Natural Evil

[VladP]

This message was originally sent to Rich Deem. I copy and pasted it here for further discussion with all who wish to add their perspective:



"Hello,

I would like to offer a response to your article that deals with natural evil, entitled 'Where is God When Bad Things Happen? Why Natural Evil Must Exist'.

First of all, whatever God's nature is, that will be the morality given to what he creates, assuming it is intelligent enough to comprehend those morals.

Second, in order for God to remain consistent, and not be a hypocrite, he must do exactly what he expects of us.

Fair enough?

Well, if God knowingly created us the way he did, and he also knowingly created the universe he did, it's obvious that he realizes that the universe he created directly harms sentient life. Nevermind death. I can understand life being limited and then you have an afterlife with moral judgement and being sent to heaven or hell.

What I cannot quite understand is why did God create us in the first place if, as you say in the article, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE LIFE WITHOUT THESE CONDITIONS. Fair enough, but in doing so, God is responsible for harming us when he allows for natural evil. Natural laws come directly from God, our weaknesses are designed in our bodies (I am not making a claim at "bad design" or any other silly atheist argument here), so the two cannot co-exist in perfect harmony.

So, if God could only create a universe where innocent life gets hurt due to the very natural laws that God created, he is responsible for that. Not directly, but it's somewhat along the lines of criminal negligence. That's not even the issue here though.

Like you said, this is the only universe that could support life the way it currently exists. My problem is, if God has his own moral code within his very nature, <then why would he even bother creating life in the first place, if ultimately, he'll end up contradicting his own nature by harming innocent life with 'natural evil'?>

God did not HAVE to create us and the universe, thus there didn't HAVE to be NATURAL EVIL. So, my issue isn't WHY natural evil exists. Fine, I'll assume you have a point and that this is the only universe possible for life. My issue is, if creating the universe means God will have to perform actions which ultimately go against his nature (harming innocents via the natural laws he created), then clearly God is contradicting his nature.

It would be like I created a game, where the rules end up doing something that I disagree with. True, this particular design is the only way to create the game in question, but the results of the rules of the game go against what my nature is (concerning right and wrong).

So, in creating this universe, God is ultimately going against his own nature.

What is your response?

-Vlad"

[Kurieuo]

I disagree with various reasoning you have provided. For example, that God is bound by the same rules as us otherwise He would be hypocritical. God is not us, but rather God is sovereign.

To drive this point home via analogy, what you are saying is on par with me saying, "you're a hypocrite for ripping up plants in your own garden while not allowing me to rip up your plants as well!"

Re: your issues with natural evil. Short answer: I don't believe there is "natural evil". Natural occurrences are just part and parcel of the temporary world we live within. There is nothing inherently evil about them. An earthquake is just an earthquake in the natural scheme of things. People may personify an earthquake, floods, hurricanes or some other natural occurrence and call them "evil" because death and tragedy hits them. However, while we may call such things evil, there is nothing evil about them in the moral sense of the term.

As for "evil", I'm not even sure how you get there beyond your own subjective view of it. For if God does not exist, then I'm entitled to believe there is nothing morally wrong if God did exist and created a temporary world where pain and suffering happened. What moral rule are you going to appeal to in order to show me wrong? Additionally, I can think of much worse worlds.

[PaulSacramento]

Evil?
What is this "evil" you speak of?

[MarcusOfLycia]

No such thing as 'natural evil'. Natural pain? Sure... but its temporary, and its purpose is often to bring us closer to that which is not. Unnatural evil certainly exists too... its the evil that we do of our own volition. I'm not exactly sure why you equate suffering to evil, since suffering can be beneficial and is temporary in this life.

[Rich]

The point you missed is that the universe was designed to choose between good and evil. Without the possibility of evil, no choice is possible. Because evil choices are possible, the laws of the universe must restrict the actions of free moral agents. Practically speaking, this means that the universe must be large and mostly hostile to life to prevent the spread of evil. It also means that the earth must be large with respect to the moral agents, so that they are prevented from easily wiping out their neighbors. It also means that actions will require a significant amounts of time and energy to accomplish, so that evil actions will be limited in extent and duration. Human lifespans must likewise be limited, lest long-lived individuals acquire sufficient goods and means to torture their fellow creatures. Practically, this means that death is a necessary part of the created order. In other words, you have to die of something. Any suggestions?

Carbon is the only atom that allows the formation of sufficiently complex molecules by which to create an organism that is advanced enough to possess intelligence and with spiritual understanding. In order for chemical reactions to occur to allow these events to happen, water must be present in abundance. Whenever water is present, there is the probability that bad things will happen with it (either too much or too little). Water is also required to moderate the temperature of the planet. Without sufficient water, nights will be overly cold and days overly hot. What we see on earth is the perfect balance of water - enough to moderate the diurnal temperatures, but not an excess that prevents the formation of continents. Because intelligent, spiritual life must live on the land, there must be forces that act to bring water from the oceans to the land. This means that there must be a water cycle and associated storms. Now, if you believe that the conditions of the earth can be adjusted so that no storms ever cause flooding or hurricanes or tornadoes, be my guest to define exactly what those conditions are. Yes, that is a challenge to you. My guess is that you will ignore it, since there is not way to make happen what you say God could have done.

It is your turn to be God. Go for it!

[VladP]

I disagree with various reasoning you have provided. For example, that God is bound by the same rules as us otherwise He would be hypocritical. God is not us, but rather God is sovereign.

To drive this point home via analogy, what you are saying is on par with me saying, "you're a hypocrite for ripping up plants in your own garden while not allowing me to rip up your plants as well!"

