Books on the problem of evil

[Anonymous No.20002398]

Anyone got any books on the problem of evil?

I witnessed a murder today and I've never been more sure that God isn't real.

I really need the most heavy duty problem of evil solutions you have.

[Anonymous No.20002526]

No such thing as evil

[Anonymous No.20002530]

If God isn't real, then why do bad things happen?

[Anonymous No.20002532]

All things are evil that aren't God.

[Anonymous No.20002537]

Not a philosophy nerd. What’s seems to be the problem with it?
We want certain outcomes in life so there’s less of this abstraction we call evil, others are actively trying to exacerbate it. They’re in power and actually hold power this way.

[Anonymous No.20002541]

>>20002532
>>20002530
Haha, shut up

[Anonymous No.20002552]

"beyond good and evil"

Also God is real anon

[Anonymous No.20002638]

>>20002537
If God exists, why does he permit evil to occur?

[Anonymous No.20002644]

>>20002398
What is, is.
Whatever is, is. Whatever is not, is not.
Therefore, all that is, is as much as all else that is.
Therefore, whatever can be said about being itself is also true about all things that exist, in so far as they exist, but not further.

Existence is, in and of itself, good.
Therefore, in so far as something exists, it is good.
However, if goodness is coextensive with being by the reason of oneness of being, then evil does not consist in being, but rather in non-being.
Evil, then, is not something which exists, but is merely the phenomenon of the deprivation of goodness, which we might say is the deprivation of existence.

[Anonymous No.20002655]

>>20002638
Your understanding of the premises are so evidently faulty but you just ask the question anyway reddit boy

[Anonymous No.20002676]

>>20002398
Candide by Voltaire is a parody of the "best of all possible worlds" solution. It's very much "if god real then why bad thing happen", and reads like a shitpost

[Anonymous No.20002718]

>>20002655
Shit tier reply

[Anonymous No.20002724]

>>20002644
This is terrible anon throw your axioms away and don't dig them out of the trash later

[Anonymous No.20002786]

>>20002398
I'm sorry anon, I saw something like that before as well. It was kind of awful desu.

[Anonymous No.20002853]

>>20002718
It is not worth replying to. I am just sad for you.

[Anonymous No.20004213]

>>20002853
I am sad for those that decide the proper choice to deal with the unknown is ritual. What a pathetic state of affairs.

[Anonymous No.20004215]

>>20002398
Take the dualismpill

[Anonymous No.20004223]

The Problem of Pain - C S Lewis

[Anonymous No.20004225]

The world is somehow broken in some way - evil exists. Christ is a message to humanity that God suffers bearing witness to this evil - much of it man made evil.

Also life is a millisecond in the realm of eternity. Humans are not as important as we assume we are.

[Anonymous No.20004250]

>>20004215
Dualism and non-dualism are not mutually exclusive, they are just hierarchically posited. What that picture probably meant is monism vs. dualism.

[Anonymous No.20004270]

>>20004225
>God
>Suffering

Anon

[Anonymous No.20004364]

>>20002398
>I really need the most heavy duty problem of evil solutions you have.
There aren't any solutions, anon. There are only way of trying to explain away what we readily see before our eyes. There are several routes you can go, none of them solve anything.

1 People are going to be compensated for the evils of this world in the next world.
2 There's a greater good coming from this evil thing, we just don't know when or how or why
3 This is the best of all possible worlds
4 Suffering is soul-building

1 First of all, under the most common versions of theism, plently of people are also going to suffer in the next life, mostly because they don't accept the veracity of some apparently random propositions (this guy was god, this guy was a messenger of god). As a second point, the fact that in the next world people are going to be compensated for the suffering they are going through now is irrelevant when it comes to the present moment if the person offering the reward later is also able to offer it now. Later compensation at the cost of present suffering only makes sense if there's no agent who can prevent the present suffering or anticipate the later reward

2 This is just morally paralyzing. Whenever you see evil in the world, you must always ask "well, wouldn't it be better if I let i happen? After all, it might be part of God's plan". If you answer that you should always try to prevent evil just because it's morally correct to do so, that only solve the issue of what we should do, but it doesn't answer the question of "did our actions actually stop some greater good?". If the answer to that is no because everything no matter what falls into god's plan, then inaction would too and we're back at the beginning. Also, it doesn't answer the question of whether it's good to prevent certain evils from happening all together, or when we should do that.

