Here's my view:
- there is no God
- sometimes shit happens
- people are selfish and choose actions (both "kind" and "evil") for their own benefit (either material gain or to reinforce own self-image)

@Maniac, that invites the question why not stop the global warming directly or just have a different child born?

Seems like most arguments against the riddle fall into either, God gave us free will, or God is a utilitarian with the omniscience to actually make it work. It's sort of amusing, because in many ways, the two arguments are contradictory. If God only allows evil to prevent greater evils, then we don't truly have free will because anyone fated to truly use their free will to commit the great evils ought to be prevented by God, if at the cost of allowing some other folks to use their "free" will to commit lesser evils.

Maniac, I'm not omniscient, but it seems like God could easily solve overpopulation by simply reducing the drive to have children. What sort of a solution is it, to prevent death by starvation and disease, by having people die from bullets and shells, as if people don't starve or die from disease now. I mean, developed countries have reduced their birth rates, which have had a far greater impact on population than any wars have.

rlumley, I mostly agree with your metaphysics, though since good and evil are abstractions, it does not belong to all living things. An amoeba does not experience good nor evil, it does not even value it's own existence, it simply does what it has to in order to carry on existing. I don't know for sure, but on Earth, humans are probably the only organisms to which good and evil are significant concepts. I would say, that consciousness is probably more important than actually living. I'm not sure how you would personally define life, but I would say a sufficiently complex computer might be capable of such abstraction, or even perhaps somewhere out there, out of sheer probability, a temporary wrinkle in entropy allows particles to come together to fully form a human brain that has a couple of seconds to think, "what the fuck" before it degrades. Also, I think most people have a concept of good and evil which transcends their own personal wellbeing. I know you're an egoist, and that's a defensible position, but most people in this thread are on a different page.

Re: Free Will
What's so great about free will? Why are we so arrogant in thinking that because of our free will, we are fundamentally superior to robots, or even angels. If it could be, that we could only do good, and not evil, if not for our free will, then that would imply that free will is the root cause of all evil. How is then, that we consider it a good thing? I wonder what people think about natural disasters and ebola? Do these things have anything to do with free will? Are the suffering caused by these merely "the result of what you and my other children are doing"?

The Utilitarian argument is to me absurd, since it maintains that evil is necessary... which is the response that, yes, "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent"

@dave bishop:

Are you implying that due to the negative consequences in getting a drink and watching football, the action itself, having, in your view, good and bad attributes, is not a good action or doing, but rather neutral?

If so (I hope I got that right) then I would disagree, and point to a sort of Utilitarian measuring system, off of which I base part of my ideas listed in that epic (how did you survive that lol...)

OK...

The Ghostmaker, rlumley, diplomat61, you and I all decide to go out and get a drink and go to the local pub (sure, I just moved to England for this imaginary event, why not?) ;)

All 5 order Cokes. Just Cokes. All 5 enjoy the time talking and debating civiliy (even obiwan and rlumley manage not to fight over God or anything) and each go beack to their seperate homes.

In that scenario it would seem as though we have five people slightly happier for having engaged in a Good of the Mind (debate, and NOT of the town-hall-on-health-care sort) and Good of the Body, the drinks. Both are minor goods, a minor Good of the Body and minor Good of the Mind, but are goods nonetheless as they can allow for growth or, at the very least, enjoyment. Multiply the happiness and growth by 5, as 5 took part in this, and you still have a small overall Good, but a Good nonetheless.

What may we subtract from this good? Well, Coke and soda can over time eat away at teeth and, so I'm told, bones, but as this was a small amount in a short period of time, that would not seem to happen now, and any future affect would be negligible. We ran over no one, fought no one, or anthing like that whilst out, just went, grabed Cokes, drank, discussed, and left, and so it would seem as though there is no significant negative to subtract from the good.

So I would view the incident as being Good, even if in a minor way.



NOW we'll change it a bit.

Suppose TGM, dave bishop, diplomat61, rlumley, and obiwanobiwan all go to the same bar, and, as before, hurt no one in any way on the way there.