Re: your issues with natural evil. Short answer: I don't believe there is "natural evil". Natural occurrences are just part and parcel of the temporary world we live within. There is nothing inherently evil about them. An earthquake is just an earthquake in the natural scheme of things. People may personify an earthquake, floods, hurricanes or some other natural occurrence and call them "evil" because death and tragedy hits them. However, while we may call such things evil, there is nothing evil about them in the moral sense of the term.

As for "evil", I'm not even sure how you get there beyond your own subjective view of it. For if God does not exist, then I'm entitled to believe there is nothing morally wrong if God did exist and created a temporary world where pain and suffering happened. What moral rule are you going to appeal to in order to show me wrong? Additionally, I can think of much worse worlds.

I was using good and evil as notions from the Bible. It's a check for internal consistency. I could have used a different choice of words, such as saying "good according to the Bible", "evil according to the Bible", every single time, but since I am speaking to a (mostly) Christian audience, I thought it would not be necessary. I do apologize for not making that clear in the original message. Good and evil cannot be accounted for truly without God, but the presence of God, at least certain conceptions of God, allow for that. I will attempt to demonstrate that a personal God would probably be giving us a morality, as there would be at least a purpose (doesn't have to be knowable/understandable to us) for our creation.

God is bound by the same (moral) rules as us because God is the very standard for our moral rules. God is a hypocrite if he tells us to do one thing (not do any injury to innocents) and he does it. It's not the same as in your plant example. The plant example is merely about defending private property. The other person that doesn't rip plants currently can go home and rip their own plants but not allow the person currently ripping their own plants to come over and rip the second person's plants. That would be true hypocrisy. If the current person ripping plants doesn't allow the second person to rip their plants, but then expects to be allowed by the second person to rip their plants. I agree that there are things about God we cannot understand, but I think it is fair to expect that we can at least understand that which concerns us (that being morality and what is holy, and since what is holy comes from God, we at least have to be able to make sense of this part of God, not everything of God, just that which is relevant to our life here). I don't even wish to know everything. Just what's relevant to me and expectations of me.

I have no issue with the wars the Israelites had against the Canaanites, etc. If those people truly were evil, then obviously the Creator can take away their life, since he gave it. But only within what is considered to be a just action by the moral standard found in God's nature. If God is a hypocrite and doesn't adhere to the very moral standard that he gives us, then why would we have to follow him? Do as I say, not as a I do? Sounds like were back to the Euthyphro dilemma (don't bother to comment, I'm actually quite satisfied with the answer Christians have for this one). The answer given by Christians to that issue is that what's right is in God's very nature. Handled well. But then if it's in God's nature to be holy, clearly he cannot lie, or be a hypocrite (Jesus rebuked hypocrites). Thus, God is indeed bound to the same rules as us, because he gave them to us. Not physical laws, or rational limitations, etc. None of that, but God IS limited in his moral behavior. This is a monotheistic God we're talking about here, not pantheism. God cannot both do things he considers holy (what is holy is told to us in the Bible), and unholy (this is a contradiction, and the very intellectual promise of MONOtheism [thus, since God is truth, ONE, OBJECTIVE, TRUTH] is ruined, welcome to some form of pantheism).

[By natural evil I don't mean simply suffering. I also refer to actual harm beyond just temporary pain. Death would be one of them. Especially if innocent. I am (somewhat) fine for example with God taking David's son even. Why? Because it would mean that it happened for a reason, to punish David, and number two, though the child was innocent, he wasn't killed randomly, it could have been a dual reason behind it, not just to get back at David, but also because God decided that the boy need not be tested in his own life anymore for whatever reason, God has seen enough be convinced of his nature.]

Nature has no mind. But the logic of nature is designed by God. If I were to have some dogs in my back yard, and put out some snakes, a few bear traps, land mines, etc. in the back yard, would you hold me liable for their deaths (I *designed* the *way* [read logic], or *state of being* of the back yard)? The laws of nature (back yard) that were created for us by God, and our consciousness operates in these laws (I'll remain mostly neutral with regards to the two main views of either dualism or physicalism --- I agree with Jaegwon Kim that non-reductive physicalism doesn't really make too much sense, which is why I *think* I gravitate towards dualism personally, I like the Argument from Reason by C.S. Lewis and others), frequently punish us even if we did nothing to warrant a punishment. A baby that was born with a genetic disorder will suffer even though they haven't yet committed a sin. You say "it's for the greater good", or that "God is testing us this way". I used to be much more open to this argument. I'm much more skeptical though not 100% ready to throw it out. My reasoning is thus: Yes, God needs to be able to have times when he can test us, but free will can allow for that. Do you believe (according to the most common interpretation of Biblical morality that I have heard of) it is fair to sabotage your child as he is growing up in an effort to see how well he listens to you? Other human evil is enough to test other humans, God need not interfere this way (because, yes, nature is hurting us, but again, nature was designed this way by God, and so it hurts us, ultimately because of God [I am focusing on innocents, guilty people struck by lightning is acceptable], and I am not sure exactly how the above explanations ["greater good"/"testing us"] can escape the "ends justifies the means paradigm" ---> "the ends justifies the means" leads to God breaking his very morals in order to accomplish something else [testing us], it would mean essentially bypassing morality; this is one area where I am willing to change my mind, if you can prove they are not part of the "ends justifies the means category"). This especially allows more people to live (no genetic diseases, etc.) to be tested morally, so this might potentially be a counter to the argument of "being tested through natural evil". Performing a total reduction I understand we get to even smaller issues like are the effects of aging necessary? One the one hand, you can have aging but with no negative side effects as we encounter when we grow older. We could just die suddenly at age 75. Not necessarily with the abilities of athletes (I would argue that these abilities are more of a bonus, sort of like being a bit spoiled, at least in my interpretation of what is truly morally important according to the Bible, maybe I'm wrong you know, but I *think* the Bible says what is good isn't these temporary things, it's your behavior with regards to God which is important towards eternity), but at least no diseases that harm us, so it would be neutral, or amoral. We don't need to be born with adult minds also. There's nothing evil (from the Bible) about being young or old mentally. But physical harm for no reason other than being around for a period of time can be considered to be part of natural evil. The Bible doesn't speak too highly of death (I include aging with it). But, that's supposed to be our fault, because we chose the wrong tree in Eden. Disobey God, no Tree of Life. Fine. I accept that. Which leads me to another point here. Another solution from certain Christians that addresses this is the Fall of Man and the associated decay of the world. Even there though, it's a problem for me to understand how God punishes everyone for the sins of Adam and Eve. I find it hard to comprehend why we should be affected in any way by what they did, especially in such a huge event. It's not like the events of our parents affect us. That's fine. The life that humans have built then isn't fair. It's our fault. But this is God being involved here instead. I always wondered, why doesn't God try the Garden of Eden test with each one of us, individually? Why is it that we have to suffer because Adam and Eve messed up? While it's true that we can be saved, it makes little sense to me (using the information I have at present, that helps me build a certain conception of God according to the Biblical belief) that we even have to be put in this situation in the first place. I am also open to changing my mind if you can justify why the Fall should affect every one of us. Quite open to it, mainly because I haven't quite heard any explanations yet for it --- it's not the most important question on my list, I figured I'll get to it eventually.

