Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Problem of Evil

2007-04-04T20:35:52Z

Gabriel X:

The problem of evil is a topic of much debate in theology and the philosophy of religion. It has been referred to as 'the rock of atheism', and is one of the major philosophical and emotional reasons for the active disbelief in a traditional monotheistic God. The problem can be expressed as follows:

If the traditional monotheistic God exists, then he is omnipotent and omnibenevolent.

Therefore, God knows of everything that exists.

Therefore, God would have the knowledge, ability, and desire to stop all evil. Thus, evil would not exist.

However, evil exists.

Therefore, the traditional monotheistic God does not exist.

== Denying the Premises ==

The argument can be dismissed by dropping one or more of the three premises- that God is omnipotent, that God is omnibenevolent, or that evil exists.

Some philosophers have suggested that, perhaps, the solution to the problem of evil is to say that God in fact lacks one of the commonly presumed divine attributes. However, this is not much of a solution at all. If God lacks omnipotence, then he is reduced to the status of an impartial observer, or at any rate a constrained being that can only do finitely much to ameliorate the bad conditions that his creatures must suffer. If God instead lacks omniscience (an aspect of omnipotence), then he is unable to know what he ought to do in certain situations. Such a situation might even mean that God, in trying to help one of his creations, might inadvertently harm them instead. Finally, if God is not morally perfect, then we are in the thrall of either a negligent or positively evil deity. It is not difficult to see why this suggestion is unpopular amongst traditional theists.

Alternatively, one might deny that evil exists- a view taken by [[Augustine]] who classified evil as a [[privation]]. Perhaps we call those things we do not like \\\'moral evils\\\' without justification. But it strikes at the heart of our intuitions about what it means for something to be morally wrong if something like the torture of innocent children would not count. For that reason, this move is no more popular than the last.

The last part of the argument which can be denied is that an omnibenevolent God would want all evil to be stopped. Its proponents generally aim to establish that there are some cases in which allowing some evil to occur is morally justified - namely, those cases in which the allowance makes possible some greater good, or prevents some greater evil. A possible reason why God might allow moral evil, for instance, is that it is a necessary consequence of his allowing humans to exercise freedom of the will, a 'greater good'. This, however, is to misunderstand God\\\'s omnipotence. An omnipotent God would be able to maintain complete human free will while simultaneously ensuring that no moral evil arose without any contradiction occuring, even if we take the usual definition of omnipotence which does not hold that God can do the [[logically impossible]].

There have been several [[theodicies]] put forward as attempts to resolve the problem of evil- for example, by [[Augustine]] and [[Irenaeus]]- but the succuess of theological responses to the problem of evil is limited at best.

[[Category: Philosophy]]

Coherence

2007-04-04T17:29:56Z

Gabriel X: New page: Coherence is one of the lowest levels of ontological truth, and a fundamental principle of logic. In order for a theory to be coherent, it must not contradict itself... i.e.- it must not m...

Coherence is one of the lowest levels of ontological truth, and a fundamental principle of logic. In order for a theory to be coherent, it must not contradict itself... i.e.- it must not maintain 'X' and 'not X' simultaneously. A theory must be coherent before it can aspire to any higher levels of truth- including the classic 'truth', [[correspondence]] truth.

[[Category:Philosophy]]

David Hume

2007-04-04T17:09:37Z

Gabriel X:

David Hume (1711-1776) was a Scottish philosopher and historian who promoted [[materialism]] and [[naturalism]] over [[spirituality]]. He was [[skeptical]] towards [[religion]], and his major philosophical works include ''A Treatise on Human Nature'', ''An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals'', and ''Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion''. He also published the wide-ranging ''History of England'', which covered the history of [[Great Britain]] from the time of [[Julius Caesar]] to 1688. Many of his quotes have survived to this day, including "You can tell what is inside a person's soul by what comes out if it."

