The Problem of Evil

[Veritas Aequitas]

Because your supposed God is omnipotent to the extent he is capable of creating the fine-tuning of the universe to perfect precision,
then GOD should be able to enable fine-tuning to the humans he created
such that there is no possibility of abortion, murder, torturing babies for pleasure or other evil acts.

All this is true, but begs the question completely.
"The question is not COULD God do these things," but rather
"What are the logical consequences if He were to do so?"
In the same way, we could ask "Could God have not created any humans in the first place, and the answer is obviously, "Yes."

But that's a totally uninteresting question here: the important one, is
"Since human beings exist as free will beings, what are the implications of that?"

If a supposed omni-compassionate with omnipotence can create such a perfect fine-tuned universe, then such a GOD would have no problem creating humans WITHOUT the possibility of committing evil acts without any negative consequences at all.

Instead of addressing the logical possibility of the above, IC twisted, turned and deflected to asking and implying the following,

• Since human beings exist as free will beings, ..
  (it is assumed GOD exists and created humans with absolute free will)
  Humans has the free will to commit evil,
  As such, God has nothing to do with humans' free choices to do evil,
  Thus, the Problem of Evil [contradiction] do not apply,
  Therefore, God exists.

The above deflection is based on speculation.
What is needed is we should ground our argument on facts, i.e.

What is more critical question is this;

• 1. Humans exists [empirical fact].
  
  2. Humans are endowed with an existential crisis, a cognitive dissonance [psychological fact]
  
  3. Humans [theists] conjured [ASSUME] an all-powerful GOD [illusory] as a consonance to resolve the dissonance. [speculation]
  
  4. To maintain the consonance, theists speculate humans are given absolute free will. [speculation]
  
  5. Thus there is no problem of evil, i.e. God exists as real.

As such your conclusion begs the question, i.e. you merely assume [3] God exists in giving absolute freewill to humans [4].

If we resolve the fact of the existential crisis and cognitive dissonance [2] like Buddhism and other non-theistic spirituality and philosophies, there would be no need for a belief in a God [an illusion] and wrestling with the Problem of Evil.

Above as a new thread here;
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=31655

[Belinda]

Fair employement initiatives for women is another way to empower women.

They already have that. In Western democracies, it's actually illegal to discriminate against employees on the basis of sex. And young women are much more employable than young men. Only when they reach the childbearing years, and stop being productive for employers, do women fall behind men. Otherwise, they have the pole position in any race to the top. And any woman, of any age, who behaves (relative to the employer) exactly the same as a man -- putting in the same hours, doing the same job, not taking time off for family issues -- is far ahead of her male competition.

"In Western democracies" says Immanuel Can.

You well know that all the world is not Western democracy, and now the US itself is in danger of becoming a right wing dictatorship in 2024 under Trump or someone as clever as he. There is no shortage of narcissistic males.

Right wing dictatorships typically demote women and girls to be servants of men.

[Immanuel Can]

But I have supported my premise that it is a contradiction that a supposed omni-benevolent with omnipotence would allow evil to exist.

You have presented it repeatedly. You have not "supported" it. And it's wrong: because an all-powerful and all-good God would NOT be obligated to guarantee evil did not exist, IF sufficient reason could be found.

It can be found.

Therefore, your whole premise is wrong.

Note https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism

Oy vey.

"Compatibilists" ARE Determinists. The only difference is superficial there, namely that they will admit that on the surface we appear undetermined; but like regular Determinists, they insist that the ultimate truth is that we are Determined.

You did not qualify your 'best' with morally good

And you couldn't understand from context?

Well, I'm wearied with having a debate you on this, and cannot be bothered to repeat for the fifth time a key question you just refuse to even try to answer.

[Immanuel Can]

Fair employement initiatives for women is another way to empower women.

They already have that. In Western democracies, it's actually illegal to discriminate against employees on the basis of sex. And young women are much more employable than young men. Only when they reach the childbearing years, and stop being productive for employers, do women fall behind men. Otherwise, they have the pole position in any race to the top. And any woman, of any age, who behaves (relative to the employer) exactly the same as a man -- putting in the same hours, doing the same job, not taking time off for family issues -- is far ahead of her male competition.

"In Western democracies" says Immanuel Can.You well know that all the world is not Western democracy...

Yes, I certainly do.