I was using the notions of good and evil as provided in Christianity and checking it for internal consistency. Personally, I do not have any view (objective view, that is; but I still follow moral values to maintain social cohesion, and because my own "subjective" [if nihilism is true] values line up with most people's morality) of "good" and "evil" at the *moment* (if it's random, it's total nihilism [nothing is occurring for a purpose, it's just random workings of the laws of nature that are neutral towards what we call good and evil; it can only be considered good or evil if the universe is here because it originated in the plan of a Creator, at least that's the only options my mind can gain knowledge of], and if that's the truth, it just is the truth, and that's that). It is not fair of you to make assumptions of my beliefs when I have not shared them with you. I am trying to figure out my views. As of now, I am a pure skeptic (with regards to our origins, that is; I realize that ultimate skepticism makes things far too difficult to function, which is not necessary, you can see through your actions that certain intuitions allow you to function in this world with a certain level of accuracy --- but this is an issue for another time) in the truest sense of the word, not an atheistic type skeptic. I will end believing a sort of hybrid of philosophical theism and deism if Christianity doesn't work out. I don't even believe the Big Bang theory or Evolution without more empirical proof (please don't start, ok? don't start) [I suppose objective morality could exist in theistic evolution if God's standard was always unchanging and only began to hold us accountable once we reached the level of reasoning required to understand these morals, or he holds us accountable gradually for more and more morals, like we do with people who suffer from reduced IQ due to brain damage; I haven't analyzed it yet thoroughly] . Therefore I will acknowledge that there is a greater chance that there is no morality if God doesn't reveal himself. But I have heard at least some Christian websites give value to conscience, and I can agree because it is reasonable to conclude that conscience comes from the Creator, just like instincts, except in the moral area. I see design in the universe. I see logic. Something non-physical. Even the information we have is merely an incomplete narration of how the design of this great big system works. But it could easily be a Designer that is indifferent to our notions of right and wrong. Still, one could make the rational (but not necessarily the most likely, but I think you have to admit it's at least a bit rational) claim that if the Creator took the time to make us, he must have done it for a reason. Unless the Creator did it randomly, it's also a possibility. Still, an impersonal God would entail that God has no inclinations towards one type of behavior or other, because he has no personal characteristics, he's in this "grey-ish" sort of area. Impersonal deities are a characteristic of pantheism, see Brahman in Hinduism. Therefore, even if this impersonal Creator has intellect, he has no direction on how to use it, because he has no personal likes, dislikes, etc. He neither likes nor dislikes. If the Creator has an ultimate goal for the universe, it is due to the fact that before he even undertook the mission of creating, he had an ideal in his mind, based upon something that he wanted to accomplish. But if he has no personality, how can he want something? Therefore it is random. Which, again, leads us to pantheism, and as Dawkins said, that's just a sexed up version of atheism, for the most part at least. It's just random, there's no ultimate meaning, at least not an objective one. I am not sure if this denies logic. Like I said, there's still room for intellect. But this intellect is not used for any purpose (random personality). It's like, the intellect allows God to do great things, but not meaningful things. He can open the doors, but if he chooses one, he does so randomly. Whereas without even the intellect, he doesn't even get the keys. I am inclined to believe it does deny logic, but not 100% sure. So, this means God has an ultimate purpose for us, in my view. I will not be dogmatic about it (assuming this remains my final view, though I would love for it to be temporary and move on to something greater, perhaps Christianity if I resolve all the issues I have with it; I never claimed my view is greater, I freely acknowledge that it's much more reinforcing to believe in these views of God were to reveal himself). But if God does things randomly, then, logic is just an illusion basically. What we perceive as logic is just the ABILITY to do great things (thanks to intellect), but not any purpose. It's just random. We could just as easily believe that the way we perceive reality is an illusion, it's not like God created us to be able to understand the world. Something like Descartes' demon, but not in the sense that nothing exists, rather, that all knowledge is perceived falsely somehow. Something like the Hindu concept of Maya perhaps. Or something similar. So, returning back to my point, if God has an ultimate purpose for us, then that purpose is objective. What actions of ours fall in line with achieving the purpose is what is "good" and what doesn't fall in line is what is "wrong". Presumably, again, the purpose is derived from God's personality, and not randomly. It would be interesting if God purposefully created us with a purpose/meaning of life that goes against what his personality is like. Then again, the simple fact that God is willing to contradict himself should tell us plenty about him. It still means that God had a reason to create something that has a purpose that will lead to behavior that is different to his own morals, so he still did it for an overall purpose (that serves himself, presumably). Just not one that we can find out. It would in effect make God a liar. But I digress, this is really far out stuff.

