The Super Problem of Evil

I guess I should warn you, if I turn out to be particularly clear, you've probably misunderstood what I said.	Alan Greenspan

About this Entry
Posted by: mr_jargon Original: 5/8/2008 12:03 PM Comments: 38 eProps: 12 Read Comments Post a Comment Back to Your Xanga Site

Who gave the eProps?
2 eProps from: LSP1 Evowookiee believeordoubt musterion99 Ebrulf herzog3000

Read or Post Comments

Thursday, May 08, 2008

Consider the following dilemma:

1) If God exists, then God has sufficient power to eliminate all evil.
2) If God exists, then God has sufficient motive to eliminate all evil.
3) Evil exists.
4) If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil or lacks the desire to eliminate all evil.
5) Therefore, God doesn't exist.

The relevant terms (God, evil, power, motive, existence, etc.) can be qualified in different ways, but however one goes about it, the Christian must concede at least the following:

P1: There is some possible/actual of affairs where created agents possess freedom and fixity in virtue. (Heaven)

(P1) seems to undercut each and every possible free will defense available to the Christian, for the traditional Free Will Defense making the possibility of evil a necessary condition of human freedom, but that cannot be if (P1) is true. The problems do not stop here; it gets worse. Augustinians who subscribe to Scholastic, Reformed &/or Evangelical theology must make one more concession:

P2: It is the case that God could have created a world with free and perfectly virtuous human persons from the beginning.

It certainly seems that the Christian who believes that P1 & P2 are true must come to terms with a much more powerful POE.

Posted 5/8/2008 12:03 PM - 38 comments

recommend
recs0
give stars
votes0
email
sent0

Give eProps or Post a Comment

38 Comments

browse comments: next › | last »

You're speaking of course in the present, for the bible says that God is going to create a new heavens and earth where evil will not exist. Do you think that God creating us with the freewill to do evil is tied in with him creating us with the freewill to love? If we didn't have the choice to do evil, we wouldn't have the choice to love?

Posted 5/8/2008 12:41 PM by LSP1 - reply

I love this argument. How can a supposed loving God allow suffering on earth? Freewill. Ok, so if we have freewill then there are some people out there who can CHOOSE to be virtuous, and can obtain complete righteousness, so in that case, why couldn’t God chose to make a world where everyone chose to be virtuous? I concede P1, but not P2 P1 assumes that sooner or later the infinite choices that humans can make, sooner or later one person will hit the virtue-lotto, all of their choices lining up exactly with what God desires. I will cite that this has happened once and once only: Jesus Christ. To assume that Jesus was not fully human negates the ‘sacrifice’ and the power behind his actions on the Cross. To deny him fully God would rob him of his deity. However if Jesus didn’t have the ability to choose to not follow the will of God, then I doubt the prayer in the Garden would be as poignant as it is. Jesus made the choice to accept what was coming before him. As for P2: I disagree completely. God didn’t create a universal ant farm, nor could he. God would not be fulfilled. Some Christians take offense at this, stating God doesn’t need us for anything…but I believe that if we look at the characteristics of God, that we determine that God created us because he must to fulfill his nature as Creator. Also, by that token God, in his very nature IS Love, and if there is nothing to love, then God could not be what he is. Also by that fact should he create a glass menagerie, one where all the pieces are perfect; then there is no dependence, no reliance. It is all a stage. God wants to love us, and us to choose to love him in return. To love him in return, we, the creation, must have the ability to not love him; for love is a choice, an action, a reciprocation. If he fulfilled his nature as Creator, but did not in his nature for Love…then God would not be God.

Posted 5/8/2008 12:53 PM by Evowookiee

- reply

Dag nabbit LSP1!!! beat me to it while I was writing it.

Posted 5/8/2008 12:54 PM by Evowookiee

- reply

Swinburne's attempt at the problem of evil might be of interest here. He seems to argue that the actual existence of evil is required for some higher goods. I haven't read his whole book on the problem of evil (Providence and the Problem of Evil), but The Existence of God has his more recent theodicy, which includes a defense of the claim that God must actually produces suffering for there to be knowledge and rationality: two higher goods.

Posted 5/8/2008 12:57 PM by believeordoubt - reply

P.S. I think that Swinburne would reply to the logical possibility of heaven by saying that it would be better to have a heaven that was preceded by earth than just a heaven, for only on earth can virtues be shown, and other higher order goods. Heaven exists as compensation for those who suffer on earth for the sake of higher order goods.