All of which makes me wonder why Feminists will do nothing about the deplorable conditions of women in places like the Islamic world. They pretend they care about women...but when push comes to shove, they want the easy work of advocating for their own interests within a safe, patronizing, Western context, and not the hard work of dealing with the truly oppressive cultures of other countries. They march in the streets here, protesting oppression that no longer exists, statistically; and they do absolutely nothing in cultures where things like forced child marriage and revenge rapes or bride burnings are routine.

Now, why is that?

[Skepdick]

Not possible. You've misunderstood what Determinism means. The whole implication of Determinism is that nothing can exist outside of its control. Otherwise, it's not Determinism: it's only the very routine position that some things are in our control and some are not...which nobody but Determinists would deny.

You are conflating epistemic and ontological determinism.

To be an epistemic determinist is to be able to determine whether the universe is ontologically deterministic or non-deterministic.

To be an epistemic non-determinist is to insist that you can't determine whether the ontological universe is deterministic or non-deterministic.

[Immanuel Can]

Not possible. You've misunderstood what Determinism means. The whole implication of Determinism is that nothing can exist outside of its control. Otherwise, it's not Determinism: it's only the very routine position that some things are in our control and some are not...which nobody but Determinists would deny.

You are conflating epistemic and ontological determinism.

It's no big deal. "Epistemic" is irrelevant here. "Epistemic" only deals with human knowledge of things, which is invariably limited. The ontological issue is the only one that has any merit or any implications in this question.

If we were predetermined (ontologically), but did not know it (epistemologically), we would still be predetermined (ontologically). If one supposes it makes any difference then, he/she has simply made the Compatibilist error of thinking epistemology can counterbalance ontology.

Very obviously, it can't.

[Belinda]

They already have that. In Western democracies, it's actually illegal to discriminate against employees on the basis of sex. And young women are much more employable than young men. Only when they reach the childbearing years, and stop being productive for employers, do women fall behind men. Otherwise, they have the pole position in any race to the top. And any woman, of any age, who behaves (relative to the employer) exactly the same as a man -- putting in the same hours, doing the same job, not taking time off for family issues -- is far ahead of her male competition.

"In Western democracies" says Immanuel Can.You well know that all the world is not Western democracy...

Yes, I certainly do.

All of which makes me wonder why Feminists will do nothing about the deplorable conditions of women in places like the Islamic world. They pretend they care about women...but when push comes to shove, they want the easy work of advocating for their own interests within a safe, patronizing, Western context, and not the hard work of dealing with the truly oppressive cultures of other countries. They march in the streets here, protesting oppression that no longer exists, statistically; and they do absolutely nothing in cultures where things like forced child marriage and revenge rapes or bride burnings are routine.

Now, why is that?

I do what I can which is subscribe to Amnesty International. Are you saying I should pay a larger subscription?

[Belinda]

"In Western democracies" says Immanuel Can.You well know that all the world is not Western democracy...

Yes, I certainly do.

All of which makes me wonder why Feminists will do nothing about the deplorable conditions of women in places like the Islamic world. They pretend they care about women...but when push comes to shove, they want the easy work of advocating for their own interests within a safe, patronizing, Western context, and not the hard work of dealing with the truly oppressive cultures of other countries. They march in the streets here, protesting oppression that no longer exists, statistically; and they do absolutely nothing in cultures where things like forced child marriage and revenge rapes or bride burnings are routine.

Now, why is that?

I do what I can which is subscribe by DD to Amnesty International. Are you saying I should pay a larger subscription?

[Immanuel Can]

I do what I can which is subscribe to Amnesty International. Are you saying I should pay a larger subscription?

I wasn't asking about you specifically. I was merely musing on how Feminists generally are being so hypocritical as to campaign only for their own privileging, and not to give a fig for the multitudes of women suffering genuine oppression in the rest of the world.

But now that you mention it, you could always support things like women's microenterprise in the developing world, or become active against things like rape gangs, the hijab, child marriages, and the murder of pre-born women. You could always pick your cause. But I have no criticism of you personally.

[bahman]

You can find the argument for the mind in here.

Well, there are huge problems with that. Firstly, unless there is an independent reality, then you can't be sure there IS change. Maybe there's actually none.

You are not serious now. Of course, there is a change. Even if we mere experience.

I think you can get "Consciousness exists" from Descartes. But you've got no evidence beyond the existence of a consciousness.

Descartes said that I think therefore I am. Mind does not follow from that. I say that change exists therefore there is a mind.

...it follows that there are at least two minds, one is obviously you who causes different changes and another mind causes other changes that your mind are not in charge of them.