That is my reply. I think I answered all the first three objections. It took about an hour to write this (I had to take a break and eat), so if I missed any replies beyond the first three, I'll try to get to them later.

~ Vlad P.

[VladP]

I want to correct myself in the last paragraph. When I mentioned conscience, I unfortunately went ahead with the assumption that natural evil can be explained away. A large part of the last paragraph was devoted to explaining that it it somewhat reasonable to conclude that there can be objective morality without a revealed God. That is, again, assuming that natural evil can be solved.

Even so, human conscience could be part of a greater overall morality (what helps us accomplish our objective), and that these moral rules (from our conscience, assuming you agree with that premise, that it can be considered to be fairly common across humanity) are simply necessary to keep us in line as a species to perform other things related to God's overall plan for us --- we need not be conscious of it, perhaps our instincts are enough to keep us within a certain behavioral pattern --- and it can be for any purpose really. However, there are obviously other ways that we can function. A brave new world scenario would be efficient. Yet that, again, is too far out there and starting to go off topic.

I feel as though my mind is tiring and I do admit I made a blunder there in how I presented the concepts. No, it would be hard to have objective morals without God, no one's saying that it's easy.

But assuming you are able to explain away natural evil, it is possible in a certain way (again, not the most likely) to claim that morality can exist without God. It's just not likely. Again, it would require the assumption that conscience is mostly uniform and that it is given to us by God. I believe we can infer that God exists via logic and the apparent design, otherwise, logic is an illusion.

It is not the strongest argument, it's very weak, but it's a possibility for something objective. I'm sure there are many issues to iron out. By the end it might not even stand. I apologize, again, my mind is tired.



As for Rich, please do not make assumptions based on your guess that "I will ignore" challenges. I'm here for truth. Nothing more. I will admit that I want Christianity to be true from an emotional point of view. It feels good knowing there's justice, no? But I still have to believe in something that is consistent with itself and reality (for the most part, I mean, we could be mis-interpreting reality).

I gave the answer as to how to live without aging and die suddenly. It's a possible world. A default death.

Also, God could intervene in every instance where natural laws (not humans working within natural laws), natural laws by themselves never hurt humanity, a miracle on every occasion. This isn't the first time the argument was used. Malebranche and other people who wanted to work on Cartesian Dualism proposed Occasionalism, where all mind-body interactions require a miracle. So, extend this to every possible time we could get hurt by mindless nature. God could have done that. And when humans are using their free will to harm another human, God could allow the physical world to affect us because it has to allow for free will.

Also, who says that the laws of the universe MUST operate as they currently do? If God is omnipotent, he can do anything that is logically possible given his nature. I don't see how God's nature is affected if he changes the *stuff* his creation is made up of.

Another possibility [one that is very very far out and I would say probably likely not totally coherent] is that God could have made us pure non-physical, pure souls. We could only have the *intentions* (good and evil), and they affect us emotionally only. Everything is non-physical. We would probably still need to come into contact with objects, I find it hard to imagine a world where we can work our free will in meaningful ways without objects. Not only that, it (the object) only comes into existence when we humans wish to interact with it (almost like Plato's forms, don't think of them as originating in our minds, rather, we simply request them to be there from God, but they are still non-physical so they can't hurt us physically, rather it's just there somehow as an abstract representation). Nothing can harm us. True, there's less opportunity for evil in the sense of physical harm. But emotionally, God could have made us in a way where the harm is amplified by mere ideals and abstract representations of intentions. So harm would still be there, thus God can test us in our times of trial. This one is pure speculation and rather hurried right now (I have to leave for a while).

I await your replies, and please do not make assumptions about me. I want truth and nothing more.

-Vlad

[VladP]

Oh my, more mistakes.

I said "I feel as though my mind is tiring and I do admit I made a blunder there in how I presented the concepts. No, it would be hard to have objective morals without God, no one's saying that it's easy."

I meant objective morals without God REVEALING himself.

"But assuming you are able to explain away natural evil, it is possible in a certain way (again, not the most likely) to claim that morality can exist without God."

Without God REVEALING himself.

I apologize folks. I am getting tired.

-Vlad

[VladP]

The point you missed is that the universe was designed to choose between good and evil. Without the possibility of evil, no choice is possible. Because evil choices are possible, the laws of the universe must restrict the actions of free moral agents. Practically speaking, this means that the universe must be large and mostly hostile to life to prevent the spread of evil. It also means that the earth must be large with respect to the moral agents, so that they are prevented from easily wiping out their neighbors. It also means that actions will require a significant amounts of time and energy to accomplish, so that evil actions will be limited in extent and duration. Human lifespans must likewise be limited, lest long-lived individuals acquire sufficient goods and means to torture their fellow creatures. Practically, this means that death is a necessary part of the created order. In other words, you have to die of something. Any suggestions?