This time all 5 order vodka (and if English pubs don't serve that... sorry, never been, and hey- I don't drink, either...) ;)

rlumley and obiwanobiwan get into a fight over who had the more evil mustache, Hitler or Stalin. dave bishop tries to interpose and say maybe Saddam's 'stache should get some respect here- and gets beaten down to a pul by the drunken duo. TGM and diplomat61 don't like any of this one bit, seperate the two, police are called, and the two are hauled off to the slammer.

We obviously have a negative situation.

Last one.

The 5 go to a pub. They order the vodka. rlumley and obiwanobiwan once again end up a-fighting... but tHIS TIME its just a "friendly" fight, they're fighting because they want to and for the enjoyment of it, not to prove a point about mustaches. dave bishop isn't dragged into the fighting, but obiwan and rlumley are messed up pretty nicely (rlumley's got a nice gash over his now-broken nose, and obiwan's missing about six teeth and has an eye entirely shut.) However, amazingly enough, both are still smiling (missing teeth and all) at the end, and they all go home.

NOW.

We clearly have the same positives as before, we have five friends, discussion, and alcohol, which can be good in mild doses.

We do have a fight, which would appear to be negative. HOWEVER, as the fight was entirely voluntary, and NOT a product of the vodka, the two just felt like fighting because it seemed like fun, and no innocents were harmed, dave bishop isn't harmed this time, we DON'T have a negative, in my view, at least one in the cummulative total. We have some Pain of the Body, that is true, but as the shared fun of fighting, a Good of both the Body AND Mind, as it can certainly stimulate thought and forge bonds of friendship as it did here, also applies to both, Good of the Mind is higher than the Good of the Body, and the overall total might be seen as positive overall, this isn't a bad situation. The lasting reprecussions on rlumley and obiwan might have some negative factors (hurt nose, missing teeth) but the friendship, a Good of the Mind (and possibly that might be one of the factors we might attribute to that mystical "Good of the Spirit") and lasting, would counteract that in such a sense.

But what if there were no PAIN?

THEN the situation becomes FAR easier to see as positive (just the bond rof friendship resulting from a friendly fight) and far more positive, no hurt noses or blood or missing teeth. In the absence of Evil, or Pain, rlumley and obiwan would still have fought, they didn't do it to harm each other, but just for fun, and so if there IS NO HARM, NO EVIL, then it would seem as though the only product of this will be the postive bond, without the negative bodily affects to get in the way.

As such, I would still contend that good, even in that case, can exist without evil or pain, and would go so far as to make the claim that the good would be GREATER, as there would then be no pains or evils or negatives to detract from the good and counterbalance it, or, from a Growth point of view (Growth being the greatest good in my opinion) the idea that something might hypothetically continue to grow forever and acquire new resources and not harm anyone would seem to be far greater than the plant growing today, as that will eventually have to compete for resources with other organisms, as well as be damaged, age, and die, creating a negative and a diminishing force against the overall good that the Ever-Growing Tree did not have or have to deal with.

*whew* that was a monster.

Maybe a lot of confusion comes from considering pain an evil.
First of all, pain usually allows for growth, of both the body and mind.
Second, what is pain to one person is not necessarily pain to another. If a 5-year old falls on his bum, it is, in his mind, very painful, whereas to a football player it would not even be worth thinking on.
therefore pain becomes a matter of perception (like good and evil, though pain certainly may exist at lower levels of intelligence than the other two), not an absolute.
And therefore pain is not absolutely evil.

Tersely: Suffering is perception, but it still exists.

@ Chrisp: The difference between us and an amoeba is not that things are not good or evil to an amoeba but that the amoeba does not understand what is good or evil. It merely relies on instinct. We have the faculties to understand what is good for us and what is evil.

"a temporary wrinkle in entropy allows particles to come together to fully form a human brain that has a couple of seconds to think, "what the fuck" before it degrades."

This made me lol.

Also, I don't consider myself an egoist. I've decided I have too many disagreements with Rand to be considered an Objectivist (I surely would have been thrown out by now, as Nathaniel Brandon was, which, if you don't know the story, is HILARIOUS to read.) and instead call myself a Neo-Objectivist.

