Too loooooooong
Presumably the persistence of evil is evidence against certain specific definitions of god though?

If you have a solution to Hume's "Whence evil?" problem I'd be interested to hear it.

For those unfamiliar with it:
"Is he [god] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?"
(flimflam_machine, Thu 19 Mar 2009, 16:29, 3 replies)

The
Augustinian and Irenaen thoedicies (particularly the second) are normally quoted here.
( MatJ LOOK, Thu 19 Mar 2009, 17:14, closed)

Well...
It might be that god is morally indifferent, or has a different moral code from us. (Maybe we're wrong.)

Plus, evil seems to be perspectival, to at least some extent. For example, the "evil" of smallpox is evil only from an anthropic perspective. To the bacillus in question, vaccination is the evil.

The problem lies in assuming that god's view coincides with ours, for which we have no evidence at all.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Thu 19 Mar 2009, 17:48, closed)

you mean a solution apart from
it's a pointless series of words designed to give first-year philosophy students something to debate in bars to sound clever? ;)

It's meaningless except if you consider a god to be a personification of human traits.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Thu 19 Mar 2009, 18:15, closed)

Not completely useless
I don't think that it's particularly pointless, but it's certainly not without problems. I do think it's quite a good first gambit against those of a more fluffy religious nature who insist that god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent.

As has been pointed out, the weight of this argument does depend on god's point of view coinciding with ours or, more basically, that god is in some way comprehensible to us. If neither of those things are true then all bets are off, but it would make religion rather pointless.
(flimflam_machine, Fri 20 Mar 2009, 11:10, closed)

All true
but you didn't ask for an analysis of whether religion is pointless or not, just for a solution of Hume's statement.

and the solution is, it's meaningless rubbish because it makes a massive and indefensible assumption.

job done.

Edit - or to put it another way, did you actually meant "a solution to Hume's statment that would appeal to and be understood by those soft enough in the head to believe in a "beardy sky wizard" form of a god"

In which case, my question is, why waste your fucking time? it's not like you'll convince them their god doesn't exist.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Fri 20 Mar 2009, 12:55, closed)

Erm...
Sorry tMB, I'm not quite following you here. Are you saying that this

"It's meaningless except if you consider a god to be a personification of human traits."

is your solution? It may just be because it's Friday, but I'm missing why god is required to be 'a personification of human traits' to give this meaning, unless by 'a personification of human traits' you mean 'comprehensible to us'.

In short, what's the massive indefensible assumption that it's making?
(flimflam_machine, Fri 20 Mar 2009, 13:24, closed)

It's also not meaningless
when you consider that for a few million Abrahamics that god IS a personification of human traits (or vice versa, which equates to the same thing).
( jme, Fri 20 Mar 2009, 14:32, closed)

but the statment IS meaningless to them
because anyone religious is hardly going to look at it and go "Oh my. well, in one sentence my faith is shattered. There is no God. Well done Hume"

so why waste time thinking about it? It's meaningless to the non-religious and of no consequence to the religious.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Fri 20 Mar 2009, 17:01, closed)

because the statement conveys upon this "god"
traits that can only be described in human terms. Evil, omniscence, omnipotence. It relies also on human preconceptions of evil.

because, fundamentally, if what "we" call evil and what the beardy sky wizard calls evil differ, then the point of the statement disappears.

And even ignoring the whole "god doesn't exist thing" and stretching reality to assume that there is some higher power, don't you think it's just a touch arrogant to assume that this god would work in human terms? we are neither the most populus species nor the one with greatest longevity. We view ourselves as the most important only by our own sheer arrogance.

So, basically, you want to know the solutions? there are two real (ie for the non-devoutly religious) - it's either a)irrelevant or b) meaningless as a statement because either a) there isn't a god or b) if you must, a god would be relevant to all species and therefore not judgable by human criteria ..

or one imaginary solution, for the devoutly religious. I don't know what that is, because I wouldn't waste my time thinking about it because it's not like they would listen.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Fri 20 Mar 2009, 16:49, closed)

Yes but
I think that you're side-stepping this question rather too glibly. I doubt that the question would still be a matter for discussion after 2 millenia if there was such a simple answer.

On one hand I agree with you. It is arrogant to think that such a god necessarily works in human terms and can be described through human language. However, if that is the case it would seem that god's actions, views and intentions are utterly incomprehensible. So there is very little point in worshipping such a being since the outcome is completely unpredictable. The logical conclusion to a theist saying that god is beyond human understanding or ineffable is that they are simply kowtowing to a being because that being is almighty, not because that being is benevolent, which is fair enough if you can stomach it.

However... the argument is usually directed against theists who *do* attribute the relevant characteristics (omnipotence and omnibenevolence) to god and maintain that he has these characteristics in ways that humans can understand. *This* is the problem for which I was seeking a solution i.e., the coexistence of an omnibenevolent, omnipotent god and a world that contains evil. I think your first objection is not relevant, it doesn't matter that we have different definitions of evil as long as we accept that the world does contain evil. To create a problem it is enough that we suffer and that, by definition, an omnipotent god could prevent that.

The Augustinian and Iranaen theodicies both seem pretty weak to me, but they are at least attempts to explain the situation whilst not redifining any of the terms (fighting the hypo!)

So when I think it through, I come to the conclusion that either (i) all bets are off because god is utterly incomprehensible, or that god is (ii) non-existent, or (iii) - in human terms - morally indifferent. One conclusion I also come to on the way to (i) is that terms like 'omnipotent', 'omnibenevolent' and particularly 'perfect' are drastically mis-used in this kind of debates because they have no real explanatory power in terms of what god would or wouldn't/can or can't do.
(flimflam_machine, Fri 20 Mar 2009, 17:56, closed)

I know what you're saying
but I still don't think that's the point. I think, to put it bluntly, at least on this statement, all it proves is that theists who debate this are idiots. There are blatantly obvious solutions that they disregard because of their assumptions about their "god's" character.

terms like omnipotent are massively misused, but then they are only meaningful to theists anyway. But belief is misused - atheists don't have beliefs, for example, because a belief demands that it is held in the face of a lack of supporting evidence. Atheists just know there is no god. Admittedly that's difficult for me to vindicate in the face of my comments about theories above, but that's basically how it is.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Sun 22 Mar 2009, 21:38, closed)