Sunday, November 3, 2019
Evil? -- No Problem
In sections X and XI, Philo and Demea catalogue human misery and Philo uses this evidence to prove that either God does NOT exist or He is NOT benevolent. Is this argument sound? If not, where does the argument fail? What about the possibility that suffering is part of some great good like free will or character development (a theodicy)?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Philo’s argument that the existence of evil proves either God does not exist or proves that God is not omnibenevolent is generally sound, however, other possibilities may also exist.
ReplyDeletePhilo’s argument (simplified) is as follows:
1) Because God is omniscient, omnipotent, and, most importantly, omnibenevolent, God should be able to prevent all evil.
2) However, evil exists in the world.
3) Therefore, either God does not exist or God is not omnibenevolent.
Philo’s argument is sound particularly because an omnibenevolent being should not allow evil if they are able to (they are omnipotent). Theists respond to this argument by using various arguments, all of which fail under Philo’s argument. One argument is that God will sometimes allow bad things to happen in order for other good things to happen. However, there must be a limit for this because this theist argument can justify a genocide in a developing nation in order to ensure that the lives people in a developed nation can be just a little bit better. Can God truly be omnibenevolent if He can justify atrocities like that just because it helps the rich a little bit? More than this, it does not address other types of evil that humans do not cause, such as natural disasters. The utilitarian argument fails here because a natural disaster harms someone, yet it does not help anyone.
Another argument that theists make in response to the Problem of Evil is Theodicy. Theodicy is the argument that God allows evil to exist in order for humans to have free will. However, does this mean we need a catastrophe that causes millions of deaths for free will? This argument also presupposes that free will is better than no free will. God’s omnipotence should also allow Him to be able to create a world with no evil and no free will, but trick humans into believing they have free will. Theodicy also cannot account for natural evil unless God wants us to show our free will in cleaning up form a hurricane.
While Philo’s argument is sound, other conclusions could exist. Philo accounts for God not being omnibenevolent, however, God could also not be omnipotent. God may want to prevent evil, but He may not have the power to do so. Philo does not account for the possibility of polytheism. Instead of one God, which is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, multiple Gods may exist, some of which could be omnibenevolent. However, conflicts between different Gods could create the problem of evil in the world.
In Hume's dialogues, he speaks through the medium of Philo for the argument of evil. Using the traditional view of God, as a omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being, Philo states that evil should not exist in the world due to all these things giving God the power to rid the world of evil. However, the world has much evil and suffering it. Given God's predicted ability to stop all of this suffering, God can either not exist or he must not have one of the qualities that people attribute to him. Either he must not be all powerful because he cannot stop the suffering, not be all knowing because he does not know it is happening, or he is malevolent to allow such evil to exist in the world. This argument from Philo is a sound one and it certainly provides good evidence that the traditional light in which God is looked upon must be false in at least some sense. The objections to this argument are many, but they almost always lose credibility due to the extreme nature of evil in the world. Some people say that evils must exist in the world due to some greater good that benefits people in the end to come from it, but the extent to which evils, such as genocides and mass shootings, occur makes it improbable that there could ever be something to balance that out or that these events would be necessary. Another thing theists brings up on the matter is that these evils must exist in order to create free will and that it is impossible to create a society with both free will and no evil due to human nature. However, free will is not necessarily the most valuable thing when excessive violence and killings are regular occurrences when a society without free will could be perfectly happy with their lives. Also, the fact that free will exists and subsequent evils actions are a result of humanity's free will does not explain the evils such as hurricanes or diseases such as ebola that bring suffering to many people. While this argument does not entirely dispute God's existence, it is very sound for what it sets out to prove. God cannot now exist in the light which he was previously thought to be in, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. At least one of these pillars thought to be representative of God must give, shifting the way in which God's existence is looked upon.
ReplyDeletePhilo develops a sound argument and uses evidence to prove that either God does not exist or he is not benevolent. However, important ideas and concepts are not incorporated into Philo's argument. The basic argument Philo develops and implements is a follows:
ReplyDelete1) God is supposed to prevent all evil because he is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.
2) However, for some reason, evil continues to exist in the world.
3) Therefore, either God is either not omnibenevolent or he does not exist.
