But the horrors of this world abound in vast excess of any moderation. The trenches of Ypres; the gas chambers of Auschwitz; starvation in eastern Africa; Pol Pot’s predation. That isn’t “imperfection that makes the beauty greater,” that’s a hellish perversion of life, and cannot be justified in terms of aesthetics. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2012, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-the-problem-of-evil/639411/124 "2012-11-03T06:32:15Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > And a god - even a pretty pathetic god - could have fixed it all thousands of years ago. Maybe that’s our job? > [@](#): > > It’s interesting how much lower a moral standard people are willing to apply to a supposedly morally superior god. A god that sits backs in Heaven doing the divine equivalent of drinking some beers while he watches children drown is “morally superior” to us mere mortals. Indeed. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2012, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-the-problem-of-evil/639411/125 "2012-11-03T06:42:19Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Maybe that’s our job? An omnipotent god doesn’t need to give anyone “jobs”, and a benevolent one wouldn’t let generation upon generation of people suffer. Most of whom could not possibly have solved the problems we are talking about. And then there’s the suffering of animals; are hedgehogs supposed to develop their own cancer cure? Are wolves supposed to figure out how to grow meat in vats so they don’t need to eat deer? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2012, 9:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-the-problem-of-evil/639411/126 "2012-11-03T09:34:27Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > We’ve learned to cure so much; sure we’ve got much more to learn, but we’re getting there. So god is a good spirit for giving us goals to achieve, and any suffering is just part of his plan to make us strive harder? Is that how you justify the agony of those with the misfortune to get sick before man figures out god’s little puzzle? ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2012, 11:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-the-problem-of-evil/639411/127 "2012-11-03T11:12:40Z")
I think the classical response is Leibniz’ “best of all possible worlds”-argument: out of all logically possible worlds, God chose the one with the _least_ evil; doesn’t mean that it has to be zero, or even a particularly small amount. For those who think that’s not enough, there’s Plantinga’s free will defense: basically, the assertion of the problem of evil is that the existence of evil is logically incompatible with the claimed attributes of God. Plantinga refutes this by exhibiting an explicit set of circumstances where, under an additional assumption (the existence and valuability of free will), these are compatible, after all, thus proving that there never was any incompatibility in the first place. Note that in order for this argument to work, there need not actually be free will! Perhaps more explicitly, the problem of evil is the assertion that there is a contradiction between the four propositions: 1. God is omnipotent. 2. God is omniscient. 3. God is omnibenevolent. 4. There is evil in the world. The contradiction is (apparently) straight forward: an omnibenevolent God would want to eradicate all evil, an omniscient God knows whenever there is evil, and an omnipotent God can perform the necessary actions to abolish all evil. Thus, if God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, there is no evil. But there is evil, hence, God is not omni-etc. Plantinga now includes another proposition: roughly that, all else being equal, a world in which there are free beings is more morally valuable than a world in which there aren’t. Thus, if there were free will, then the conclusion above does not follow. But then, the conclusion does not follow at all, regardless of there actually being free will, since there exists a logically consistent set of circumstances in which it is false, and thus, 1, 2, and 3 do not entail not-4. This works just as well for the problem of natural evil, if one imagins there to be superpowerful beings (“demons”) capable of producing natural desasters, who are also more morally valuable if they are free (and thus, free to do evil). The philosophical consensus, as far as I’m aware, is that this is a completely satisfying rejoinder to the problem of evil. Of course, I’m an atheist anyway, so I don’t have any problem of evil in the first place. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2012, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-the-problem-of-evil/639411/128 "2012-11-03T11:53:50Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > I think the classical response is Leibniz’ “best of all possible worlds”-argument: out of all logically possible worlds, God chose the one with the _least_ evil; doesn’t mean that it has to be zero, or even a particularly small amount. That is demonstrably not true for a tri-omni god; if this is the best world an omnipotent could create, then by definition we’d never have been able to improve it in any way. > [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > For those who think that’s not enough, there’s Plantinga’s free will defense: basically, the assertion of the problem of evil is that the existence of evil is logically incompatible with the claimed attributes of God. Plantinga refutes this by