Talk:Problem of evil/Archive 4

These articles seem to be the exact same concept (with Euthyphro having more), though I do notice that this article is prejudiced towards assuming that Elohim cannot be. Thus, it seems prudent to merge the two.KrytenKoro 14:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose a merge. The two problems have nothing to do with each other. The problem of evil has to do with why is there evil if a good omnipotent god exists, while the Euthyphro dilemma is about whether god is the source of morality or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.243.77 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the last user. These are two very distinct issues in philosophy of religion that require an article each. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.251.69 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 13 September 2007 UTC

Presently the merge notice indicates that the two articles to be merged are 'problem of evil' and theodicy.

The underlying problem is that the 'theodicy' article is entirely and exclusively about the 'problem of evil,' and not about 'theodicy', which is -- as the name indicates -- really about [justifications for] [the existence of] god, to include all problems stemming from those "proofs". The 'problem of evil', to include death, sickness etc, is only one of those problems.

A related problem is that there is already also an article that deals with the for/against the existence for God. Obviously, 'theodicy' needs to redirect there.

So, what ought to be done with all the 'problem of evil' stuff presently in the 'theodicy' article? Obviously, it needs to come here. -- Fullstop (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree the two should not be merged. Although they do overlap; there are parts that should be in one and not the other. A theodicy is any attempt to justify the ways of God to man, I think I've even seen a Oxford University press volume strictly about "Hell Theodicy". In any case, these articles both need a lot of work. And ideally the problem of evil would even be split to the logical and the evidential, but we are very very far from that. Merzul (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Striking through my comment: I'm no longer sure. Merzul (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• NO MERGE - Very poor idea. The two subjects are inadequately correlative. Tucu (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge!!! The two topics are clearly related. The theodicies are an attempt to justify God in the light of evil, so because of this join the make a merge pledge today!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.95.59 (talk) 13:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• These articles should not be merged. The Problem of Evil is a philosophical problem in the Philosophy of Religion, a Theodicy is strictly a theological enterprise which attempts to explain God's moral plan in the Christian religion. The two are related, Theodicy is a way of attempting to solve the Problem of Evil, but it is by no means the only way. The Free Will Defence is a means of opposing the argument from evil which is not (strictly) a Theodicy. Thomaschina03 (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's have a look at the definition: "Theodicy (IPA: /θiːˈɒdɪsi/) (adjectival form theodicean) is a specific branch of theology and philosophy that attempts to reconcile the existence of evil or suffering in the world with the belief in an omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent God, i.e., the problem of evil."

Either this definition is wrong and needs to be completely rewritten, or the articles should be merged. Richard001 (talk) 11:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Don't merge. That definition is clearly inadequate and should indeed be rewritten. Saluton (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

  I will try to do a slight rewrites to see, if the difference can be made clear. Anyone else is of course welcome to help, and keep your eyes open in case I mess things up. Merzul (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

In any case, I've now rewritten the lead slightly; but the difference I see between these two articles does actually not mean they shouldn't be merged. However, a merge would require cleaning up the other article. This article seems a lot easier to attack... :) Merzul (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• No please do not merge. The Theodicy article appears focused on an " omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent God" or if you like an Abrahamic god. As such it excludes other forms of metaphysics. The introduction to this article on the other hand identifies it as "reconciling the existence of evil or suffering in the world with the existence of God, a force for infinite good". The latter descriptors are critical as they potentially open the discussion not only to other religions but also philosophies where the concept of 'evil' needs to be substantially explored as well. The style of this entry as a whole so far seem to make it more open to introducing lateral discourse as appropriate. Newtownian (talk) 06:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem of evil is no problem for christians who believe in the devil but then why is Christianity (or parts of it) not listed under "Ditheism"? --Mudd1 10:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Etymologically, Ditheism suggests two gods, as does this section of the article. None of the Abrahamic faiths affirm that the devil is deity, lesser or not. Thus, the problem of evil persists regardless of Satan, since God remains passively responsible for all evil acts. Satan has no autonomous power.