3 Is a world with 1% less bone cancer in children possible? If so, this isn't the best of all possible worlds. If not, please explain why it's not possible (you can't)

4 You can't accept this hypothesis if you also believe in ensoulment at conception. Here's why. The natural miscarriage rate is at 50%, most of it happening within the first weeks. Historically, child mortality has been around 50% too. That means that around 75% of all souls have never gone through any meaningful sould building since they died before the age of reason. What kind of omnipotent being is incapable of building a system where people take the test that the world supposedly was built for?

The only way to solve the problem of evil is to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that God exists. Unfortunately, despite what feser bots and other idiots might say, nobody has done that.

[Anonymous No.20004373]

>>20004364
5 God is evil

[Anonymous No.20004378]

>>20004373
Sure, that's a possible solution but I doubt the average theist is going to like that.

[Anonymous No.20004380]

>>20004378
The average theist is retarded

[Anonymous No.20004383]

[Anonymous No.20004384]

>>20004373
Then the problem of evil turns into the problem of beauty. In other words, if God is evil, whence beauty and goodness? This "solution" is just a rewording of the original problem. Not sure why >>20004378 thought it was a "possible" solution.

[Anonymous No.20004387]

>>20004384
>if God is evil, whence beauty and goodness?
The God of this plane is evil. Beauty is captured here, not created here. The Good is outside of the world, but not omnipotent.

[Anonymous No.20004389]

>>20000000

[Anonymous No.20004391]

>>20004384
Because he said evil, not maximally evil.

[Anonymous No.20004418]

>>20004387
Or the God of this plane is good. Why one over the other? You have no actual rationale and the problem persists either way. And it also makes no sense how the ultimate good could not be ultimate in that it lacks potency. If it lacks power then I fail to see how it could be seen as good. "Good" cannot be removed from "powerful" or "strong"; there is no such thing as a "good weakling." There are weaklings who lack the potency for good or bad.
>>20004391
By the word "God" we are taking that to mean singularly God. If God is not maximally evil, then there must be another principle, and then it is not "God." It doesn't actually solve the problem of evil as I said, it just reformulates it at another level.

[Anonymous No.20004420]

>>20002398
Even in the shitty dualistic paradigm, Leibnitz solved the problem of evil with The Best Possible World argument. The problem of evil is no longer a problem

[Anonymous No.20004421]

>>20004418
>Or the God of this plane is good.
Then he's not omnipotent.
>lacks potency
No, it's just not compatible with evil. Good is absolutely separate from evil.

[Anonymous No.20004424]

>>20004418
>If it lacks power then I fail to see how it could be seen as good.

this is where you're wrong. the foundational delusion of the west

[Anonymous No.20004444]

>>20004421
>Then he's not omnipotent.
And neither is your God, the evil one. Because there is beauty and goodness in our world, your evil God must not be omnipotent. And if the good God is even partially powerful, why is he not absolutely powerful? What rationale is there for his comparative weakness?
>Good is absolutely separate from evil.
So whence the good in our world, again? I can just keep posing the same question to you, and now you become the theist defending the inverted "problem of evil", which is now the "problem of good."
>>20004424
Whence good if good contains no potency in itself? How can something be said to even exist if it has no power? Surely it must have some power, insofar as it is capable of bounding itself with respect to its opposite principle, the one which is supposedly evil and possesses potency in itself. If it cannot do good, cannot exude good, cannot even be said to exist (to exist being in a sense the most basic potency), I fail to see how it is at all good. Strength, "power", is in fact one of the most basic preconditions for all beauty in this world, more so than any other aesthetic principle. It is not a "Western delusion", the same idea exists in many other cultures.

If we come to rest at a simple moral dualism, so be it. But it solves no problems and we're back where we started. Good and evil exist in this world, and that is that. There is nothing more to see here.

[Anonymous No.20004447]

>>20004420
See this>>20004364

[Anonymous No.20004462]

>>20004447
Have you actually read Leibniz? Are you capable of explaining why or how a better world would be possible? His proof is deductive and not based on explaining every contingency in the phenomenal world (which would, as per his proof, be both impossible, and not philosophy).

[Anonymous No.20004466]

>>20004462
Do you understand I'm making a separate argument as to why this world is not the best of all possible worlds?