That doesn't follow, of course. It could be the case that there is only one "mind," and it is dreaming. But if there are two minds, then there has to be some reality that makes the second mind to be not-the-first-mind. So now you'd have three things: at least two minds, if not more, plus a mediating reality.

Any change requires a conscious mind. Even your dream. It is made by other Minds.

And you're back to the conventional view of mind and body.

Yes, with the difference that I have a sold argument in favor of mind.

If that's so, there are is not one mind, nor two, but many...since every animal has one, no? And if they "experience suffering," they must also have a real body and exist on a physical plane, because otherwise suffering is NOT happening. And as for this plane, it must be one which we also share, since you indict human beings for causing animal suffering...a thing not possible to believe, if physical existence is unreal.

So now you have many minds, plus a common plane called "reality," which all share. And this does not seem to differ in any important way from the way everybody instinctively thinks things are. But one thing for sure: it cannot then be even possibly true that "all is mind." Rather "mind" must be "one mind among many," and "all" is flatly untrue, since the physical plane also has real existence.

So if we're still saying "all is mind," you're going to have to explain to me how that works.

No, I am saying that there are at least two minds.

You must be saying more, now. Now there are a bunch of minds: the mind that changes, the mind that produces the changes in the first mind, and now a bunch of animal minds.

Again. The first mind is you and the second mind is the Devil who creates everything that you experience.

Yeah, but is the "suffering" you indict merely "in the mind"? If it is, it's imaginary, not real. It can be cured only by that "mind" itself, and only by it "changing its own disposition of mind." Nobody outside of that "mind" -- no human, no other animal, and no God -- can any longer be responsible for it.

So you can no longer say there's a "problem of evil" except the imaginary problem inside the "mind." And that, only the "mind" itself can cure.

There is no evil problem in my worldview. There is one in yours.

Well, there might be, if you believed what I believe. But you don't. So that gives you no grounds for saying, "God allows evil." Apparently, according to you, He doesn't. What's happening instead is that one mind...or two minds...or many minds (I can't figure out which you believe in) are having delusions. and delusions are neither evil nor good...they're just delusions anyway.

And your allegation of animal suffering...since there's no reality, there is no suffering there either. So you can't charge God with a problem you personally don't believe even exists. And it isn't "wrong" of me to believe anything I might happen to, because according to you, that's just "all in mind" anyway.

So...where's your allegation now?

Good and Evil are the properties of what we experience. They are not minds but a substance which exists temporarily.

[Immanuel Can]

You can find the argument for the mind in here.

Well, there are huge problems with that. Firstly, unless there is an independent reality, then you can't be sure there IS change. Maybe there's actually none.

You are not serious now. Of course, there is a change. Even if we mere experience.

No, that's just imaginary change, unless it takes place in some reality -- but if "all is mind" then there's no actual place for it to take place.

I think you can get "Consciousness exists" from Descartes. But you've got no evidence beyond the existence of a consciousness.

Descartes said that I think therefore I am. Mind does not follow from that.

Well, yeah, it does: it shows that there's at least one consciousness. Because if there's not, there's nobody to doubt that there is.

It could be the case that there is only one "mind," and it is dreaming. But if there are two minds, then there has to be some reality that makes the second mind to be not-the-first-mind. So now you'd have three things: at least two minds, if not more, plus a mediating reality.

Any change requires a conscious mind. Even your dream. It is made by other Minds.

Then again, you've got multiple minds, plus some mediating reality that makes the all no-each-other. And your view is no longer that "all is mind."

No, I am saying that there are at least two minds.

You must be saying more, now. Now there are a bunch of minds: the mind that changes, the mind that produces the changes in the first mind, and now a bunch of animal minds.

Again. The first mind is you and the second mind is the Devil who creates everything that you experience.

So animal "minds" do not exist? But you said they did, and that they suffer, too.

And you must have a mediating reality that makes human minds not-each-other, and not-animal-minds, too.

Now I don't know what you think.

There is no evil problem in my worldview. There is one in yours.

Well, there might be, if you believed what I believe. But you don't. So that gives you no grounds for saying, "God allows evil." Apparently, according to you, He doesn't. What's happening instead is that one mind...or two minds...or many minds (I can't figure out which you believe in) are having delusions. and delusions are neither evil nor good...they're just delusions anyway.

And your allegation of animal suffering...since there's no reality, there is no suffering there either. So you can't charge God with a problem you personally don't believe even exists. And it isn't "wrong" of me to believe anything I might happen to, because according to you, that's just "all in mind" anyway.