But then God should be able to prevent Satan from doing whatever it does. Either God doesn't want to (then the article's assumption of God as "a force for infinite good" is not met and thus the problem of evil doesn't apply) or it cannot (then Satan does have "autonomous power" as you call it) in which case the problem of evil is solved but the particular faction of Christianity should IMO be considered ditheistic. Or there's no Satan at all of course but then you have the problem of evil again. What am I missing? --Mudd1 (talk) 10:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem of evil is separate from the issue that pretty much no Christians consider the devil an equal of God. There's plenty of religions floating around that do, but it's not really relevant here. Wkerney (talk) 22:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of the apparent logical inconsistency that arouses the problem of evil and the need for Christian theodicy. My comment responds to the seemingly unqualified assertion that, because Christians believe in the devil, Christians are not assailed by the problem of evil and are also ditheists. Also, God's inability to stop a given evil does not mean that Christians are ditheists. That does not follow. Also, if there is a Christian faction that is in fact truly dualistic, where the devil is elevated to god, a citation would be nice. I any event, such a faction is best judged an aberration and hardly warrants the broad assertion that Christianity be listed under Ditheism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.43.150.131 (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

the presumption of this article is that there is a problem in the first place and what is overlooked by many is that evil is a mental invention not found in reality. reality is made of atoms, molecules and cells that move according to laws of physics and are not good nor evil, just real. Evil has no existance until you impose an idealized fantasy world upon the real world as a standard of measure and in doing so you create things which support or lead to the ideal and things that lead away or harm the ideal. remove the ideal and you remove good and evil, thus problem solved, no problem ever existed in the first place but by rejection of reality.Jiohdi (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Evil is a moral judgement. Morals come from God, or at least from humans that believe in God or gods. No God, no morals. No morals, no evil. It really is as simple as that. So it's ironic that many of the arguments presented end in atheistic conclusions while hinging on the presumption of evil's existence! DannyMuse (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No, Moral does not come from God, come from ourselves. It depends on what you've been thought to. 201.1.47.152 (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

See above.--Steven X (talk) 04:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

"things that lead away or harm the ideal" - you really care to discuss the things humans do that "lead away or harm" the assumed idea behind evolution?! While the subjectivity of good/evil should most certainly be mentioned you should really consider why your position is more philosophical then scientific within our current understanding of the universe. 193.226.105.89 (talk) 10:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

"you really care to discuss the things humans do that "lead away or harm" the assumed idea behind evolution?!". ...what? Ilkali (talk) 10:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Really, The Final Jewish "Solution" Am I the only one seeing the problem with that?

-Lauris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.15.39.223 (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Theodicy relies on a metaphysical view of morality that few people, even theologians, agree with[citation needed] (that good and evil are not moral judgments).

HAHA, this is unfair to theologians. Someone should fix that eventually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.198.141 (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the following from the main page: Moral argument from evil

1. The most rational theists believe (i.e. roughly speaking, have a belief) that God exists.
2. If a god exists, then there is objective justification for every actual instance of evil (even if no-one intervenes to prevent that evil).
   1. For any possible world W, if a god exists in W, then every instance of evil in W is objectively justified.
   2. If a god exists, then there is an objective justification for every actual instance of evil, (including those evils where there is a witness).
3. Some members of the class of most rational theists (as defined above) are theists who believe(2).
4. Some of the most rational theists (namely, those who know 2) know that there is objective justification for any actual instance of evil, justification that will occur even if no onlooker intervenes to stop or prevent that evil.
5. If human person P knows that there is objective justification for evil E, and that this justification will occur even if P does not intervene to stop or prevent E, then P is morally justified in allowing E to occur.
6. Some of the most rational theists (namely, those who know 2) are morally justified in allowing any actual evil to occur. (from 4 and 5)
7. If the most rational theists know that a god exists, then some of those theists (namely, those who know 2) are morally justified in allowing any evil to occur. (from 1 to 6)
8. Even the most rational theists (including those who know 2) are not morally justified in allowing just any evil to occur.
9. Even the most rational theists do not know that a god exists. (from 7 and 8)
10. If the most rational theists do not know that a god exists, then no theist knows that a god exists.
11. No theist knows that a god exists. (from 9 and 10)
12. For any given theist, that theist's belief that a god exists is either false or unjustified.
13. If a god exists, then some theists are justified in believing that a god exists.
14. If a god exists, then no theist has a false belief that a god exists.
15. If a god exists, then some theists know (i.e., have a justified, true belief) that God exists. (from 13 and 14)
16. It is not the case that some theists know (i.e., have a justified and true belief) that a god exists. (from 12)
17. No god exists. (from 15 and 16)

