Philosophy Now Forum

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Jun 22, 2025 9:00 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Jun 21, 2025 8:19 pm Evil & An Omnipotent, Benevolent God
Zdeněk Petráček looks at the biggest problem facing monotheism

From this perspective [above], God’s omnipotence is not undermined, but rather redefined, to include voluntary constraints based on a broader understanding of his character and purposes. However, as David Hume argues in his Dialogue Concerning Natural Religion (1779), extreme cases of suffering, such as that in genocides or significant natural disasters, seem disproportionate to any conceivable greater purpose or higher good.

On the other hand, what can we mere mortals possibly grasp with any sophistication regarding an entity said to have created the universe itself? And while any number of atheists might insist this is all predicated on leaps of faith [or on Scripture] that is hardly likely to change many minds given all that is at stake in a No God universe.

And on the other hand, even without such pervasive evil, life presents us with numerous obstacles to be overcome by applying virtues and moral qualities which are developed in the face of these obstacles.

And which particular virtues might they actually be, given what particular set of obstacles to be overcome? How about someone noting how this is manifested given their own interactions with others. What were they able to overcome themselves?

Free will is often invoked to explain the existence of moral evil, which is to say, evil committed by people as opposed to natural disasters. The contemporary philosopher Alvin Plantinga, in his free will defense, argues that even an omnipotent being cannot do self-contradictory things like creating a square circle or controlling someone without violating their autonomy (God, Freedom, and Evil, 1977).

Back to that again. Simply assuming that a God, the God must exist because that really is the only way to account for free will. And who really dwells on God creating square circles? His job instead is to recognize that we've been either good or bad so that on Judgment Day the verdict will go in our favor.

Then back to this as well...

However, some atheists argue that the very notion of an all-knowing deity contradicts the concept of free will. Simply said, if God knows our future decisions, then they are fixed in advance, so we have no free will, and the free will argument collapses.

What rarely changes though is that, if moral commandments, immortality and salvation are important to you, you'll come up with a way to rationalize anything and everything that is ascribed to God on your very own One True Path in order to sustain the comfort and the consolation it gives you all the way to the grave.

I know that I would if I could.

Some may use a version of God as a psychological comfort: there are people who refused to do so until they died. Socrates ,Epicurus, Marcus Aurelius, Jesus of Nazareth, Meister Eckhart , Simone Weil, Camus, Nietzsche. And persons known to me personally.

They were all exceptionally morally intelligent people. Stoics. And look at them... Beyond them and their limitations I'd put Carl Rogers and the like, Eckhart Tolle for one.

Faith & An Unreliable God
Patrick Wilson argues that it’s irrational to trust an untrustworthy God.

Questions about God’s trustworthiness can also be overlooked when exploring various speculative outcomes: “My religious leader and/or sacred texts might present God in a terrifying way; but if I do not follow this deity and they turn out to really exist, I could face a horrific punishment.” Setting aside the fact that many competing groups claim their God punishes those who are not loyal to their specific religion, a person who decides to follow one particular frightening and morally incomprehensible deity still has little reason to trust that this God would not deceive them about, for instance, their salvation.

Go ahead, set aside all of the convictions that others have for a God other than your own. Simply insist they are all wrong because only your God is the one true God.

And that's it. That's all it takes to make it true...that you believe it. Of course, the others believe what they do as well about the God that isn't yours. But they're all going to Hell for that, right?

Why would a God, whose values and ambitions are so different from one’s own, be beyond deception? More generally, an untrustworthy God provides no basis for assuming any level of divine protection.

What actual untrustworthy God? And if all the many, many different Gods are providing divine protection as it is believed by all the many, many different people, then what? Either a God, the God can provide this protection or he can't. And if he can, then it had better be your God...or else.

Just as some theists believe life’s hardships could be blessings in disguise, seemingly good events (even salvation experiences) may in fact be part of an evil God’s plan to inflict meaningless suffering, by giving false hope. And thus the betrayer adds emotional manipulation to an already bad situation.

So, are you beginning to grasp how problematic this all is? As long as any actual existing God fails to come forth and set everyone straight regarding what is or is not divine, then millions upon millions around the globe are able to be convinced of anything that they happen to believe at any given time about their own God.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Jun 27, 2025 2:56 am Faith & An Unreliable God
Patrick Wilson argues that it’s irrational to trust an untrustworthy God.

Questions about God’s trustworthiness can also be overlooked when exploring various speculative outcomes: “My religious leader and/or sacred texts might present God in a terrifying way; but if I do not follow this deity and they turn out to really exist, I could face a horrific punishment.” Setting aside the fact that many competing groups claim their God punishes those who are not loyal to their specific religion, a person who decides to follow one particular frightening and morally incomprehensible deity still has little reason to trust that this God would not deceive them about, for instance, their salvation.