@ Everything for the most part: Even if evil is a necessary part of life, God is still responsible (if he exists) for the metaphysical laws that define our existence. In short, he is responsible for the fact that evil is a necessary part of life.

The only way to reconcile this with a concept of a non-malevolent God is to realize that God did not create evil, but rather created life. Life created evil, because life is capable of being destroyed.

@ Obi:

A. I don't drink caffeine. Or alcohol. Or anything else psychoactive. (And yes, Chrisp is going to try to get me to do hallucinogens again, I'm sure)
B. I hate utilitarianism. But that's a different argument.
C. Stalin's and Hitler's mustaches can not be "evil" since they have no effect on my life. See also: This entire thread.
D. I don't believe in the use of force, so you threw the first punch. Just wanted to throw that out there.
E. What the hell was the point of all of that?

@obiwan*2: English pubs do serve vodka, even to Americans. I am not clear what your three scenarios are intended to demonstrate, except that a) sitting down with friends is good and b) fighting is not bad if all those involved agree to it (e.g. Rugby).

@ChrisP: free will is a good thing because humans feel better when able to exercise it; consider the experience of slaves or prisoners when deprived of it. The same is true, perhaps to a lesser extent with other animals; consider zoo animals in small cages.

For those of you who need an answer to the riddle, try this: god is an omnipotent being who allows (some) shit to happen so that he can assess the suitability of people to join a club ("heaven") in the afterlife. The assessment is based on either a) exercising free will to do good or evil, or b) response to suffering (whether caused by evil action of other humans or something natural). The reasons for selecting people are unclear. Leaving that glaring omission aside the behavioural norms that religions encourage have been broadly convenient for those who lead/rule society. Cui bono?

Personally, I suspect that what Epicurus was really doing was questioning the existence of a god at all (at least of a single deity, his points don't seem to apply to a pantheon).

A much simpler explanation is that god does not exist & shit happens <exit looking for Ockham's Razor!>

@Obi
I mean good from a moral perspective.
I hold that in our world it would be impossible to act morally well (good) if there was no suffering. You couldn't help anyone, or be selfless, as no one would need anything.

I agree though that God could have made the universe differently, so this was not a problem.

@ diplomat:

Re: Life being a test for heaven

Since God created us, doesn't he know whether or not we're good enough for heaven? The answer to that question is obviously free will, and we've come full circle.

Even if you ignore that, I'm sure God could have come up with a better way of testing that than the holocaust.

@CGSDiploB5: "pain usually allows for growth". Bollocks, pain is a sign that something is wrong.

@rlumley: I think we are in violent agreement.

IMHO god does not exist <dodges thunderbolt> so whether he could have designed us better or created a better test is a moot point. However, if he does, perhaps he is still an apprentice. His mistakes in this universe could make the next one so much better.

While I will admit that I did not completely read everything above, I was surprised that nobody really explain the position that clearly. Essentially, the question being asked is the classic "problem of evil" as it were. If you want to read about it in some detail, here is a decent explanation (though highly technical):
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm

However, there are two essential components. First, humans are created in the image of God with loving/serving God (in order to enter into union with him) as our primary purpose. However, in order to truly love (which is a choice), we have to be able to not love as well (otherwise you didn't really love, you just followed your programming). The side effect of this, however, is that we can also choose to be imperfect and choose to not love (or do evil).

What this means, then, is that God allows us to make our own choices, and as a result, we suffer the consequences of sin in the form of suffering. What we don't know (thought it has been mentioned a few times here) is how much suffering God already alleviates (since things did not happen we don't know that they would have).

Anyway, part of the problem of the discussion here is that the point of human existence is to enter union with God, not to live a happy, pain-free life. Thus, the endgame which God desires for us is union with him. So, if someone dies in an earthquake and goes to heaven, that is a lot better than them living a financially successful life and going to hell (since union with God is our purpose). Though evil is, for lack of a better word, bad, God uses it to achieve good (even if we don't know how).