So...where's your allegation now?

Good and Evil are the properties of what we experience.

No, that can't be right. At least, by "evil" you can't mean anything genuinely "bad" or "immoral," but rather, only something perhaps uncomfortable to you, but not in any way objective wrong. "Evil," you have said, is even a necessary half of reality.

So you have no problem of "evil." You have no "evil."

They are not minds but a substance which exists temporarily.

So now it's not "all is mind," but rather, "all is a substance that exists temporarily"?

[Veritas Aequitas]

But I have supported my premise that it is a contradiction that a supposed omni-benevolent with omnipotence would allow evil to exist.

You have presented it repeatedly. You have not "supported" it. And it's wrong: because an all-powerful and all-good God would NOT be obligated to guarantee evil did not exist, IF sufficient reason could be found.

It can be found.

Therefore, your whole premise is wrong.

What is there to support a contradiction except to show that it is a contradiction.

It is not a question that your God cannot guarantee there is no evil.

The logic and rationale is,

• 1. Your all-powerful God is supposed to be omni-Good, omni-compassionate/benevolent.
  
  2. It is by the above nature of God, i.e. omni-compassionate in 1 that 'evil' should not logically follow from your God.
  
  3. Evil [natural and by humans] is evident.
  
  4. Therefore your supposed omni-compassionate God do not exists in the first place.

Note https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism

Oy vey.

"Compatibilists" ARE Determinists. The only difference is superficial there, namely that they will admit that on the surface we appear undetermined; but like regular Determinists, they insist that the ultimate truth is that we are Determined.

Didn't you read the article that compatibilist claim determinism and freewill are compatible without contradiction.

You did not qualify your 'best' with morally good

And you couldn't understand from context?

Well, I'm wearied with having a debate you on this, and cannot be bothered to repeat for the fifth time a key question you just refuse to even try to answer.

Not my fault that you cannot see the contradiction you claimed for your God.

It is a psychological issue that theists conjure up a God to resolve the inherent and unavoidable dissonance hastily without deep thought of the Problem of Evil and its inherent contradiction.

[Age]

Didn't you read the article that compatibilist claim determinism and freewill are compatible without contradiction.

Determinism AND free will ARE compatible, without contradiction.

Just like creation AND evolution ARE compatible, without contradiction.

Just like nature AND nurture ARE compatible, without contradiction.

And, just like quantum physics AND relativity ARE compatible, without contradiction.

AND, which are just like ALL of the other perceived to be 'one' OR THE 'other' discussions ARE actually compatible, without contradiction.

This should be PLAINLY OBVIOUS, considering the FACT that we are ALL living in JUST One 'world', 'place', or Universe. So, there could ONLY be just One True REALITY of 'things', without contradiction. Which means that there IS and HAS TO BE some 'thing' False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect somewhere in parts of human being's OPPOSING views and interpretations.

Being able to SEE through ALL of those MISINTERPRETATIONS is what eventually brings 'us' ALL NATURALLY to UNIFYING EVERY 'thing' into thee One ACTUAL Truth of Everything.

[Belinda]

I do what I can which is subscribe to Amnesty International. Are you saying I should pay a larger subscription?

I wasn't asking about you specifically. I was merely musing on how Feminists generally are being so hypocritical as to campaign only for their own privileging, and not to give a fig for the multitudes of women suffering genuine oppression in the rest of the world.

But now that you mention it, you could always support things like women's microenterprise in the developing world, or become active against things like rape gangs, the hijab, child marriages, and the murder of pre-born women. You could always pick your cause. But I have no criticism of you personally.

If you criticise all feminists, as you did, and I am a feminist then you criticise me. You will recognise that form is the best known syllogism.

If you guess wrong about my actions as a feminist then you will the more probably guess wrong about the actions of the average, or the median, or the mode feminist.

[Immanuel Can]

It is not a question that your God cannot guarantee there is no evil.

Is that what you think I said? Or are you seriously that confused?

...compatibilist claim determinism and freewill are compatible without contradiction.

They are wrong. What they've really done is only to move free will to a secondary status, and to make determination the deep, final fact of all of it.

Well, it seems you're not able to understand the level of discussion required, for some reason. Disingenuousness? I hope not. Lack of ability? I hope not that either, but it's at least not culpable. Either way, we're an an impasse: you can't understand, and I've explained five times now.