Go ahead, set aside all of the convictions that others have for a God other than your own. Simply insist they are all wrong because only your God is the one true God.

And that's it. That's all it takes to make it true...that you believe it. Of course, the others believe what they do as well about the God that isn't yours. But they're all going to Hell for that, right?

Why would a God, whose values and ambitions are so different from one’s own, be beyond deception? More generally, an untrustworthy God provides no basis for assuming any level of divine protection.

What actual untrustworthy God? And if all the many, many different Gods are providing divine protection as it is believed by all the many, many different people, then what? Either a God, the God can provide this protection or he can't. And if he can, then it had better be your God...or else.

Just as some theists believe life’s hardships could be blessings in disguise, seemingly good events (even salvation experiences) may in fact be part of an evil God’s plan to inflict meaningless suffering, by giving false hope. And thus the betrayer adds emotional manipulation to an already bad situation.

So, are you beginning to grasp how problematic this all is? As long as any actual existing God fails to come forth and set everyone straight regarding what is or is not divine, then millions upon millions around the globe are able to be convinced of anything that they happen to believe at any given time about their own God.

Is there a presumption that God and gods are supernatural beings that intervened in history?

Evil & An Omnipotent, Benevolent God
Zdeněk Petráček looks at the biggest problem facing monotheism

One last question is, could virtues be developed in a world without evil? Virtues like compassion and empathy could probably still develop, as even in a world without pervasive evil there could still be more minor difficulties that would help people to understand and support each other during challenging times.

Lots of people will note things like compassion and empathy as good things. When, of course, existentially, it always comes down to who or what you feel these things for. Is it only for those who are "one of us"? In other words, the reason some go through challenging times is because it is others who created them.

“Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.”

Epicurus’ second assertion is that if God can prevent evil but lacks the willingness to do so, then divine benevolence is undermined.

The part where some suggest that, given the simply staggering pain and suffering embedded in human interactions and in "acts of God", a God, the God may well be a sadistic monster. Then, however, those who refuse to accept this because they "just know" that everything will all be explained once they are privy to the reasons behind His "mysterious ways".

The notion that greater good is achieved through the existence of evil again might be used to justify God’s apparent indifference to instances of intense suffering. But one could argue that the existence of unnecessary and gratuitous suffering, such as child abuse or natural disasters causing widespread devastation, raises profound ethical concerns here. If an all-powerful God possesses the ability to prevent such suffering but chooses not to intervene, it challenges the traditional understanding of benevolence. So judging whether God is malevolent requires a broader perspective beyond individual instances of suffering.

Come on, it generally becomes as broad or as narrow as each of us individually need it to be.

Those who do believe God provides us with moral commandments and with the assurance that we will live on forever in paradise...?

In other words, what is it about God that you yourself are willing to accept in order to sustain that comfort and consolation up to and beyond the grave?

On the other hand, what part of God's mysterious ways don't you understand? It is there in fact to encompass, well, everything under the sun.

Or, to put it "spiritually"...

A comprehensive evaluation of God’s benevolence should take into account the entirety of life, including the potential long-term consequences of allowing evil. Human (lack of) understanding could be preventing us from fully grasping the ultimate reasons that God allows evil.

Now, you just have to "believe it", right? Let the ecclesiastics among us wallow in all that theological stuff.

However, I would argue that even when considering the broader perspective, there remain cases of extreme suffering that seem incompatible with the idea of a perfectly good God: the concept of a benevolent deity cannot, unqualified, genuinely account for the existence of such intense and unnecessary forms of evil. Even given the argument of virtues developing through facing evil, we have to ask what virtues are developed by genocide or child abuse.

So, what do you argue instead?

Instead of an all -powerful , supernatural Being , I argue for human wisdom together with human responsibility to quest for and to create such benevolence, truth, and beauty as was, is, and can be in the future.

You want evidence of human wisdom and human responsibility? It's all around and even gets reported in daily news media.

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jun 30, 2025 10:48 am Instead of an all -powerful , supernatural Being , I argue for human wisdom together with human responsibility to quest for and to create such benevolence, truth, and beauty as was, is, and can be in the future.

You want evidence of human wisdom and human responsibility? It's all around and even gets reported in daily news media.

Where?

In Somalia? China? Iran? South Africa? The US? The UK? France? Italy? Canada? Ukraine?...where's this "human wisdom and responsibility" being manifested to you?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 30, 2025 2:43 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jun 30, 2025 10:48 am Instead of an all -powerful , supernatural Being , I argue for human wisdom together with human responsibility to quest for and to create such benevolence, truth, and beauty as was, is, and can be in the future.