exhibiting an explicit set of circumstances where, under an additional assumption (the existence and valuability of free will), these are compatible, after all, thus proving that there never was any incompatibility in the first place. Note that in order for this argument to work, there need not actually be free will! > > Perhaps more explicitly, the problem of evil is the assertion that there is a contradiction between the four propositions: > > 1. God is omnipotent. > 2. God is omniscient. > 3. God is omnibenevolent. > 4. There is evil in the world. > > The contradiction is (apparently) straight forward: an omnibenevolent God would want to eradicate all evil, an omniscient God knows whenever there is evil, and an omnipotent God can perform the necessary actions to abolish all evil. Thus, if God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, there is no evil. But there is evil, hence, God is not omni-etc. > > Plantinga now includes another proposition: roughly that, all else being equal, a world in which there are free beings is more morally valuable than a world in which there aren’t. Thus, if there were free will, then the conclusion above does not follow. But then, the conclusion does not follow at all, regardless of there actually being free will, since there exists a logically consistent set of circumstances in which it is false, and thus, 1, 2, and 3 do not entail not-4. Another false argument. A tri-omni god would simply create a world where everyone freely chooses good. Not to mention that it could create a world where it was less physically possible or outright impossible to suffer or commit evil. And it ignores that all things are not equal, and that the existence of irrational and compulsive behavior means that we are not “free willed”; not that “free will” is even a coherent concept in the first place. And it ignores the suffering of animals. And it ignores the existence of coercion; the instant one being coerces another, this entire idea that never violating “free will” is so important that it’s better to have millions of years of massive suffering rather than intervene even slightly goes out the window. Because if it’s that bad, then it’s just as bad for the world when humans do it; which completely eliminates the supposed point of God sitting back and watching the world burn. It is again another attempt to excuse God behaving in a way than in anyone else would be called amoral or evil. > [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > This works just as well for the problem of natural evil, if one imagins there to be superpowerful beings (“demons”) capable of producing natural desasters, who are also more morally valuable if they are free (and thus, free to do evil). The philosophical consensus, as far as I’m aware, is that this is a completely satisfying rejoinder to the problem of evil. No; it just redefines evil as good. I can call a dog a cat, but it’s still a dog. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2012, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-the-problem-of-evil/639411/129 "2012-11-03T12:25:41Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > That’s a good point. The criteria for “useful” may vary from person to person, so depending on your standards, subjective evidence may be useful to you. > > Falsifiability comes from showing that the deductive process has utility. If the universe were not consistent, attempts at using deduction could fail. Since they don’t fail, we have extremely strong evidence that this universe follows logic. > > I don’t accept a literal interpretation of the Bible, so reading it as a historical record looks silly to me. > > The point of the stories in the Bible vary, and are subject to many interpretations among Christians who are not literalists. And I think off-topic to this thread. > > There’s two things going on here and I’m only discussing one of them. First, there’s checking that a formal system is self-consistent and seeing what one can derive from it. Second, there’s finding evidence that a formal system is applicable to this universe. > > For example, take Euclidean geometry. It’s a formal system that is self-consistent and one can derive many theorems with it. For a long time, it was our best model of the geometry of this universe. But as we took better measurements and performed better experiments, we’ve discovered that our universe does not actually follow Euclidean geometry. Sure, it’s a useful approximation, but ultimately it’s incorrect. > > Not so with logic. We have not found any counterexamples. All the evidence points to a self-consistent universe that follows the rules of logic. > > About “the basic rules of logic are true in all universes”–you do realize that this is a subjective statement for which no one can produce objective evidence for? We cannot produce evidence from any universe but this one. > > Which is why most Christians do not use a literal interpretation of the Bible. The point is the Bible, like any other Book is the work of humans, and their ideas of what God( or a god) should be, or do. It was humans who decided what God was supposed to have said or done, therefore. it is a certain human we choose to believe in Not A or God! Humans have a good imagination and choose what they wish things to be! The Universe is just that, it is in existence just as we are, if there are other universes no one knows, and since we will never get to another should there be one, it would have to be the atoms etc, of which we are all composed! ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2012, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-the-problem-of-evil/639411/130 "2012-11-03T12:29:40Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > No, my contention is that interpreting the Bible as if it is always literally true is wrong-headed. > > I haven’t put much thought to whether these things are literally or metaphorically true, because the answers don’t really affect my faith. > > You’ll find many non-literalists don’t really care if this or that Bible story is literally true. We’re more motivated by what we should being doing now to follow God’s will than determining the exact meaning of some part of the Bible. > > No disagreement from me. > > Among Christians, it’s only a minority that really harps about a literal interpretation, and that’s a reaction to mainstream Christianity (in the US, at least) being unconcerned about literal truth. Most Christians are more concerned about living life as good people, helping their communities, observing the milestones of the year and one’s life, etc. > > It simply doesn’t matter if Jesus really walked on water or not. It’s not an essential part of their faith in God and the answer won’t change how they live their lives. No one knows what is God’s will. Even jesus didn’t, He is quoted as saying;" Father “IF” it is your will let this chalice pass from me", IF means uncertainty. So people hear what is the will of God from other people, who make claim to know it, and people can and are often wrong! ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2012, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-the-problem-of-evil/639411/131 "2012-11-03T12:39:47Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > That is true today. If the Exodus had happened, it is not true of Israel then, who had direct experience of God. > Much of what we know is from other humans, and we have developed ways of critically analyzing that evidence. I’ve never been to Venice, but I’ve read about it and seen pictures of it, so I can believe it exists. But if one account had it on a lagoon, another in the mountains, and another on an island far from sure, I’d begin to have my doubts. Like about the Simpsons’ Springfield. Venice is a thing of earth, not something one cannot observe. I have been there and rode the Gondola’s etc. have pictures of myself in one, and at St Mark’s square. Any one can do the same, but no one can in truth say or prove anything of God except from the word of another human, and they cannot prove it, take anyone there, show it to anyone it is strickly belief, if it helps them to be a better person to believe, then it is a good thing, if they use it( like too many do ) to force others to do as they do then it is wrong. Like a tool, belief can be used for good or harm. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2012, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-the-problem-of-evil/639411/132 "2012-11-03T12:46:41Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > I wouldn’t say anything is “pivotal”. My favorite verses are Matthew chapters 4-7 (the Sermon on Mount), Luke 10:25-37 (the Parable of the Good Samaritan) and John 1:1-18 (Jesus is the Word). The first is the story of Jesus giving a sermon. Does it matter to me if Jesus really said it? No, the message itself is what matters. The latter two stories are so clearly allegorical to me that I’m baffled by anyone interpreting them literally. > > And, yes, I believe those stories, but I do not interpret them literally. > > I can so say that. 😃 Christians are not monolithic. We can disagree about anything, including what “Christian” means. > > You are making unwarranted assumptions about the beliefs of Christians. “Jesus died for our sins” can be interpreted many ways and on multiple levels. There is not one fixed meaning to it, nor does saying one believes it require one to necessarily accept any other belief. > > I think you’ve been confused by some Christians who use that phrase as a code word for their particular belief sets. > > Thus the need for faith. > > And, actually one of my favorite stories (read the Good Samaritan) addresses that issue–it is the Samaritan (someone with heterodox beliefs) that is the exemplar, not the “righteous” people. Most Christians believe Jesus came and died for their sins, but according to the quote from Jesus, he told the woman who needed help for her child,“I came only for the lost sheep of Israel.” That would indicate to me that he had no intentions of saving the whole world! ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2012, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-the-problem-of-evil/639411/133 "2012-11-03T12:53:28Z")