Carbon is the only atom that allows the formation of sufficiently complex molecules by which to create an organism that is advanced enough to possess intelligence and with spiritual understanding. In order for chemical reactions to occur to allow these events to happen, water must be present in abundance. Whenever water is present, there is the probability that bad things will happen with it (either too much or too little). Water is also required to moderate the temperature of the planet. Without sufficient water, nights will be overly cold and days overly hot. What we see on earth is the perfect balance of water - enough to moderate the diurnal temperatures, but not an excess that prevents the formation of continents. Because intelligent, spiritual life must live on the land, there must be forces that act to bring water from the oceans to the land. This means that there must be a water cycle and associated storms. Now, if you believe that the conditions of the earth can be adjusted so that no storms ever cause flooding or hurricanes or tornadoes, be my guest to define exactly what those conditions are. Yes, that is a challenge to you. My guess is that you will ignore it, since there is not way to make happen what you say God could have done.

It is your turn to be God. Go for it!

Again, Rich, you missed an important point of the first message. If what God does in creating the universe somehow goes against his nature (moral nature) because of the creation of natural evil (assuming it will continue to be a valid concept by the end of this discussion), then God should in theory not create such a universe because it goes against his nature. So again, even if it IS impossible for God to have created a universe without natural evil, then God should simply have never created it in the first place, unless he contradicts his nature with his actions. But again, looking back at my "miracle" argument and my "pure soul" argument, I feel like there's at least some good things to take from both. For the pure soul argument, you are affected by emotions and the symbolic use of non-physical objects; it would require a re-organization of human cognition in how we perceive objects and their relation to us --- it's like in Virtual Reality, we know getting hurt isn't real, but the emotions will be just as real --- except eliminate even more, to the point where objects exist solely when we need them to, and even then, only for emotional purposes. We could still all have a fixed expiration date for our soul, so death, and the death wouldn't be meaningless, it would be because our mission on Earth is finished. Perhaps we could die merely from emotions since they are amplified, it's already know that depression for example hurts us physically, it could simply be amplified.

-Vlad

[VladP]

I want people to understand. I didn't come here to disprove God. I came here because I seek clarification.

Please do not approach this with the intent to "debunk" me, or whatever. I came here for HELP. If you truly think I am wrong (and I'll be honest, I do wish I was), then help me. That's all I wish. Some help. I always believed that if the Bible is true, its claims should be provable. Truth defeats lies. Always.

So I am not exactly sure that the answer is to claim that this is the only possible world that God could have created. Even if it is, you haven't proven natural evil doesn't lead to a contradiction (not saying it's impossible to prove that). I'd rather focus on natural evil directly, rather than attempt to claim it's necessary. Be that as it may, we're still left with the problem of fitting natural evil within a certain logical paradigm where God's nature doesn't conflict with natural evil. If you truly care about my linguistic choice, then fine, not natural evil, but "workings of nature that are harmful towards innocent humans which ultimately derive from the Creator".

I left those bold statements where I said those are the areas where I am most likely to change my mind. Doesn't mean there aren't others. I hope there are in fact. I am not here trying to claim to be God, though Rich sure gave me the impression that he feels that way about me, which means ultimately that I am having trouble expressing myself. For that I have to apologize.

So, I just want to fit it all into one logical paradigm. Now, even if we fail to provide an explanation, I would leave you with the argument that it is a sufficiently difficult aspect of God's mind that we may simply not have the cognitive ability to solve this issue. But it sure would be great if this can be solved.

So please do not gang up AGAINST me here. I may have given the false impression that I have an agenda here. No I came for help. I wish to discuss WITH YOU. I am here because I CAN'T do it alone. I've tried to. I can't though. If I can't, then I can't. But what I can do is ask others for help, especially people who come from different paradigms and can help get me out of this hole I'm stuck in, because my own reasoning took me far enough, but I am in a hole now. It's not one that you can't dismiss as out of human reasoning, but I think it's better to at least attempt to solve. If I find more evidence for a moral God that cares about human suffering, or if I find more evidence to believe in the Bible, then I'll ignore it. I never claimed that human reason can understand EVERYTHING. Just things that are useful for us in our behavior towards a meaning of life coming from God. Maybe this issue doesn't fall into the category of being useful/relevant.

Don't feel as though I'm trying to act like a great genius here and claim my word is final, I'll leave dogmatic teachings to the scientific community, or as I like to call them sometimes when they annoy me with their theories, the Council of the High Priests of Naturalism.

Again, I feel as though we got off on the wrong foot here. It's my fault for not making my stance clear at the beginning, so I hope this makes everything clear.

I WANT TO BE WITH YOU, NOT AGAINST YOU.

-Vlad

[VladP]

Which leads me to another point here. Another solution from certain Christians that addresses this is the Fall of Man and the associated decay of the world. Even there though, it's a problem for me to understand how God punishes everyone for the sins of Adam and Eve. I find it hard to comprehend why we should be affected in any way by what they did, especially in such a huge event. It's not like the events of our parents affect us. That's fine. The life that humans have built then isn't fair. It's our fault. But this is God being involved here instead. I always wondered, why doesn't God try the Garden of Eden test with each one of us, individually? Why is it that we have to suffer because Adam and Eve messed up? While it's true that we can be saved, it makes little sense to me (using the information I have at present, that helps me build a certain conception of God according to the Biblical belief) that we even have to be put in this situation in the first place. I am also open to changing my mind if you can justify why the Fall should affect every one of us. Quite open to it, mainly because I haven't quite heard any explanations yet for it --- it's not the most important question on my list, I figured I'll get to it eventually.

~ Vlad P.

Wow I really went off the deep end here, I didn't provide an explanation.

I feel embarrassed that I didn't take the time to edit what I said.

I have come to the conclusion that it is very difficult to imagine a situation where what I described above could logically happen.