I guess it comes down to the claim that the mere possibility of evil isn't enough to secure some higher order goods. Its actual existence is needed.

Posted 5/8/2008 1:04 PM by believeordoubt - reply

@LSP1 -

Thanks for the comment, it prompted me to clarify part of my post.

Do you think that God creating us with the freewill to do evil is tied in with him creating us with the freewill to love?

Yes, but there is a difference between saying that mutable freedom is a necessary condition of acquired virtue and that the possibility of evil is a necessary condition of created freedom, period. However, I believe that the theological principles of Augustinianism logically force one to the latter view at some point because given their proposed model of God, the elect in heaven have only one object of choice.

If we didn't have the choice to do evil, we wouldn't have the choice to love?

A Christian cannot posit that actual or possible evil is necessary for anything created to be what it was intended to be without problems cropping up later. If actual love always presupposes possible evil, then this must be true both the Creator and the created, but Christians do not accept this. I believe that the above is true in the beginning and during certain stages of the maturation process of created beings, but not always. Allow to quote St. Maximus the Confessor:

“…I have tried to show by arguments from reason, from the Scriptures and from the Fathers, that none of the created things that move has ever come to rest, nor obtained the prize laid up in God’s plan. It is impossible that those who have found the stability that comes from having their dwelling place (Jn. 14:2) in God will turn away from God. How can those who have actually found rest in God become satiated and be drawn away recklessly by desire. For by definition, satiety quenches appetite. To demonstrate this let me briefly offer an argument from reason.

Satiety comes about in two ways: either appetite is quenched because it desired things that are trivial, or because it becomes nauseous by being drawn to what is base and repugnant. But for those who enjoy fellowship with God who is infinite and beautiful, desire becomes more intense and has no limit.”

“Do not be disturbed by what I have said. I have no intention of denying free will. Rather I am speaking of a firm and steadfast disposition, a willing surrender, so that from the one from whom we have received being we long to receive being moved as well. It is like the relation between an image and its archetype. A seal conforms to the stamp against which it was pressed, and has neither desire nor capability to receive an impression from something else, nor does it want to…

It is absolutely necessary that everything will cease from its willful movement toward something else when the ultimate beauty that satisfies our desire appears. In so far as we are able we will participate without being restricted, as it were, being uncontainably contained. All our actions and every sublime thought will tend eagerly towards that end ‘in which all desire comes to rest and beyond which they cannot be carried. For there is no other end towards which all free movement is directed than the rest found in total contemplation by those who have reached that point,’ as our blessed teacher says. For nothing besides God will be known, nor will there by anything opposed to God that could entice one to desire it. Instead, when God’s ineffable majesty is known, all intellectual and sensible things will be encompassed by him.” (Ambiguum 7)

Posted 5/8/2008 1:06 PM by mr_jargon - reply

@mr_jargon -

[However, I believe that the theological principles of Augustinianism logically force one to the latter view at some point because given their proposed model of God, the elect in heaven have only one object of choice.]

I agree which is why I'm not a Calvinist.

[If actual love always presupposes possible evil, then this must be true both the Creator and the created, but Christians do not accept this.]

I don't see why this necessarily has to be true. God is eternal whereby we were created and are not the same as God. Yes, we were created in his image but there is only one God. We cannot be God as the Mormons teach.

[I believe that the above is true in the beginning and during certain stages of the maturation process of created beings, but not always.]

Yes, I agree with that and with St. Maximus.

Posted 5/8/2008 1:16 PM by LSP1 - reply

@Evowookiee -

I concede P1, but not P2.

Why? It is a necessary implication of traditional Catholic and Reformed theology proper that the elect have only one possible object of choice because there is no plurality in God. Hence, the popular notion that heaven is boring and that plurality exists in hell (Dante). Let's grant that P2 is false, what would you say to a Western Christian who accepted it?

However if Jesus didn’t have the ability to choose to not follow the will of God, then I doubt the prayer in the Garden would be as poignant as it is.

What is the referent of "not my will?" Is it good or evil?

I believe that if we look at the characteristics of God, that we determine that God created us because he must to fulfill his nature as Creator.

I agree that the God is self-giving, but I do not hold that the creation of the world was necessary. Is the referent of God a Monad or the Trinity? IF the latter, then by your own reasoning the creation of the world was not necessary for God to be Love. If you're making a statement about some abstract essence, then how do you distinguish between ITS begetting of the Son & the creation of the world?