Philo creates a sound argument because if evil exists, which it does, then, God either is nonexistent or not always good and well intentioned. In class, an intriguing example arose regarding whether or not God is all knowing, all powerful, and perfect. Dr. Ialacci asked the class if God could make a rock so heavy he could not lift his creation. According to the above definition of God as being omnipotent, the presumption exists that God is capable of doing, knowing, and being everything. If God could create a rock so heavy he cannot lift, then he is not omnipotent because he is not powerful enough to life the rock. Therefore he is not all powerful. Conversely, if God is incapable of creating a monstrous rock so big that he cannot lift it then he is not omniscient. No matter which of the two arguments a person tries to argue, the outcome proves that God is not perfect.
Although Philo has a created a good argument regarding the existence of God, there are important concepts that he does not address. To begin, one can say that God purposefully implements evil on humans to either punish people for their actions or to teach a valuable lesson. In order for our society to improve, it can be argued that God needs to consistently punish and guide humans in the direction of goodness. God may believe that there is a lesson and necessary morals to learn. Eventually, this leads to the questions: When is a punishment too harsh and too severe? Is it acceptable to punish the human race by killing millions of people? What did society do to deserve such severe punishments?
Another valid argument that can be made proving that God exists and is omnibenevolent is in regards to theodicy. Theodicy is the concept that God purposefully allowed evil to exist in the world in order for humans to have free will. In class, we created four worlds of possibilities and attempted to identify the optimal world of the four. The four worlds are:
1) A free world with no evil
2) A free world with evil
3) No free will and no evil
4) No free will and evil
Immediately, our class concluded that the first and fourth worlds are not possible. In a world where there is free choice, people will occasionally chose something bad or evil. Therefore, it makes the world imperfect. So, a world with free choice cannot exist without evil making this world impossible. The fourth world, no free will and evil, is not the optimal world to exist in, so it is eliminated. The next world to be eliminated was the third world where there is no free will and no evil. Since a person cannot have free will in the third world, they lose all the qualities that make them human, and they basically turn into a robot. It is finally concluded that the world we live in today, a free world with evil, is the best world God could have created for humans. Therefore, this proves that God has created a world where humans can thrive and overcome evil.
Philo created a sound argument in regard to proving that God is either not benevolent or not existent. Key factors of his argument do not have important concepts regarding theodicy and the optimal world to live in.
In sections X and XI, Hume states his argument for the nonexistence of God. His argument goes as follows
ReplyDelete1. Since God is all powerful, all knowing, and well-meaning/omnibenevolent, he should be able to get rid of all evil
2. There is evil in the world today
3. Therefore God does not exist or is not omnibenevolent
This argument is not sound because it is easily possible to present an objection. One such example would be the possibility that God created suffering/evil for a reason. This reason would be, to promote the common good in the long run. It is reasonably well-known that a state cannot survive by being completely moral/good because problems are bound to come up/exist. Therefore, some evil is needed just to keep society running smoothly. Furthermore, evil could exist in order to develop into some common good in the future. Regardless of how bad the current situation is, it is possible to infer that it will lead to something good based on the principle of universal causation. The end result would be worth the struggle. For example, it is possible to say that mass genocide during WW2 led to the defeat of the Nazi’s because it angered the allies to fight just that much harder. This defeat of the Nazi’s meant that more people would not have been killed in the future. Similar examples can be applied to different events, but in the end, evil leads to good, which is God’s final goal meaning that he has to exist to be behind it.