In fact, I won't even bother, at least for now. My intuition tells me that if God were to indeed test humanity [EDIT: test EVERY SINGLE human in the same manner], it would have to be a different type of test than the one in the Garden of Eden [EDIT: it just can't work as a test for every single human, so it's a test fit for a one-time deal]. I don't know how it could occur, you know? If my were mom to pass the test when I was young, would she go to the new earth immediately? So no more mothers to raise their children. Or dads.

If on the other hand, someone who passed the test would be left here on Earth, as an immortal being, that could potentially lead to some sort of caste system and (though immortal) these people could be hated by those who failed the test. In fact, when would one go through the test? If we wait until age 30 or so when most people have become mature and their childish days are over, why not bother living out the rest of life and continue the current system of judgement? Or would God rather speed up the aging process really quickly?

Yeah, so I have no problem admitting something is incredibly unlikely when I notice it, I am quite embarrassed to have even put that argument up there in the first place folks. Not saying it's somehow impossible, but it's just way too complicated to imagine a scenario as a solution to the problems I claimed in the quote above.

This is what happens when you try each possibility. You come across stupid ones and sometimes you fail to notice. I don't recommend people do what I do necessarily, I have my own system of analysis. It works for me, but at the expense of frequently making mistakes, but I do need these mistakes personally because this is what helps me personally learn. I don't rehearse what I post here, I let my mind work. If sometimes I say something stupid, well, what can I say, "can't win 'em all"... or even most, perhaps.

[EDIT: So the Garden of Eden is appropriate I suppose. But please, can someone still explain to me how to fit this into a paradigm where it is indeed fair to us that we suffer the repercussions of Adam and Eve? I noticed the group judgements given by God in the Old Testament towards Israel as a whole. Would you say there are certain events which require group judgement and certain ones which requires individual judgement? I'm open to this, but the rights of the individual (if they are innocent) have to be balanced out against that of the group (something that God assured Abraham of when he was going to attack Sodom and Gomorrah). I think the rights of each individual could indeed be balanced out with the judgement of the group in the Biblical perspective because of how the White Throne Judgement is supposed to work. Certain issues might remain, but I think the bulk of it can be explained.]

-Vlad

[neo-x]

@VLAD

You have posted a lot in a few takes, my humble suggestion would be to post at max one two arguments in a single post, it helps understanding what you are trying to say and what you expect us to answer.

But please, can someone still explain to me how to fit this into a paradigm where it is indeed fair to us that we suffer the repercussions of Adam and Eve? I noticed the group judgements given by God in the Old Testament towards Israel as a whole. Would you say there are certain events which require group judgement and certain ones which requires individual judgement? I'm open to this, but the rights of the individual (if they are innocent) have to be balanced out against that of the group (something that God assured Abraham of when he was going to attack Sodom and Gomorrah).

It is pretty simple if you allow me to point it out. The reason we suffer is not alone that we are descendants of Adam n Eve, that is only part of the picture and people can give you biblical verses to explain that. What I do think is that - we suffer because we have the same tendency to sin, please, not that we are going to sin, but we can sin. you see a difference. When Adam and Eve ate from the wrong tree, their moral eyes with respect to good and bad opened. now any children they produced had the same mind state. so you see, now we can sin, even if we do not want it or intend it, the chance of it is always there and hence this is a probability that is now inherent in human race, God's designed system can only be fair when it is universal and applies to everyone, since the chance for everyone to go wrong can not be calculated in a general group sense. We do not suffer because God is being unfair to us, in fact we suffer because the flaw is inherent in our system, it is built in and thus produces the conscious by which even now you can argue what is fair and what is not. But God's mercy or grace is hidden in the fact that you can question, now that is something I call fair. To put it point blank, it is indeed fair that each one of us can test his own self, and in some strange weird kind of way, it is close to the garden of eden problem. they were told to obey, we are told to obey. they disobeyed because they could. we can disobey if we like. so i would say that somehow we can relate to a garden of eden test, individually (of course the initial conditions are different) And I think this is more fair since we can individually reach God, imagine God wiping out Adam and Eve because they got corrupted, now that would have been unfair.

Now if you come to Israel, that is a different thing, it is a subsystem known as Theocracy, it is not for individuals alone, in theocracy there are laws that govern an individual as well as a group. It is just another form of system structure for a nation, a group of people. so likewise its laws are shaped to control generalities. For example the law of your country applies to all, group judgement can be made on certain conditions where they are necessary. now to illustrate, when, lets say a group of people in a neighborhood starts damaging property or riots broke out, the government can order a curfew. now if you live in that area and you are a peace loving person who never went in any riots or did vandalizing or damaging other citizens, you are innocent and in principle the curfew should not affect you and to be honest it is not for you or because of you. It should in no way affect your rights or privacy again in principle, since you were never part of it but it still does affect you, your rights, your freedom to roam about etc etc This is a inherent property of public systems and will always be. There is no way around that because human beings can't be predicted always.

[VladP]

@VLAD

You have posted a lot in a few takes, my humble suggestion would be to post at max one two arguments in a single post, it helps understanding what you are trying to say and what you expect us to answer.

But please, can someone still explain to me how to fit this into a paradigm where it is indeed fair to us that we suffer the repercussions of Adam and Eve? I noticed the group judgements given by God in the Old Testament towards Israel as a whole. Would you say there are certain events which require group judgement and certain ones which requires individual judgement? I'm open to this, but the rights of the individual (if they are innocent) have to be balanced out against that of the group (something that God assured Abraham of when he was going to attack Sodom and Gomorrah).