Ah, I see what your actual issue with my point is now, dave bishop...

Well, to begin- I don't AT ALL believe that any action is selfless; this is the argument of altruism vs. no altruism, and I take the latter easily.

Human beings do not EVER act without a shred of self-interst; human beings are contantly attempting to keep their main interst alive, whether that is, at the very least, the survival and betterment of their life or, in the case of a martyr, to die so that their greater interest, the cause they are dying form, might thrive.

Human beings work towards and grow because of goals, not because of evil, or something to resist against SOLEY.

As we can imagine, from our experiences, the sort of idyllic world where there is no pain and yet we grow- as with the Ever-Growing Tree example, which you seemed alright with- it follows that pain isn't necessary for growth.

In the state of being we are now, can it help? Yes.

Can we imagine a realm without pain? Yes... at least certainly the Christians do, and thers may at least concede its theoretical possibility, there is nothing contradictory about its nature, a perfect world, WE as human beings simply can't create a perfect world.

Pain is NOT necessary for growth, and we could have both... but we have a world with Pian and Evil in it, and a supposedly omnipotent and onibenevolent Being with a "Perfect Plan" that includes imperfection, or has allowed for imperfection, when it has already been stated that He could allow for the logically impossible, and thus Free Will and prevent the occurance of Evil.

On that note, I'd like to point out something. Earlier when said that he could do this, a response was "Well, then what is out motivation, if we know it'll always be good?"

Another answer to that- that line of reasoning assumes that we'd KNOW that God was preventing Evil and Pain, that we'd understand his workings- seems a leap for me.

Suppose God gives Free Will, protects us from it- and doesn't TELL US he is. He makes apparent what pain is, gives us the knowledge, and tells us it could happen to us ikf we aren't "good," but He always protects us from Evil...

And yet, we don't know he is, and so we try and avoid evil, and are "morally good" as a result, anyway.

As we experience pain today we know this is not the case, we have pains an evils... but what is impluasible or wrong about this? To put it another way- if we take God is all-powerful, then I would posit to you that life MUST be scripted, for He knows all, past, present, and future, He knew I'd type this right now.

If we take that God HAS interferred on Earth occasionally- ie, the Flood- and not in other cases, clearly God controls, by his knowing what will happen as he can allow, disallow or change anything, everything.

HOWEVER, as we don't KNOW what God has decided (in this view) then we can still live as if out lives are Free.. even though Free Will is something of an illusion, a happy illusion, as God knows what you'll do and has changed/can change what will happen to you or what you'll do at any moment.

The same with preventing Evil- he could prevent it, and still give us the illusion that if we were to act badly we'd experience it, that we had control, that we had to be moral to not feel pain.



So, if he can, and if this allows for the illusion we want- morality mattering and Free Will- and takes away Pain and Evil... why is this not the case, as clearly we experience pain?

You thought you invented theodicy?

How many years have you been studying philosophy again?

For a good solution, see St. Augustine, "On The Free Choice of The Will".

Augustine's theodicy is an abject failure. It is scientifically, historically and morally wrong:

Scientifically: He claims that we were all "in the loins of Adam"
Historically: He takes the bible as literal truth
Morally: He claims that god is merciful towards some people, but not others, which makes him unjust.

"A. I don't drink caffeine. Or alcohol. Or anything else psychoactive. (And yes, Chrisp is going to try to get me to do hallucinogens again, I'm sure)"

Hahaha, I'm just saying that you're a fool if you think your mental state doesn't change from moment to moment. Just being hungry or tired will make you grouchier and more irritable. If you deprive yourself of sleep for any significant period, you'll experience some unique sensations. Hell, every night, you go comatose, hallucinate vividly several time, then experience amnesia of most of the experience! I mean, just by eating a particular diet, you affect your mental state. If you eat a lot of soy products, eggs, cheese, and fish, you have a relatively large intake of tyrosine, the precursor to dopamine, a very important neurotransmitter. It would not be unreasonable to expect somewhat different experiences on a high tyrosine and low tyrosine diet, and this is just one substance. "Drugs" simply achieve mind altering states with relatively lower amounts of substance. I think there's a lot that can be learned from an experience with shrooms or LSD. I can't really tell you how it is, anymore than I can describe to someone the colour orange if they've never seen it.