In sections X and XI, Hume establishes an argument that attempts to prove that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnirelevant god cannot exist. His premises follow:
ReplyDelete1.God is Omniscient (all knowing), Omnipotent (all powerful), and Omnirelevant (all good)
2.Therefor, none of his creations can be evil, and god must be a preventer of evil
3.There still is evil in the world, and humans do evil things
4.Therefore, God either does not exist or is not Omnibenevolent (all good)
This argument is almost sound, as an omnibenevolent god cannot allow for evil, but falls short when it doesn’t mention that other properties of a god can be doubted, or proven to be false. Some try to contradict this argument saying that god creates suffering either through free will, or in order to teach/better ourselves. Skeptics establish that there are four worlds which can exist. These four worlds are: evil with no free will, evil with free will, good with no free will, and good with free will. It is then argued that the first, evil without free will cannot exist with an omnipotent god, as god can not be evil. The fourth is also argued to be impossible by skeptics, as free-will will allow for evil. This leaves no free will and all good, and free will and evil. It is then argued that it is better to have free will, but have evil, as we would function like robots without free will, so god did the better thing to give us free will, but keep evil. This argument is false though, because if an omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god cannot create a world with free will, and no evil, then he isn’t truly omnipotent, again resulting in god either not being all powerful, or not existing. This argument is further compelled by the question: can god create a rock so heavy that even god himself is not able to pick up this rock? If god is not able to produce this rock then he is not omnipotent, and if he can’t pick up the rock, but can create it, then again god is not omnipotent. The next rebuttal to the argument is that god created suffering in order to develop character, or teach us something. This argument is challenged though by things like mass genocides, such as the Holocaust where millions perished. If god existed, and only created suffering to teach us to build character, or other lessons, why would he let such atrocities occur? In addition to this, if god truly created evil only to teach us, then that would mean that god created pain, suffering, an evil to be bestowed upon people which in of itself is not omnibenevolent, as there are ways that people can learn lessons that do not involve evil, pain, or suffering. Plato creates a sound argument in proving that God either does not exist, or is non-omnibenevolent, but does not touch on any of the other properties of God, which could be used as a challenge to his argument.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePhilo’s atheistic argument that God does NOT exist goes as such:
ReplyDelete1. God is omnipotent, therefore he has the ability to prevent evil
2. God is omnibenevolent, therefore he has the will to prevent evil
3. God is omniscient, therefore he has the knowledge to prevent evil
4. However, there is A LOT of evil exists in the world
5. Therefore God does not exist
This argument does not prove God exists for two reasons. (1) It does NOT diminish the fact that there is a possibility that God allows evil into the world for good reasons. For example, there is possibility that evil is always a given outcome of free will (assuming that having free will is better than not having it). This belief is called Theodicy. When humans have free will, evil and suffering will come with it. There are four possible worlds involving free will and evil.
1). No free will, no evil
2). Free will, no evil
3). No free will, with evil
4). Free will, Evil
Since having free will follows that there will be evil, world 4 is ideal. Assuming this fact, God then allows evil for good reason. However, Theodicy does not account for natural evils such as earthquakes and hurricanes, which poses the question, “Why would God allow this kind of evil without a rightful cause? And even with a rightful cause, is it worth all of this evil?” Another example of this would be allowing the death of a man for the betterment of the society. If God could allow such evil, even if it was for a good reason, is he really omnibenevolent? This question brings us to our second counterargument to Philo’s claim. (2) That God may not be omnibenevolent and therefore, he would not have the will to prevent evil. If God is not omnibenevolent, then Philo’s premise that God is omnibenevolent is in fact false. This then proves that Philo’s claim is false. In order for Philo’s claim to be sound, he must take into account the many different possibilities and origins of evil. In this argument, he does not do this and because of that, he fails to present a sound argument.
God is typically thought of as both “all-powerful”, or omnipotent and omniscient, and “all-loving”, or benevolent. However, human beings are still subjected to lots of suffering in the world. In these two sections, Philo argues that the existence of suffering and human misery therefore proves that God cannot be simultaneously omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent. He argues that since there is suffering, God must either not know about it (not omniscient), not be able to stop it (not omnipotent), or not want to stop it (not benevolent). Since part of God’s definition is that he is all-knowing and all-powerful, a God who did not know of our suffering or who didn’t have the ability to stop it would not be God. Therefore, Philo says that God either does not exist or is not all-loving. This argument’s premises are sound. However, Demea argues the position of a theodicy. There are four possible ways the world could exist regarding the relationship between evil and free will: evil and free will both exist, evil exists but free will does not, free will exists but evil does not, neither evil nor free will exist. If God is omnibenevolent, evil cannot exist without humans having free will. Therefore, version two (in which evil exists but free will does not) is impossible. We have already seen that suffering and evil exist, so that rules out versions three and four, leaving us with only one remaining possibility: in order for us to have free will, evil and suffering must exist. Therefore, it can be argued that God allows there to be suffering in order for us to maintain our free will. In this situation, God can still be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.
ReplyDelete