It is pretty simple if you allow me to point it out. The reason we suffer is not alone that we are descendants of Adam n Eve, that is only part of the picture and people can give you biblical verses to explain that. What I do think is that - we suffer because we have the same tendency to sin, please, not that we are going to sin, but we can sin. you see a difference. When Adam and Eve ate from the wrong tree, their moral eyes with respect to good and bad opened. now any children they produced had the same mind state. so you see, now we can sin, even if we do not want it or intend it, the chance of it is always there and hence this is a probability that is now inherent in human race, God's designed system can only be fair when it is universal and applies to everyone, since the chance for everyone to go wrong can not be calculated in a general group sense. We do not suffer because God is being unfair to us, in fact we suffer because the flaw is inherent in our system, it is built in and thus produces the conscious by which even now you can argue what is fair and what is not. But God's mercy or grace is hidden in the fact that you can question, now that is something I call fair. To put it point blank, it is indeed fair that each one of us can test his own self, and in some strange weird kind of way, it is close to the garden of eden problem. they were told to obey, we are told to obey. they disobeyed because they could. we can disobey if we like. so i would say that somehow we can relate to a garden of eden test, individually (of course the initial conditions are different) And I think this is more fair since we can individually reach God, imagine God wiping out Adam and Eve because they got corrupted, now that would have been unfair.

Now if you come to Israel, that is a different thing, it is a subsystem known as Theocracy, it is not for individuals alone, in theocracy there are laws that govern an individual as well as a group. It is just another form of system structure for a nation, a group of people. so likewise its laws are shaped to control generalities. For example the law of your country applies to all, group judgement can be made on certain conditions where they are necessary. now to illustrate, when, lets say a group of people in a neighborhood starts damaging property or riots broke out, the government can order a curfew. now if you live in that area and you are a peace loving person who never went in any riots or did vandalizing or damaging other citizens, you are innocent and in principle the curfew should not affect you and to be honest it is not for you or because of you. It should in no way affect your rights or privacy again in principle, since you were never part of it but it still does affect you, your rights, your freedom to roam about etc etc This is a inherent property of public systems and will always be. There is no way around that because human beings can't be predicted always.

You clarified some things for me. A few questions remain specific to this issue (though this actually isn't such an important issue compared to the rest --- I merely attempted to correct myself by stating that this shouldn't have been included in the initial form as part of the first reply). Number one, and I'm not trying to sound like I'm on the offensive, but please explain how it is that it's fair for our "tendency" to sin, or mind state, to be influenced by Adam and Eve. Aside from the question of how it is fair, is this supposed to be accomplished through genetic means (as in, certain behavioral tendencies)?

Also, I wanted to use Israel for the fact that Israel as a whole was frequently judged, just as when Adam and Eve sinned, humanity as a whole was judged. But you make a good point about how the public system works and I agree. Still I want to understand, for example, why it is that I will only live up to 70-80 years old, whereas in the old days people lived hundreds of years old. I realize that it's because of sin, but I personally didn't get to sin before I was born, for example, so could you also help me comprehend why my own life is shortened for the sins of generations far in the past?

Anyway, like I said, this wasn't supposed to be an important point. I mentioned it in the post before this one because I merely wanted to correct errors that I made when I used this as part of the original response I gave. The argument about natural evil is still the thing that I am trying to figure out. This is minor really and from what I can tell fairly easy to understand once you put some thought into it. Don't get me wrong, it's great to cross off another question off of my list, but I never considered this to be totally insurmountable by any means, just difficult to understand, especially at first glance.

I apologize for being messy and posting so much, correcting myself, etc. If you feel as though it will make things easier for you and others, I'll do my best to minimize my errors and only post once or twice. Though, for example, this post that I used to correct the Adam and Eve mistake, I only noticed hours later after I did more thinking, so that would mean it could potentially take me a long time to reply to simple questions/replies, just because I always like to cover as much as possible and make sure I don't miss anything. I do agree that certain posts (like the one where I merely corrected some things, or the one where I replied to Rich for the second time) could have been avoided (should've made one post in my reply to Rich, not two). I felt as though the post explaining my view points might have merited its own separate post because it's such an important issue to make sure people understand where I'm coming from. I also could have avoided the first set of corrections I made in the second reply I gave, the one that contains the first reply to Rich below those corrections.

Neo-X. I appreciate the fact that you took the time to reply. Your post did help. I no longer really consider the Fall to be an issue. However, the article posted by Rich on his website didn't consider the Fall to be a good reason for natural evil anyway, I only mentioned it because I wanted to say "certain Christians", I know not all adhere to that view, I think Young-Earth Creationists adhere to the view that the Fall caused natural evil. Which is complicated, again, because it's like the example I used where we live less than before because of the sins of generations from the ancient times. If the life-shortening can be explained, then the Fall is also a good reason for natural evil. I actually would like people thoughts on this topic as well, at least after the natural evil problem is solved.

I still think this is a somewhat better approach than merely stating that "this is the only possible world God could have made for free will". That is debatable, again. There's always the miracles possibility that I mentioned. It's really quite simple. God intervenes every time natural laws by themselves harm us. He does allow it when humans use natural laws on their behalf to harm others because that's part of free will.

But even so, let's assume this is the only possible world. Let's focus on HOW natural evil doesn't contradict God's nature if it harms innocents and it comes from God. I was thinking perhaps *intention* could be a way out. Maybe. Like with killing, it's the intention that counts. Did you kill in self-defense, or was it cold-blooded murder? I accept that natural evil isn't a punishment (assuming it's not because of the Fall), but what else is it? Is it a way to allow for misfortune so that we may be further tested? It is debatable if every single type of evil is "fair". William Rowe presented the evidential problem of evil [http://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-evi/#H2]:

1. There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
2. An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
3. (Therefore) There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being. (Rowe 1979: 336)

I would tend to disagree. It could have been a lot worse. Sure it could have been easier. But it also could have been worse.