You want evidence of human wisdom and human responsibility? It's all around and even gets reported in daily news media.

Where?

In Somalia? China? Iran? South Africa? The US? The UK? France? Italy? Canada? Ukraine?...where's this "human wisdom and responsibility" being manifested to you?

I don't doubt that there are good people everywhere. Sometimes you only have to look beyond your own front door to see an act of kindness or wisdom. Seek and you shall find.

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jun 30, 2025 7:37 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 30, 2025 2:43 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jun 30, 2025 10:48 am Instead of an all -powerful , supernatural Being , I argue for human wisdom together with human responsibility to quest for and to create such benevolence, truth, and beauty as was, is, and can be in the future.

You want evidence of human wisdom and human responsibility? It's all around and even gets reported in daily news media.

Where?

In Somalia? China? Iran? South Africa? The US? The UK? France? Italy? Canada? Ukraine?...where's this "human wisdom and responsibility" being manifested to you?

I don't doubt that there are good people everywhere. Sometimes you only have to look beyond your own front door to see an act of kindness or wisdom. Seek and you shall find.

I don't doubt that there are good people in the world. I doubt that there are anywhere near so many as there are bad ones. And I think that if we follow your adivice, and watch "the daily news media," far from getting the evidence you suggest, we'll just get more and more of the mendacity, wickedness and downright stupidity of which these "humans" you mention are capable...including that same "media". Have you watched any news lately?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 30, 2025 8:00 pmHave you watched any news lately?

So much more to the point [mine, let's say] has God?

That's important to note, I believe, because unlike you and I -- mere mortals -- the Christian God is said to be both omniscient and omnipotent.

Now, if He is omniscient, how can anything we do be of our own volition? After all, He knows everything. And how can everything not include knowing our fate from the cradle to the grave?

And if He is omnipotent, all of the terrible things He does to us in regard to "acts of God", He has the power to put an end to, but does not. And even given the terrible things we do to each other -- especially to the truly innocent children -- He has the capacity to put an end to, but does not.

Also, I might add, whatever possessed God in heaven to make a man like Donald Trump?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jun 30, 2025 8:40 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 30, 2025 8:00 pmHave you watched any news lately?

So much more to the point [mine, let's say] has God?

Well, your accusation requires us to know something you don't know, and in fact, isn't true.

That thing is that we must believe that God's is the only will that has any effect in the universe. But you don't believe that: you think you have your own will. So you cannot blame the evils men do on God. Men do them. They have wills, just as you do. They bear the responsibility for their evils.

But you say,

That's important to note, I believe, because unlike you and I -- mere mortals -- the Christian God is said to be both omniscient and omnipotent.

You need more. You would have to say He's deterministic. That is, you would have to believe that God's is the only effective will in the universe. But if that were the case, then you would have no basis of accusation against Him; for your objections would merely be what you were predetermined by God to think, and not your own thoughts at all. They wouldn't be rational. They'd be inevitable, instead. And they wouldn't signify anything, because "moral" would not be a real thing either: predetermined creatures are not moral or immoral. They're just whatever they've been made to be. So they have no frame of reference from which to launch a protest against anything. THEY have no genuine thoughts of their own.

Now, if He is omniscient, how can anything we do be of our own volition?

An omnipotent God, if indeed you believe in such, could surely make free-will-possessing creatures. And you look at yourself, and you recognize yourself as one. If Determinism were true -- either "Divine Determinism" by God, or "Materialistic Determinism" of some Physicalist or Naturalistic type, done by inexorable material forces -- then no such creatures could exist, and your objection would be a mere "epiphenomenon" of accidental Nature or of the iron will of a Determinist god.

He has the capacity to put an end to, but does not.

Yes. But it's very easy to see why. Just think about its consequences.

How much evil should a genuinely just God "put an end" to? You know the answer. And what would happen if He did?

Nature made Donald Trump, not God. Immanuel Can , to the end of his days, will substitute a supernatural Person for nature. It's quite nice in way that Immanuel is so faithful to the belief he was trained to believe in.
No doubt his faith kept IC going when going when he was doing good things. A lot of people cannot understand a reasonable religion, so far. indeed the details of a reasonable religion are still being thrashed out. The Quakers come closest, I think.

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 9:13 am Nature made Donald Trump, not God.

If that were true, then there's nothing whatsoever wrong with the man. There cannot be, since whatever your "Nature" creates is just what it creates -- it is, and can be, neither good nor evil. It just is what is. And there is, in fact, no good nor evil, no better nor worse, no right nor wrong, no good politicians nor bad ones. There are only the ones that happen to exist. And so, you would have to give up complaining about the Donald.