"@ChrisP: free will is a good thing because humans feel better when able to exercise it; consider the experience of slaves or prisoners when deprived of it. The same is true, perhaps to a lesser extent with other animals; consider zoo animals in small cages."

Whoa, whoa, we're talking free will, not freedom. Slaves still have free will in the philosophical sense. They can choose at any point to try and escape, try to kill themselves, try to kill their owners, or carry on living a life of servitude. They don't have freedom, but they have free will. Besides, if you're saying the value of free will is that it feels good for humans to exercise free will... I mean, it feels good to do a lot of things, and these things aren't the root of all evil. Is it really a good trade off?

nola, could we not be given the choice to love or not love God without evil existing? It seems like the extent to which God alleviates suffering is in direct conflict with the extent to which we have free will. If he is actively intervening to alleviate whatever level of suffering, does that not subtract proportionally from the responsibility and consequences of our free will?

I hate to reword this so bluntly, but you're saying that God allows us to suffer so that he knows that we truly love him? What kind of sadistic insecurity is this? How is it 'true' love, if that love is rewarded with an eternity in Heaven, while a lack of it is rewarded with an eternity in Hell? Wouldn't it be truer love if there were no bribes or punishments but we loved him regardless?

@obi
Just because their is some self-interest in all actions, it doesn't mean you can't display kindness, generosity, etc.
I understand you when you say that he could make a world where we could be generous without suffering existing, but am confused as to whether you agree with me that, in this world/universe, generosity is not possible without people to give to?

@rlumley
"The only way to reconcile this with a concept of a non-malevolent God is to realize that God did not create evil, but rather created life. Life created evil, because life is capable of being destroyed."
But God created life, which created evil.
Hence God is responsible for evil.

Maybe evil doesn't exist, and all 'evil' is only evil due to the view of humans. Evil is subjective- so not a problem with God.

just a glance but it seems you've (and/or Epicurus) made an assumption. If God is omnipotent and allows evil to exist, it does not necessarily follow that his reasons for doing so are malevolent or evil themselves. That is a weakness in the riddle.

@lulzworth:

No, I didn't think I invented theodicy, just that the one particular chain of thought was something somewhat original, I'm not claiming to have invented anything...

And I'm perfectly happy to find out Epicurus came up with it 2,000+ years ago and I thought the same thing without even realizing it... for one thing it's neat, and slightly encouraging (I'd indulge myself and say that, perhaps, "Great minds think alike" and so maybe I can then be a great mind like Epicurus... but that would be indulgent, wouldn't it? OPn the other hand, this IS Epicurus- perhaps indulgence is warranted, Epicurueanism and all?) ;)

@dave bishop:

-I'm not saying that self-interst excludes the possbility of generosity and helpingh others... merely that it excludes the possibility that as the SOLE REASON for an action, and that any action we take MUST be taken, as is our nature, with a drive towards a want for us- even the want to help, the want to donate and help people in Haiti, that's still a want, a desire, and it is a good oine, to be sure, and a generous and admirable one, but still a want... so no action may be undertaken without that, without something in the action being a want (which is a main issue I have with Christianity, at least as how it has been presented to me by people I know, both with idiots and assholes on the one hand, and some of the best people I know who happen to be strongly Christian on the other- the idea that anyoen can be totally self-sacrificing, and that such a thing as the Altruistic Soul is a model of humantiy towards which we should strive; I cannot STAND the idea that people spout that Jesus was altruistic, he WANTED to help others, that is a WANT, he gains the satisfaction of peace and love and happiness, he WANTS that, according to Christianity, and that is a perfectly good thing to want, a great thing, really, BUT IT IS A WANT- AND NOT ALTRUSIM, ALTRUISM DOES NOT EXIST, AND IS A TERRIBLE THEORETICAL MODEL FOR MAN.)

