On God and Evil


 On God and Evil

    One of the most cited arguments by atheists against God's existence is “The Problem of Evil” (TPE). The argument’s purpose is to present a logical contradiction in the nature of an all-good and all-powerful God with the idea of evil existing in the world. 

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” - Epicurus

    In other words, why would an all-good and all-powerful God allow evil to exist? Either God is not all-powerful or not all-good and therefore not God. However, what is evil? Evil can be simplified to random acts of nature such as a tsunami killing hundreds of people or it can be committed by humans such as murder. What TPE fails to ignore is the other attributes of God such as all-knowing and all-wise. If God possesses these attributes then, therefore, there could be a conceivable reason why God allows evil as it might lead to a greater good and therefore not prevent the evil from happening. The terms good and evil are problematic for atheists. How does one define good and evil and assess them based on purely naturalistic principles? Are such random events of nature evil or are they just random occurrences of the universe? If they are just random occurrences of the universe then no moral judgments of good and evil can be applied. The atheist must explain how good and evil exists. As per human actions, they must explain from a deterministic perspective how moral judgment is possible on a view that states that we are not in control of ourselves due to an uninterrupted line of causal events since the random conception of the universe causes us to do, think, and even feel. How is one then responsible for their actions if there is no free will or objective standard for good and evil? If one’s morality is based on their own personal experiences and subjectivity, then how can one impose their morals upon God? One should remain skeptical about the ability to discern what is evil as there are limitations to the ability to understand the act and its consequences relative to an unlimited being. A theist does not need to know what purpose every evil serves in the creation of goodness but rather only the justification of God as the latter fulfills the former. What is considered to be evil from a theistic perspective is the deviation from the normative rule of God. From a naturalistic paradigm, how does one determine what is normative as there is no departure from an absolute standard if everything is based on randomness? Just because it appears that evil has no purpose does not necessitate that it does not have a purpose meaning there is no such thing as gratuitous evil. What evidence is there that the evil done is gratuitous or without purpose? It is impossible to claim that an evil is gratuitous as in order to infer that it is one needs to know what gratuitous looks like. One does not have access to the possible worlds where that evil does not occur to know if was gratuitous or not. 

    As it comes to predestination, one may argue that if God knew before creating that his creation would perform evil and could not do otherwise thus negating free will, the creation was made evil and is unjustly tortured for eternity for actions they had no control over. In order words, how can humans be punished for what God has determined they do? There are four principles of predestination in the Islamic paradigm. The first is that God knows what will happen, the second is that it is written down, the third is that God wills it to happen, and the fourth is that God creates everything. There is nothing in that which necessitates God predetermines everything in the sense that one does it robotically because God predetermined that action. One can have an internal reason which is prior to their will which informs their will but does not necessitate it and still have free will. There can be a non-necessitating cause to an action in free will.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Refutation of the Ashariyyah Aqidah

Image
Refutation of the Ashariyyah Aqidah   Aqidah:   Ash’ari beliefs:   1. Divine timelessness i.e. that Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ does not perform new sequential actions Himself. 2. Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ acts without motive or wisdom behind His acts as they believe if Allah was acting to fulfill a purpose then He would have been previously imperfect as He would be in need of something. 3. Metaphorical interpretations of Allah’s actions and attributes in order to avoid anthropomorphism. 4. Occasionalism i.e. the belief that God is the only true cause and that what we perceive as causes and effects in the world are merely occasions for God’s direct intervention. They deny that created entities have any intrinsic causal power or secondary causation. In other words, God creates the cause and the effect at each moment independent of the material 5. objects that seem to be involved. 6. Morality is arbitrarily based on Allah’s سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ will i.e. absolu
Read more

Overview of Athari Metaphysics

Image
Overview of Athari Metaphysics Metaphysics, the study of the fundamental nature of reality and existence, presents significant challenges and complexities. Within the realm of metaphysics, the Athari, a school of thought in Sunni Islam, perspective offers a unique approach to understanding the attributes and actions ascribed to Allah, or God. This overview explores the fundamental principles of their (and also my) metaphysics, including the distinction between the different types of predications when describing God’s attributes. It also considers the role of rational arguments alongside textual proofs for the existence of God and questions the concept of Divine Simplicity. Additionally, the overview delves into the uncreated nature of the Quran and the understanding of God's actions within His essence. By examining Athari metaphysics, we gain insights into the nuanced interpretation of divine attributes and deepen our understanding of God’s unknowable essence. The Athari view d
Read more

Challenging the Trinity: Indexicals and the Leftow Dilemma

Image
Challenging the Trinity: Indexicals and the Leftow Dilemma     The Doctrine of the Trinity stands as a central tenet of Christian belief, positing the existence of three distinct persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—within the divine unity of God. However, a nuanced examination reveals intriguing challenges that will be discussed in detail. This blog post will present two more arguments against the Doctrine of the Trinity. I have already discussed the Logical Problem of the Trinity (LPT) and how the Trinity contradicts Divine Simplicity elsewhere on my blog.   The Argument from Indexicals:   Indexical: A linguistic expression whose reference can change based on the context. Examples of indexicals include I, he, she, here, that, etc. If Person A says I am happy and Person B utters the same sentence, even though the sentence is the same, Person A is saying it while person B is saying it. In the orthodox conception of the doctrine of the Trinity, there is only one mind or one will in the
Read more