[Anonymous No.20004475]

>>20004466
Your argument did not actually make sense. It is based on the idea that I cannot prove (phenomenally) that a better world isn't possible, but then you also cannot prove the inverse, that a better world IS possible, so that the entire assertion is impotent, it rests on our inability to reason deductively with infinite causal chains in the phenomenal world. This is not a refutation, in the slightest, of the best of all possible worlds argument, which is deductive and has no relationship to bone cancer or any other of these "refutations" that you believe in. Leibniz has absolutely laid the argument to rest, permanently. The counter-argument you presented is a classic misunderstanding. There is Gödel's reformulation of the argument using modal logic too, which can only be confounded by questioning the axioms (which is essentially always the last resort for those who just want to disagree for the sake of it, because they "feel that it's wrong").

[Anonymous No.20004488]

>>20004475
>Your argument did not actually make sense
Yes it did, you're just a brainlet.
P1 The best of all possible worlds can not be improved upon
P2 This world can be improved upon
C1 This world is not the best of all possible worlds.
P1 is true by definition, and to substantiate P2 I only need to give conceivability. I can conceive of a world that is better than this, therefore the conclusion follows. Not only that, but if you say god must create the best of all possible worlds and that world only, the fact that this isn't that, is proof of the nonexistence of god, which is one of the reasons why even theistic philosophers of religion don't like that argument (setting aside issues such as "is the best of all possible worlds even a thing?" which are not minor at all)
>this is not a refutation, in the slightest, of the best of all possible worlds argument, which is deductive
Stop repeating yourself like a nigger hollering at some sheboon, I know it's deductive, and that's precisely my point. It starts from god, and ends up at the best of all possible worlds. I'm saying that I'm not starting from god, i'm starting from this world and concluding that it's not the best, it's not even top 100.
>Leibniz has absolutely laid the argument to rest
Literally no philosopher of religion believes this, not even theists.

[Anonymous No.20004511]

>>20004488
>P2 This world can be improved upon
You didn't understand the point I was making. You are the brainlet. If you can prove this assertion, then you win. But you can't.

[Anonymous No.20004523]

>>20004488
>>20004511
And before I get the rehashing of the "substantiation" you already provided, it's true that you would have to give conceivability. But you actually cannot provide it. Our world exists in infinite time and space. In order to conceive of a better world, you would have to be capable of conceiving every moment and every change in position of every particle as you alter the world to what you see as "better." This is simply not possible, hence we come back to the problem I just raised in the previous post which you didn't seem to get. It is not possible for you to provide conceivability, just as it is not possible for me to provide it either. Only the infinite mind of God could see something like that (hence the elaboration of Leibniz's basic argument).

[Anonymous No.20004528]

>>20004511
>If you can prove this assertion
As I've already said, to substantiate P2 I only need to give conceivability. Bone cancer in children is bad. A world with less bone cancer in children is better ceteris paribus. A world with less bone cancer in children is conceivable (i just need to conceive of a world where for example the snps that make you at higher risk of bone cancer are less prevalent and are subsituted by benign snps). That's it, done. Since there are no prima facie reasons to reject that such a world is possible, you'll have to prove it's not. This is how it works in modal logic.

[Anonymous No.20004534]

>>20004523
>In order to conceive of a better world, you would have to be capable of conceiving every moment and every change in position
That's not how conceivability works. Maybe read something that is less than 300 years old.

[Anonymous No.20004538]

>>20004528
>to substantiate P2 I only need to give conceivability.
Which you haven't done.
>A world with less bone cancer in children is better ceteris paribus.
>ceteris paribus
You've just outed yourself. There is no such thing as ceteris paribus in a world of total causal connection.
>>20004534
Yes it is. See above.

[Anonymous No.20004544]

Read Tiantai you shits. This is the best and worst of all possible worlds

[Anonymous No.20004545]

>>20004528
>Since there are no prima facie reasons to reject that such a world is possible
We're also not arguing about whether that is possible or not. We're arguing about the best possible world - non ceteris paribus - where everything is conceived as a whole (which, again, cannot be done), not ceteris paribus - taken apart. You don't actually know the potential ramifications on the rest of the world or universe by making that small alteration. A small increase in good may result in a greater increase in bad at some, possibly very far off, point in time. It is simply not for you or me to know, as already pointed out. So there is no actual conceivability present - "ceteris paribus" is not conceivability.

[Anonymous No.20004549]

>>20004544
Could you elaborate

[Anonymous No.20004559]

>>20004538
>Yes it is. See above.
No it isn't. Again, read a book. And don't go around quoting Godel's modal arguments if you then also blabber about this nonsense view of conceivability.
>There is no such thing as ceteris paribus
It's not meant to be read as all other things identical, it's all other things equal. As in, no bad things are added. Jesus fucking christ get a lot of this pseud.