-I agree with your statement, but not your implied premise. To be clear- I agree that in this world, practically, we need to have people to give to in order to experience a good feeling or to exhibit a good moral characteristic such as generosity; however, I DO NOT agree that someone must need that help in the sense if they do not receive it the lack will be harmful. It is a perfectly reasonable position that we may give as a surplus to someone, that is, they don't NEED the help, they'll be fine without it, but the help makes them stronger, as does the action make us stronger. I'd cite friendship as one such case. If we need friendship is a seperate debate (though I'd lean towards yes.) The case here is- suppose Mr. Nietzsche and Mr. Kierkegaard are the best of friends. Kierkegaard has no money; Nietzsche has a ten spot in his back pocket, and buys them both an ice cream. Did Kierkegaard need that ice cream? No. Is it a nice gesture on Nietzsche's part to buy them both one? Yes. Is that generosity in surplus? Yes.

To illustrate what I mean buy "Generosity in Surplus":

Case 1:

Kierkegaard is starving. -1
Nietzsche buys him a burger. +2

Kierkegaard: -1 + 2= 1.

That is Typical Generosity.

Case 2:

Kierkegaard is content. 0
Nietzsche buys him a burger. +2

0 + 2= 2.

There was no great "need" to buy Kierkegaard a burger in Case 2 as there was in Case 1, Kierkegaard was fine. However, in Case 2, there is a higher end yield, as Kierkegaard was fine, and then was even better after the burger.

So the evils of hunger and pain, I hold, are not necessary for generosity or so, not even in this world- we can be generous without such a thing... and it would yield a greater result than would generosity-as-a-response-to-pain-and-hunger.

But you run under the assumption that generosity would even exist if there wasn't a need for it to fill. That's a fallacious argument as you can't prove the existence of the first in the absence of the second.

lol @ obi.

A burger doesn't have the same value to a person who is starving and a person who isn't.

@ Chrisp: I fully realize that. I'm not an idiot. But there's a difference in psychoactive things and food. Psychoactive drugs by definition directly affect your brain chemistry in a fundamentally unnatural way. Food affects it by natural reactions that are supposed to take place.

@ dave That's true, but only if God created the entire universe, not just our life. I believe in some kind of creator, but I think it's entirely possible that he created life within the framework of an existing universe.

But I really find the entire discussion to be irrelevant. Even if God did create human kind, the universe, whatever, I don't give a damn what he thinks is right and wrong. I determine that myself.

If we witnessed the second coming of Christ and he told everyone that it was good and moral to murder people in the streets, would that make it so? Would you do it? What if he said you would go to hell if you didn't kill at least one person in your life? Would you go to hell?

@rlumley - The key is, if He asked it, He would have already put it in your mind that it wasn't immoral. So you would do it. You wouldn't think twice about it.

All we are is dust in the wind :P

@ rlumley, can you clarify your distinction between natural and unnatural? I might have to call naturalistic fallacy on you. Is eating highly processed soy product more natural than eating some psychoactive mushrooms you found? Hallucinogens have been used for all of human history, and many animals do so as well. Here's a jaguar eating a hallucinogenic vine used in South American ayahuasca rituals: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqGDv0KCJl8

I had no idea that psychoactive drugs were defined as affecting your brain chemistry in a "fundamentally unnatural way". Wasn't it just that they did affect your brain chemistry by being able to cross the blood brain barrier and at a relatively low dosage for an organic substrate? Would you take a drug with psychoactive side effects to treat an illness or condition? Would you take a psychoactive drug if it was shown to increase memory and cognitive function with no adverse effects? Would you take a psychoactive drug if it would be a valuable learning experience and would better yourself and your understanding of yourself?

I'm not trying to get you "hooked" or anything. Psychedelic drugs such as LSD and shrooms have practically zero potential for dependence or long term effects, and are extremely physically safe. I don't even really want you to do them personally. I just feel you're making artificial distinctions to justify your choice. Though, I'm sure that if you did try shrooms or LSD you would not regret it.

But I don't want to get off topic.

@hellat - Dust. Wind. Dude. Name that movie!