Posted 5/8/2008 1:19 PM by mr_jargon - reply

@LSP1 -

I don't see why this necessarily has to be true. God is eternal whereby we were created and are not the same as God. Yes, we were created in his image but there is only one God. We cannot be God as the Mormons teach.

Indeed, this argument was not clearly stated. Humanity and God are always essentially distinct, but God shares his eternal life with creatures and by submitting themselves to God become one with Him. By this, they can become 'contained by the uncontainble,' as it were, and come to exercise divine powers.

Now if there is anything *essential* to being human, then according to the Faith, Christ must possess that property, and if the possibility of evil is a necessary condition of freedom, then Christ must be a potential sinner.

Posted 5/8/2008 1:27 PM by mr_jargon - reply

@believeordoubt -

God must actually produce suffering for there to be knowledge and rationality: two higher goods.

What kind of theological methodology coughs this stuff out?

I think that Swinburne would reply to the logical possibility of heaven by saying that it would be better to have a heaven that was preceded by earth than just a heaven, for only on earth can virtues be shown, and other higher order goods. Heaven exists as compensation for those who suffer on earth for the sake of higher order goods.

So all the massacred villages, starving children and raped women are cogs in the great machine? No wonder Dawkins is so popular...

Posted 5/8/2008 1:49 PM by mr_jargon - reply

@mr_jargon -

Why? It is a necessary implication of traditional Catholic and Reformed theology proper that the elect have only one possible object of choice because there is no plurality in God. Hence, the popular notion that heaven is boring and that plurality exists in hell (Dante). Let's grant that P2 is false, what would you say to a Western Christian who accepted it?

perhaps I misunderstood P2, but it sounded like "Could God create a world where his creation made only the right decisions?" I don't believe in the plurality of existence, God and the Devil are not polar opposites, the devil is a created being, not God, But I believe that having 'choice' means having options and picking one while forsaking the other. If the universe was created to simply be a place where all the right choices were made, then man couldn't choose to love God. I would tell a person who believed that God could create this utopia that existence like that would be purposeless, and that God wouldn't get what he desires from us: meaningful relationship.

What is the referent of "not my will?" Is it good or evil?

Jesus is sitting there praying to God. He doesn't want to die, however he understands that it is why he inhabited Earth. He humbled himself, and made himself obedient, this idea in and of itself implies that he chose between two opposing choices. Any choice that is antithetical to the will of God is evil.

I agree that the God is self-giving, but I do not hold that the creation of the world was necessary. Is the referent of God a Monad or the Trinity? IF the latter, then by your own reasoning the creation of the world was not necessary for God to be Love. If you're making a statement about some abstract essence, then how do you distinguish between ITS begetting of the Son & the creation of the world?

Why don't you hold that the creation of the world is necessary? God is most definately the Trinity, however the very concept of the Trinity is being both seperate and unified. God doesn't bounce ideas off of the Holy Spirit, or Jesus for that matter...they don't debate and arrive at a majority concensus. They are one. When I speak of God, I'm speaking of the Trinity. God describes himself as Love, this is his quality- and Love by definition is something that is executed.

Posted 5/8/2008 1:50 PM by Evowookiee

- reply

@Evowookiee - And yes, I believe that Jesus had the 'potential' to make the wrong choices.

Posted 5/8/2008 1:53 PM by Evowookiee

- reply

@Evowookiee -

Jesus is sitting there praying to God. He doesn't want to die, however he understands that it is why he inhabited Earth.

The human will of Christ was naturally inclined to move away from death because the preservation of human life is good. Christ choose from two goods; his will was never directed towards evil.

Why don't you hold that the creation of the world is necessary?

(1) It is traditional Christian doctrine; belongs to apostolic deposit.
(2) If creation is necessary, then what of other divine acts?
(3) The theological methodology that necessitates this inference is inherently flawed and incapable of ground an orthodox Christology & Trinitarian theology.

I'll save my argument from the Augustinian conception of God to P2 for a later post.

Posted 5/8/2008 1:59 PM by mr_jargon - reply

@mr_jargon -

The human will of Christ was naturally inclined to move away from death because the preservation of human life is good. Christ choose from two goods; his will was never directed towards evil.

Can anything that diverts from the will of God be considered good?

(3) The theological methodology that necessitates this inference is inherently flawed and incapable of ground an orthodox Christology & Trinitarian theology.

Why?

Posted 5/8/2008 2:38 PM by Evowookiee

- reply

@Evowookiee - And...what is good?