Hume is considered by some to be one of the greatest English philosophers, particularly noting his elegant prose style and the ease of reading of his material. Hume has been criticized by many for his atheistic approach, and [[Charles Darwin]] declared Hume to have been his central influence, as did "Darwin's bulldog," [[Thomas Henry Huxley]]. {{citeneeded}} Hume's work has although been a great inspiration to the contemporary atheist philosopher [[Simmons]].

Hume was one of the first philosophers to rigorously study [[ontological principles]]- vital tools of logical reasoning that are commonly used in maths, systemology, philosophy, and theology. He helped develop many of the common logical devices, most notably, [[Hume's Guillotine]] and [[Hume's Fork]] are named in honor of him.

The Euthyphro Dilemma

2007-04-04T16:55:38Z

Gabriel X: New page: The Euthyphro Dilemma is an ancient problem first postulated by Plato. It challenges religious accounts of morality by asking 'Is an act good because God approves of it, or does God ap...

The Euthyphro Dilemma is an ancient problem first postulated by [[Plato]]. It challenges religious accounts of morality by asking 'Is an act good because God approves of it, or does God approve of an act because it is good?'.

If the former option is chosen, morality becomes wholly [[arbitrary]]. God could descend from the clouds and declare the murder of black people to be morally good, and it would be so. Many theists understandably find this repulsive. Some have argued for this position, but claim that God would never do such a thing, raising further problems with regards to [[the omnipotence paradox]].

If the latter option is chosen, God becomes wholly arbitrary, as he is reduced to merely applauding or booing human actions as they occur, which theists also find unsatisfactory. Again, [[the omnipotence paradox]] comes into play.

The Euthyphro Dilemma has stubbornly resisted resolution and remains a serious problem to this day for attempts to integrate theology with ethics. [[Kant]] attempted a unique resolution with the [[moral argument]], but was ultimately unsuccessful.

Moral Argument

2007-04-04T16:47:03Z

Gabriel X: New page: The Moral Argument is an argument for the existence of God based on the initial premise that morality is absolute. It was first offered and exponded in greatest detail by KAnt,...

The Moral Argument is an argument for the existence of God based on the initial premise that [[morality]] is [[absolute]]. It was first offered and exponded in greatest detail by [[KAnt]], and runs roughly as follows:

Morality is absolute

Given that absolute morality exists, we must be able to aspire to achieve its standard

Therefore, [[humans]] have [[free will]]

Given that humans can freely choose whether or not to be moral, there must be an ontological reason for them to do so

It can be observed that being moral makes humans happy

Therefore, most moral humans will be happier than non-moral humans

However, a better system is needed to ensure that all people who are moral will be rewarded

Therefore, the [[afterlife]] exists

Therefore, an impartial arbitrator is also needed to judge humans' obedience to morality

This is God

In its defense, the moral argument provides a solution to the [[Euthyphro Dilemma]]- God does not create morality, but rather enforces it. This solution is, however, unsatisfactory to many theists, including [[divine command theory|divine command theorists]], who wish to postulate God as the source of morality.

However, the moral argument is often ridiculed for having as its basis six of the most contentious issues in [[philosophy]]- the nature of morality, the fundamental nature of humans, what makes humans happy, free will, afterlife, and God. Indeed, it can be shown that the successful challenge of any one of these six items renders the entire argument [[unsound]] and/or [[flawed]], as every [[concept]] relies on the successful demonstration of the others to hold true.

Furthermore, the growing acceptance of the [[diversity thesis]] and the [[dependancy thesis]] has lead many people, even theists, to question the previously assumed universal nature of morality, destroying the first premise on which the argument is founded. Furthermore, recent studies from the fields of biology and sociology have suggested that common moral laws, such as a prohibition against killing members of one's own social group, have a distinct evolutionary advantage in increasing the [[inclusive fitness]] of the group, removing God and the afterlife, and again destroying the argument. These numerous flaws have lead the vast majority of theists to seek alternative arguments for [[God's existence]].

[[Category: Arguments for the existence of God]]