Hey everybody, sorry for the long layoff, but Open Mike Nite is back by popular demand (seriously)! You can expect a longer, more traditional blog post in the coming days, but just to get the ball rolling again, here's a quick quote by the Greek philosopher Epicurus to tide you guys over.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent.
Is He able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is He Both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
So what do you think about the validity of these assumptions?
Happy debating! With the varied religious backgrounds of my readers, I expect this one to get pretty heated, so don't disappoint. Who's going to be the first one to comment?
"Digressions, objections, delight in mockery, carefree mistrust are signs of health." -Friedrich Nietzsche Come debate anything you would like here, free-flow of ideas and spirited dialogue are encouraged!
About Me
1 comment:
Good topic! Leibniz dealt with this problem under the term "Theodicy" which essentially lays out "The Problem of Evil."
God is supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent (it says so right on the package). The problem, in syllogistic form, is stated thus:
* God exists.
* God is omniscient, etc. (see packaging referenced above)
* God wants only good things.
* Evil exists.
** Therefore (so the reasoning goes), one or more of the above premises must be untrue.
One can essentially differentiate between the various religious beliefs based on the way in which they handle this problem alone. For example, at one extreme, Atheists deny the first premise, thus rendering the entire problem moot--evil exists because there is no God.
Some religions deny the packaging--claiming that God is in fact not omniscient or omnipotent. They say that God is distant, and is not paying attention to us anymore, and thus doesn't realize that evil exists here. Some say that God is powerless to eradicate evil completely. Others even go so far as to deny that God is omnibenevolent--saying God allows evil because he doesn't care, or because he prefers that it exist, or even enjoys it.
Other sects actually deny the existence of evil, claiming either that it is merely a human differentiation and is of no meaning in the greater context (or at God's level); or that what seems evil to us on an individual level is in fact merely the functioning of some greater ultimate good--as if murderers are merely returning souls to Heaven in a more immediate fashion than if those souls were left to their own devices.
However, the most common method of dealing with the problem (in Judeo-Christian/Muslim religious sects) is to say that evil is essential to God's plan, because without evil, Free Will cannot exist--because before one can exercise choice, there must exist a choice.
I must say that this latter is probably closest to the method in which I deal with the problem personally. I do believe in the existence of God (although I don't claim to have any knowledge of his nature), and I do believe God is omnibenevolent. To take the next step, I cannot conceive of an omnibenevolent God who would create us as mere automotons without Free Will. Also, I believe that God wants us to develop ourselves--to achieve the understanding and self-awareness of which we are ultimately capable. I also believe that God essentially wants friends, and thus wants us all to develop our own personalities, and being the omniscient being he is, he knows that giving us the universe as it is--evil and all--is the best way for us to learn and develop ourselves into becoming his friends.
Long enough post for now--let's see where we go from here.
Post a Comment