Posted 5/8/2008 2:39 PM by Evowookiee

- reply

@Evowookiee -

Can anything that diverts from the will of God be considered good?

There are a plurality of goods within the Good. The human will drawn towards its own preservation is not drawn to evil. Since its inclination to existence rather than non-existence is God-intended, I could ask you the same question as the basis for an argument.

Why?

Without assuming the conclusion, I can conceive no theological methodology capable of demonstrating that it doesn't confuse the categories of what and who from the start. I would have to see the context within which "Christ is a potential sinner" is meaningful and the steps taken to arrive at the conclusion in order to stick that to your argument, specifically.

What is good?

It is the Alpha and Omega of created existence: the Personal End from which everything and everyone came to be and towards which they are all drawn. It is existence according to ultimate intention rather than against it.

Posted 5/8/2008 3:03 PM by mr_jargon - reply

@mr_jargon - Would you assert that the preservation of offspring is a good as well? What would have happened had Abraham not been inclined to follow God's command to sacrifice Isaac?

Posted 5/8/2008 3:06 PM by Evowookiee

- reply

Would you assert that the preservation of offspring is a good as well?

Parents taking care of their children and children obeying their parents are goods generally speaking.

What would have happened had Abraham not been inclined to follow God's command to sacrifice Isaac?

As a matter of fact, I don't know what would have happened to Abraham if he had done otherwise. I am also ignorant of (1) how God communicated this information to Abraham, (2) the level of Abraham's certainty and epistemic justification, and (3) how literally this text can be and should be read. If a nearby modern bystander had been on the scene, quickly analyzed the situation and shot Abraham to prevent him from executing his task, then I probably couldn't blame him. A literalist reading of this and many other passages creates a number of apparent moral-metaphysical difficulties for the Christian. Perhaps the "command" to kill Isaac and "the hardening of Pharaoh's heart" should be placed on the same level of reality and placed within the context of ancient Jewish exegetical struggles and in light of what the Church teaches about God. I'm also interested in studying ANE writing styles and cultures and seeing what light this sheds on the matter.

There are a number of plausible pious explanations that I would allow to coexist, and I'm fine groping around with a certain degree of ignorance as long as certain stable boundaries and basic doctrinal principles are kept in place.

Posted 5/8/2008 3:39 PM by mr_jargon - reply

@mr_jargon -

[
Now if there is anything *essential* to being human, then according to the Faith, Christ must possess that property, and if the possibility of evil is a necessary condition of freedom, then Christ must be a potential sinner.]

If it was possible for Jesus to sin, then how do you propose that he was the only human that never sinned? How was he able to do it and nobody else was? Do you think that maybe his humanity was subject to temptation as the bible says, but because he is also fully God, that in him is light and that there is no darkness in him? Therefore, even though he was tempted like we are, it was not possible according to his perfect righteous nature, to commit sin?

Posted 5/8/2008 3:43 PM by LSP1 - reply

@mr_jargon -

[Evowookiee - Jesus is sitting there praying to God. He doesn't want to die, however he understands that it is why he inhabited Earth.

Jargon - {The human will of Christ was naturally inclined to move away from death because the preservation of human life is good. Christ choose from two goods; his will was never directed towards evil.}

Another view I heard on this is that Jesus said that his soul was exceedingly sorrowful, even unto death, and that he was sweating drops of blood. Jesus knew his purpose was to die on the cross and he felt and thought that he might die right there in the garden and not make it to the cross, and he thus prayed, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me. In other words, Jesus wanted to go to the cross, but if it was the Father's will was for him to bear the cup of death right there in the garden, then he was saying ok to the Father's will.

Posted 5/8/2008 3:54 PM by LSP1 - reply

@LSP1 -

If it was possible for Jesus to sin, then how do you propose that he was the only human that never sinned? How was he able to do it and nobody else was?

I don't believe that it was possible for Christ to sin because as a Divine Person he was fixed in virtue. The initial possibility of evil is a characteristic of created persons. The cause of vice is a kind of ignorance about the Good which stems from self-deception, which stems from irrational self-love (lust). Lust and ignorance are what make creatures confuse what appears to be good or is pleasing to the eye with what is really good. For created persons, consistent perception and the doing of the good are acquired skills:

“For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant. But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.” (Heb. 5:13-14)

St. Maximus the Confessor: “Thus, those who say that there is a gnomie in Christ, as this inquiry is demonstrating, are maintaining that he is a mere man, deliberating in a manner like unto us, having ignorance, doubt and opposition, since one only deliberates about something which is doubtful, not concerning what is free of doubt. By nature we have an appetite simply for what by nature is good, but we gain experience of the goal in a particular way, through inquiry and counsel.” [Joseph P. Farrell, Disputation with Pyrrhus, p. 31-32]

Posted 5/8/2008 3:59 PM by mr_jargon - reply

@mr_jargon -

[I don't believe that it was possible for Christ to sin because as a Divine Person he was fixed in virtue.]