> [@vivalostwages](#): > > The standard response I keep hearing is that we’re all born sinners and evil and guilty because of Adam and Eve (well, mostly Eve), so it’s all our fault. An all knowing Supreme Being would know ahead of time that his created one’s would do as they did, so a poor ignorant human with out any experience being punished, would make it like punishing a baby for soiling it’s diaper, then punishing all it’s decendents! ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2012, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-the-problem-of-evil/639411/134 "2012-11-03T16:20:49Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > An omnipotent god doesn’t need to give anyone “jobs”, and a benevolent one wouldn’t let generation upon generation of people suffer. Most of whom could not possibly have solved the problems we are talking about. Perhaps god is more concerned with the development of the human race than individual humans? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2012, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-the-problem-of-evil/639411/135 "2012-11-03T16:37:01Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Perhaps god is more concerned with the development of the human race than individual humans? Perhaps, but that would be contrary to just about everything Jesus preached in the gospels. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2012, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-the-problem-of-evil/639411/136 "2012-11-03T17:03:46Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > That is demonstrably not true for a tri-omni god; if this is the best world an omnipotent could create, then by definition we’d never have been able to improve it in any way. I mean ‘world’ as in ‘entirety of space and time’. > [@](#): > > Another false argument. A tri-omni god would simply create a world where everyone freely chooses good. Not to mention that it could create a world where it was less physically possible or outright impossible to suffer or commit evil. You missed the point of the argument. It need not be true that we are free, or that there is freedom at all; it only needs to be true that there exists some additional proposition (the moral value of free will, in Plantinga’s example) such that if it held, then 1.-3. do not imply not-4. Because then, it’s simply not the case that a tri-omni God and the existence of evil are contradictory. It’s a purely logical argument, which does not carry any metaphysical, ontological or moral commitments. There’s also always a problem with people asserting what an omnipotent being could do. Most would agree that even omnipotent beings are limited to the laws of logic; but it’s entirely possible that there are just very few, or maybe only one, logically possible world (if for instance there were just one theory of everything, one set of natural laws, one possible initial condition, and from there on, everything evolves deterministically). Again, I’m not saying that’s the case – I don’t believe it is – but if it were so, then again, the existence of a tri-omni God again would be consistent with the presence of evil in this world. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2012, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-the-problem-of-evil/639411/137 "2012-11-03T19:25:47Z")
> [@Jim\_B](#): > > Here is a question I have been struggling with myself literally for years now. **Why would a loving merciful God allow so much suffering in the world?** > > This question is obviously directed at the people on these boards who believe in God. But non-believers are welcome to this discussion too, naturally. > > 🙂 I like the George Burns as God line from the old movie when he was asked why he allowed so much suffering. “Why do YOU allow it?” ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2012, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-the-problem-of-evil/639411/138 "2012-11-03T19:27:43Z")
Maybe we all volunteered to come here, ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2012, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-the-problem-of-evil/639411/139 "2012-11-03T20:24:54Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Perhaps god is more concerned with the development of the human race than individual humans? That violates omnibenevolence. Again; there is no Problem Of Evil in the first place if you throw out one of the “omnis”. > [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > I mean ‘world’ as in ‘entirety of space and time’. And? So did I. > [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > You missed the point of the argument. It need not be true that we are free, or that there is freedom at all; it only needs to be true that there exists some additional proposition (the moral value of free will, in Plantinga’s example) such that if it held, then 1.-3. do not imply not-4. Because then, it’s simply not the case that a tri-omni God and the existence of evil are contradictory. It’s a purely logical argument, which does not carry any metaphysical, ontological or moral commitments. Since it’s an argument _about_ morality, it automatically carries moral commitments. And again, I don’t think it holds up. It’s just an attempt to redefine evil as good; just a slightly more sophisticated version of “if God does something, it’s right because God says so”. > [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > There’s also always a problem with people asserting what an omnipotent being could do. Most would agree that even omnipotent beings are limited to the laws of logic; but it’s entirely possible that there are just very few, or maybe only one, logically possible world (if for instance there were just one theory of everything, one set of natural laws, one possible initial condition, and from there on, everything evolves deterministically). Again, I’m not saying that’s the case – I don’t believe it is – but if it were so, then again, the existence of a tri-omni God again would be consistent with the presence of evil in this world. No, it wouldn’t. An omnipotent God means that the laws of physics are mostly irrelevant; if it wants, it can just make the substance of the universe act as it wills by constant application of that omnipotence. Or just create a universe in simulation; we know simulations aren’t restricted to being copies of the real world. And an omnipotent god wouldn’t have to bother with anything “evolving deterministically”; it could just create the desired end state, or let things evolve and intervene on a regular basis. And if you want to argue that a god can’t intervene like that; at that point we are again talking about not having a Problem Of Evil in the first place because the god in question _isn’t_ omnipotent, or even close to it if it can’t affect the world. A god that is weaker than we are isn’t much of a god. And of course, the god in question has the option of simply doing nothing; of not creating the universe at all if it can’t do the job right. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > I like the George Burns as God line from the old movie when he was asked why he allowed so much suffering. > > “Why do YOU allow it?” And the response is “we don’t”. We are not omnipotent; there is an immense amount of suffering that we cannot stop. The closest we could come would be to try to exterminate all higher life on the planet so that there’s nothing left to suffer; and we aren’t powerful enough to pull that off yet. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > Maybe we all volunteered to come here, We didn’t. I certainly didn’t. And no; some “spirit” that existed outside of this world and entered it but whom I don’t recall anything about isn’t me. It’s some other entity. Memory is a central component of identity, and I have no such memories. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2012, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-the-problem-of-evil/639411/140 "2012-11-03T21:44:00Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > Well, I disagree. 😃 I don’t think arguing about the interpretations of specific scripture is productive for this thread. > > I picked it up somewhere during my lifetime, probably in church, but who knows. > > Again, you’re interpreting scripture in a way that I don’t. > > As for “evidence hurting faith would go away”, I’m not sure where you’re getting that. What do you mean by “faith”? I use it to mean “belief not supported by objective evidence”. So once there’s objective evidence of something, what was faith becomes another type of belief. Then why say God does not make his appearance for this reason? As for Jesus returning, I don’t think that is a wild interpretation of scripture. Which parts do you actually accept? > [@](#): > > Not quite. If a hypothesis is physically confirmed, then the postulates and reasoning are confirmed. But if a hypothesis fails, then the postulates and/or reasoning fails. Typically, we assume it’s the postulates that have failed. And that assumption is justified because the reasoning has never failed (ignoring cases where the reasoning is faulty). Misapplication of the rules is different from the rules being wrong. Mistakes in mathematical proofs do not mean that the concept of a proof is faulty. Ditto false postulates. Both Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry are valid - based on the expressed postulates. Testing confirms or denies the postulates, not the reasoning or the method of reasoning. > [@](#): > > The bottom line is that we use logic and reasoning because they work, not because they were handed down by the Goddess Science. God Aristotle you mean. It is true that if they were not useful we wouldn’t use them, but rules of logic are not experimentally or experientially derived. > [@](#): > > Argument from ignorance is a fallacy. > > I suppose one could argue that because it’s impossible for any human to conceive of a universe where logic does not apply, it is objective in the sense that it’s a repeatable observation. But that’s really stretches “objective” past the limit, in my opinion. It is kind of hard to use any kind of logic on a universe where logic does not apply. But you should easily be able to derive contradictory properties of this universe, which would invalidate its existence (assuming logic can be used.) Far different from an argument from ignorance. > [@](#): > > See above: Scripture is interpreted through the lenses of Tradition, Reason and Experience. People have minds; they can use them. (If they it even matters to them whether a particular story is literal or allegorical.) So the N different conclusions people draw are all equally valid? And I assume that no one should do anything that affects anyone but himself based on religion, because he has no way of verifying his interpretation is correct? I can buy that, but it makes religion kind of useless except as a social club. > [@](#): > > That’s a defensible position, but hard to prove without knowing the minds of the people involved. That is, just because a moral is derivable without reference to God does not imply that a particular person derived that moral without reference to God. They will say it is done by reference to God, but if you don’t know what God wants without a Godless filter of the supposedly God-derived input, it cannot actually be done with reference to God. > [@](#): > > As for using that position to support (or not) the existence of God, you already know what I think about proofs about God. This has nothing to do with God’s existence. It appears that even if a God or Gods do exist, human religions have no clue about him or what he wants. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-the-problem-of-evil/639411.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-the-problem-of-evil/639411.md?page=8)