[Anonymous No.20004561]

>>20004544
That's actually the view I hold myself. I believe this is also the logical conclusion of Leibniz's arguments if you remove God.

[Anonymous No.20004563]

>>20004545
>A small increase in good may result in a greater increase in bad at some
Right, and it may not. That's the whole point, it may. If it may, it's conceivable. If it's conceivable, I've given all I need for P2 to stand. please, read something on s5.

[Anonymous No.20004579]

>>20004559
>No it isn't
Yes it is. I've probably read more than you.
>It's not meant to be read as all other things identical, it's all other things equal.
Yes, which is the sense I was taking it in. It is fantastical, and solves nothing, as it does not allow for a possible conception of reality, which is exactly what "conceivability" means - it allows for an impossible conception of reality, a reality taken apart from reality (meaningless gibberish). It's the same reason why all economic models are inherently flawed.

[Anonymous No.20004582]

>>20004579
evil exists. you are gay. nigger nigger jew nigger

[Anonymous No.20004588]

>>20004582
Profoundly based

[Anonymous No.20004607]

>>20004549
>Each part is the whole, each quality subsumes all other qualities, and yet none are ever eradicable. A Buddha in the world makes the world all Buddha, saturated in every locus with the quality “Buddhahood”; a devil in the world makes the world all devil, permeated with “deviltry”. Both Buddha and devil are always in the world. So every event in the world is always both entirely Buddhahood and entirely deviltry. Every moment of experience is always completely delusion, evil and pain, through and through, and also completely enlightenment, goodness and joy, through and through.

[Anonymous No.20004610]

>>20004563
>Right, and it may not.
There is no "may not" or "may", there is simply a cause which results in an effect, and you cannot conceive of the actual results of altering any of these. The "may" I just gave is only applicable from a limited human perspective which does not have full understanding - it is not actually valid, on an ontological level, as "conceivability." Conceivability does not enter the equation, except when considering impossibilities - ie "ceteris paribus." Except on the off chance that one has an infinite intellect, and is therefore able to hold the entire chain of consequence in mind at once in order to examine the actual content of what is good or bad. So basically this seems to come down to you confusing subjective imagination ("ceteris paribus") with actual conceivability at an ontological level, which is evidently not possible. There is no possible way to suggest that this world can be improved upon without an ontological conceivability, and not a subjective one.

[Anonymous No.20004611]

>>20004607
Isn't that just a convoluted way of endorsing perspectivism?

[Anonymous No.20004616]

>>20004611
No, it's also an ontology and escape hatch

[Anonymous No.20004620]

>>20004616
>it's also an ontology
How can you have an ontology that is self contradicting?
What do you mean by escape hatch

[Anonymous No.20004627]

>>20004620
everything is "simultaneously" liberating and dungeoning. the lock coincides with the key

[Anonymous No.20004634]

>>20004627
What determines whether the 'liberating' or the 'dungeoning' aspect is actualized?

[Anonymous No.20004638]

>>20002398

[Anonymous No.20004649]

>>20004634
your insight into these matters

[Anonymous No.20004650]

>>20004638
>god loves you
>but repent or you'll burn, you're a sinner and asking questions is demonic so shut the fuck up
Beautiful religion

[Anonymous No.20004653]

>>20002398
>problem of evil
Simple. Evil exists because of Satan. Who represents all that is antithetical to God.

[Anonymous No.20004655]

>>20004649
How is insight attained?

[Anonymous No.20004668]

>>20004653
Gnostic heresy.

[Anonymous No.20004675]

>>20004610
In other words it is as simple as this: "I don't know the reason why x could not be y" (a reasonable statement) does not translate to "there is no reason why x could not be y (it is conceivable that x could be y)." (this oversteps the bounds of our knowledge drastically). I can conceive of limited situations where everything in the given situation is ideal. I can conceive of the mere existence of unlimited situations where everything is ideal. What I cannot conceive of is anything more than the existence of the latter. Conversely I cannot conceive of the mere existence of a limited (and ideal) situation yet I can conceive of its content, unlike the latter statement.

[Anonymous No.20004688]

>>20004668
Gnosticism is based and you're a retard

[Anonymous No.20004696]

>>20004544
Good and bad oscillate and react to each other, it is not a matter of a polar fixed distance.

[Anonymous No.20005472]

Bump

[Anonymous No.20005477]

>sees someone get shot (happens all the time)
OH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OH GOOOOOOOOOOD THE WORLD IS HORRIBLE AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH SAVE ME NIGGERMAN