How do you differentiate between that and his "potential" to sin?

Posted 5/8/2008 4:04 PM by LSP1 - reply

@LSP1 -

Every act is towards some perceived or real good. Sin is based on ignorance of and lack of familiarity with the Good. It is a shot that is for whatever reason "misses the mark." Christ had a perfect view of the target and being uncreate Person was incapable of missing the mark. No potential to sin was in him.

Posted 5/8/2008 4:28 PM by mr_jargon - reply

@mr_jargon -

[No potential to sin was in him.]

What did you mean then in this earlier comment you made? - "Now if there is anything *essential* to being human, then according to the Faith, Christ must possess that property, and if the possibility of evil is a necessary condition of freedom, then Christ must be a potential sinner."

I don't know if you(Jargon and Evookiee) missed this comment I made, but I'm curious to your opinion?

Evowookiee - [Jesus is sitting there praying to God. He doesn't want to die, however he understands that it is why he inhabited Earth.]

Jargon - {The human will of Christ was naturally inclined to move away from death because the preservation of human life is good. Christ choose from two goods; his will was never directed towards evil.}

Lsp1 - Another view I heard on this is that Jesus said that his soul was exceedingly sorrowful, even unto death, and that he was sweating drops of blood. Jesus knew his purpose was to die on the cross and he felt and thought that he might die right there in the garden and not make it to the cross, and he thus prayed, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me. In other words, Jesus wanted to go to the cross, but if it was the Father's will was for him to bear the cup of death right there in the garden, then he was saying ok to the Father's will.

Posted 5/8/2008 5:41 PM by LSP1 - reply

@LSP1 -

What did you mean then in this earlier comment you made? - "Now if there is anything *essential* to being human, then according to the Faith, Christ must possess that property, and if the possibility of evil is a necessary condition of freedom, then Christ must be a potential sinner."

(1) If anything is essential to being human, then Christ must possess it.

(2) If the possibility of evil is a necessary condition of freedom and if freedom is essential to being human, then Christ must be a potential sinner.

(1) In conversation, one cannot ask "What is a Lorenzo?" but "Who is Lorenzo?" How do I answer these questions? I start saying things *about* you or predicating things *of* you. I list properties (hair color, height, skin tone), relations (you are the son of this person) and operations (you are the person who did this, etc.) You and I are distinct persons but one looks at our common personal operations (willing, thinking, remembering, walking-eating, etc.) and powers to act (will, mind, memory, body) and infers that we are of the same nature.

All human persons are the same "what." However, unlike the Holy Trinity, there are multiple instances of that nature. There is only one instance of the divine nature. We, however exist separately. Since you are *A* human person & I am *A* human person, there are two humans (but not two Gods.)

In the Holy Trinity, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the essentially same "what" but absolutely distinct Whos. The Three Whos have absolutely every*thing* in common except personhood and this is not definable or reducible to other components. IF the Son does not possess all the powers of the Father and the Holy Spirit, then He cannot be divine. "Divinity" is predicated of Persons who possess certain powers and perform certain acts (creating, foreknowing, forgiving sin, etc.). So when a JW knocks on your door, you have to show him that the acts by which the Father is acknowledged as divine the Son can do and does. Now there are multiple instances of human nature, but there is only one instance of the divine nature, one power, one will. Each Divine Person employs the will in a unique way, but they do not exist or act separately from each other. Christ, if God, must possess all powers common to the Father & Spirit; likewise with humanity. He possesses all of the powers and types of characteristics essential to humanity.

(2) Christ possesses all of the human faculties that I do, but He employs his faculties and exercise his powers in a distinct manner. Wisdom and foolishness refer to the person's use of their mind (a faculty); the same applies to righteousness and sin (missing the mark). My intital potentiality to evil belongs to me as a created person due to my ignorance and lack of personal fixation in the Good; not to human nature properly speaking. That is why it is absent from Christ.

Posted 5/8/2008 8:00 PM by mr_jargon - reply

browse comments: next › | last »

Choose Identity

Xanga Network

Anonymous (Sign up for free!)