But you don't. Which shows that you do believe there are good and evil, right and wrong, better and worse, etc. So it shows you don't really believe that "Nature" is the true explanation for why D. Trump, or me or you exist.

A lot of people cannot understand a reasonable religion, so far. indeed the details of a reasonable religion are still being thrashed out. The Quakers come closest, I think.

Again, there's no "reasonable" nor "unreasonable" in a world merely constructed by "Nature." There is only whatever IS. That's all that can be said, and there's an end of it.

But you don't believe that, clearly. And you don't live like that, clearly. And you certainly don't talk like that here. So why do you continue to say you believe in something (sovereign "Nature") that you do not actually believe in? Wouldn't it be more rational to make what you say and what you believe coordinate? When none of the propositions you assert logically connect with the conclusions you assert, how can you be living "rationally"?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 1:39 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 9:13 am Nature made Donald Trump, not God.

If that were true, then there's nothing whatsoever wrong with the man. There cannot be, since whatever your "Nature" creates is just what it creates -- it is, and can be, neither good nor evil. It just is what is. And there is, in fact, no good nor evil, no better nor worse, no right nor wrong, no good politicians nor bad ones. There are only the ones that happen to exist. And so, you would have to give up complaining about the Donald.

But you don't. Which shows that you do believe there are good and evil, right and wrong, better and worse, etc. So it shows you don't really believe that "Nature" is the true explanation for why D. Trump, or me or you exist.

...which shows that even god can have a really bad day, not impervious to screw-ups, quality control distinctly lacking.

You can't trust anyone these days!

Dubious wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 7:40 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 1:39 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 9:13 am Nature made Donald Trump, not God.

If that were true, then there's nothing whatsoever wrong with the man. There cannot be, since whatever your "Nature" creates is just what it creates -- it is, and can be, neither good nor evil. It just is what is. And there is, in fact, no good nor evil, no better nor worse, no right nor wrong, no good politicians nor bad ones. There are only the ones that happen to exist. And so, you would have to give up complaining about the Donald.

But you don't. Which shows that you do believe there are good and evil, right and wrong, better and worse, etc. So it shows you don't really believe that "Nature" is the true explanation for why D. Trump, or me or you exist.

...which shows that even god can have a really bad day, not impervious to screw-ups, quality control distinctly lacking.

You can't trust anyone these days!

And how does believing in good, evil, right, wrong, better, worse, etc obviate knowing that nature explains everything? And necessitates an unnatural explanation for human behaviour? I don't understand? Does anybody?

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 8:01 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 7:40 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 1:39 pm
If that were true, then there's nothing whatsoever wrong with the man. There cannot be, since whatever your "Nature" creates is just what it creates -- it is, and can be, neither good nor evil. It just is what is. And there is, in fact, no good nor evil, no better nor worse, no right nor wrong, no good politicians nor bad ones. There are only the ones that happen to exist. And so, you would have to give up complaining about the Donald.

But you don't. Which shows that you do believe there are good and evil, right and wrong, better and worse, etc. So it shows you don't really believe that "Nature" is the true explanation for why D. Trump, or me or you exist.

...which shows that even god can have a really bad day, not impervious to screw-ups, quality control distinctly lacking.

You can't trust anyone these days!

And how does believing in good, evil, right, wrong, better, worse, etc obviate knowing that nature explains everything? And necessitates an unnatural explanation for human behaviour? I don't understand? Does anybody?

It's very, very easy, Martin. Think about it in a logical sequence, and you'll inevitably arrive at it. Your preference for calling all moral assessments "subjective" takes you far down the logical path you've chosen, but maybe doesn't take you all the way until you consider the logical outcome of that view. Here it is.

"Nature" just does whatever "Nature" does. It's not good. It's not bad. It's not moral, in fact, at all. Lions kill zebras. They're not bad for doing it. Crows sometimes sacrifice themselves for the rookery. They're not good for doing it. And since the "Nature" hypothesis includes human beings as "natural" products, whatever they do...be it charity or a cure for cancer, on the one hand, or genocide and predatory destruction of children, on the other...these are just more "products of Nature." They're not good. They're not bad. They're just what "Nature" does.

In the view that says "Nature" explains everything, there is no actual good or evil. There's just whatever IS. And whatever IS, is neither good nor evil. It's just what IS.

That's what the view necessitates us to believe. If we are logical, it's the only place we can end up. If we are less than logical, perhaps, we may still choose to imagine unreal things, such as good and evil, but really, neither exists as anything but a subjective and delusional decoration on events which are, inherently, objectively, neither good nor evil. They're just more of the stuff that IS.

There's the inevitable outcome of the "Nature" view.