Again, back to intention. Intention could also save the problem of natural evil even if there exists a possible world where God could avoid all natural evil. I am sorry, but as of now I don't see how it's so impossible for God to have made a different world. If you guys debunk all arguments I've given (in my first reply to Rich, the post that also includes the first set of corrections, basically, my second reply) that a possible world exists where natural evil could be avoided, you're still left with the problem of, does natural evil contradict God's nature? So I don't know why people chose that argument in the first place. So, intention. Why would God allow natural evil? I presented some of the arguments. There is the "greater good"*** option that I've heard. This seems to be a clear case of "the ends justifies the means", where God is bypassing morality for this, so he's going against his nature. Maybe not. If you disagree, please debunk me, really, please do. Second option is (that I can think of, hopefully there are more), it's a "test". Upon more careful inspection, I think it's more open for discussion whether or not this falls under the "ends justifies the means" category. If not, the question that remains then, are all forms of natural evil justifiable as a test? In the article Rich Deem wrote, he rejected it. I think it merits more consideration. Maybe all forms of natural evil are useful. Animal pain would seem to be a different category, but maybe not. Either way, one possible answer (among others) given by William Lane Craig [http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/New ... le&id=7215] is that animals don't actually feel pain. I suppose it's possible that animal pain might somehow affect us, but that requires a Young Earth Creation. I'm not opposed to that either. Also, since I'm not necessarily tied to the Bible, I can also accept that humanity simply has been around for longer than we are told, and that we were created at the same time as the animals. Going back to YEC, I don't care too much for a discussion on YEC vs. OEC. Not here [but if you were to ask me, I'd simply not care. As far as I'm concerned, any facts can probably be fit into most paradigms, if not all, if you know how to. It all depends on your bias. Doesn't matter to me what secular/atheistic scientists say, to blindly believe everything they have to say as though they have no agenda to push is not an option for me. If I were to do that, they would basically take on the role of priests, which is what I think of many of them anyway.].

So, perhaps intention is a determining factor. And perhaps natural evil is useful for spiritual growth. Perhaps even animal pain is useful. Or, perhaps they don't feel pain, we just think they do.

Either way, if intention is important, and if natural evil is useful for spiritual growth, we would have to make sure that natural evil as spiritual growth doesn't fit into the ends justifies the means category.

Maybe some of you will disagree that saying "the ends justifies the means" is a form of contradiction. I find that hard to believe, but since I haven't heard any arguments on that yet, it is open for discussion, obviously. Either way, God MUST remain consistent with his own moral nature. This means innocent people can't be harmed for no reason. Unless you're saying that's somehow part of God's nature. I really find that close to impossible, without some contradiction.

***I would like some clarification here, though. Greater good in what sense? What does it achieve?

-Vlad

[VladP]

Rich Deem apparently answered my "miracles" proposal in the original article. For some reason I missed it/forgot about it. This is a mere secondary problem, still. Your argument grows stronger that it's impossible to create a world without natural evil, but not impossible (*yet*). The issue of whether God contradicts his nature by allowing natural evil remains. And it's the bigger issue.

It is debatable if this would mean we can't understand the laws of nature. For example, we can understand plenty about the laws simply by observing them when we don't get hurt, from a distance. We can notice fire from far away. Thunder, waves, etc. When we try experimenting with something, that's our own free will. Yes I am saying that certain things that appear to be due to "natural causes" CAN be avoided using human free will. Humans CHOOSE to put themselves in certain situations. That's a choice. My point is, there are times when natural evil harms us even though we never intended to put ourselves in that situation. Thunderstorms, tornadoes. Humans seek shelter. That's clearly an act of our will. We chose to avoid it. Yet it still harms us. We can still do science, no doubt. But that's a choice to risk your life. God owes you nothing if you choose to put yourself in danger.

It need not lead to complacency, either. Like I said, at times when you put yourself in danger consciously, that's fair game since it's an act of free will. But other times, when you're not looking for trouble, just minding your own business, I see no reason to allow harm.

Besides, we weren't put here to do science, we were put here to follow God's morality. And if God wants us to do science, he'll have to choose between that and allowing natural evil, which allows for a potential contradiction in his nature concerning morality. Science isn't relevant to the meaning of life and the purpose we were put here for. If that were the case, God would have to send those who used to believe in a flat earth in the ancient times straight to hell. I realize the Bible says we should do science. But like I said above, choosing to approach natural events to study them is your own free will. Yes we can observe them from a distance, but we can also observe them up close. AND THAT'S OUR OWN FREE WILL. I don't want to learn about how to make explosives. But if you choose to actively to research with your own free will, it's fair game. You put yourself in that situation.

So, again, there is potentially a way in which the "Tinkering God" approach would work. And if not, then again, the main question hasn't been answered. Even if this is the only way for God to create the universe to allow free will, if natural evil contradicts God's moral nature, then he shouldn't have created us. So we still have to solve that problem. I'm not sure it can just be avoided like that.

[Edit: The reason why I say science isn't relevant is because we can survive without high-level science. If by science you mean even knowing to eat food, sleep, etc., any other things necessary for bare survival, then I would assume that since God formed Adam and Eve as adults, he probably gave them some knowledge of some things. I find it hard to believe Adam was at one time walking around with the intellect and knowledge of a baby as an adult.]

-Vlad

[MarcusOfLycia]

I think one of the biggest obstacles you'll have to overcome in your thinking is the equating of evil to suffering.