I did so because it's an excessively poor argument with which I doubt many atheists agree. It makes all sorts of premises with no support and even begs the question. I'm all for arguments, but let's put some good examples on the page. --Liempt (talk) 07:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Besides the quote from Hume's Dialogues, there is no mention of the unnecessary suffering endured by non-human animals from things like disease. I note that once the silly free will and original sin/testing you out arguments are exhausted, there seems to be little explanation for this strange cruelty in nature (though I'm sure the theologicians have conjured up something for this too). Richard001 (talk) 11:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean Bambi? :) Also see the nice exposition by Nick Trakakis on the IEP. But to answer your immediate question, the simplest approach is to lift the free-will defence from human agents to super-human agents. Very trivialized, you get tsunamis because of Satanic activity, whose free will is essential in the same way that human free will is needed. Theologians, I'm sure, have a lot more things to say.

There is terribly much to do on these articles, but the specialized encyclopaedias IEP and SEP already cover these topics very well, so I find it hard to motivate myself to do something about this topic. I'm very interested in evil though, so I might come here and help at some point. Cheers, Merzul (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Animals are unreasoning, cannot think about or understand any suffering they may endure. suffering to an animal is nothing like suffering to a human, where emotional factors are involved (Deer probably don't think "why me?" when getting shot or pounced on.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.35.204.200 (talk) 02:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC) 86.178.40.253 (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)This is POOR argument

Trinitarian Universalism ... --Emesee (talk) 04:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Of all the stuff in this article I find the diversity of views perhaps the material to capitalize on. The philosophical expositions are in a bad shape and as I said, it is not worth duplicating the freely available high quality material on IEP and SEP. What can be done here is to reorganize material to give the history section more prominence and including the Islamic and Buddhist views. Then a simple overview of the philosophy, and I don't know, maybe go for the very very recent stuff on the problem of evil.

Any ideas on what to do with this article? Merzul (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask again, are there any objections, if I were to start making some changes to this article? Is anyone watching this, who would like to help? Merzul (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally I don't think we should pay too much attention to what other websites are out there. We should just write the article as we normally would, and if there is enough to say, split off some subarticles too. We aren't trying to find a niche market for our article that the other encyclopedias haven't covered. However, if there is enough to write about (and I suspect there both is and that it's notable - with topics like this notability is hardly an issue), we could certainly have a whole article on e.g. history (as we do presently with Hinduism). We could even use theodicy as a 'subarticle' that goes into more detail about the philosophical stuff (though isn't it all philosophical?) and do as you said here, if we are not going to merge it. Richard001 (talk) 10:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you are right, actually. Let's see what happens, if we try to write it as we see fit. It would still be different as specialist encyclopaedias to some degree provide novel formulations, and even argue a certain conclusion; while we have to put up with everyone's opinion :) Merzul (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to formulate these ideas in the lead, but I simply can't write properly. This is frustrating... If anyone is willing, please do edit the lead aggressively. I can answer questions here, if something is not clear, but it isn't really that complicated as my obfuscated writing is making it. :) Thanks, Merzul (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Continuing my spam of this talk page... Now that the lead tag was move to the article, could someone maybe help copy-edit the lead. I guess something should be added about the history to make it more of a summary of the article. Maybe what I wrote should be moved to an overview section? In any case, the current lead is not conforming with WP:LEAD... Merzul (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

An anonymous user has removed a picture because it was shocking. Yet, that picture does capture very well, the focus of modern formulations of this problem, namely, horrendous evil. It's not so much that evil exits, but the extent and distribution of evil. Are there any more opinions about this? Merzul (talk) 07:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• I strongly support the use of pictures in this context. Too many people use intellectualization to distance themselves from truth, and too many others appear to be severely impaired with respect to empathy. —Aetheling (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I also support including the picture.--Editor2020 (talk) 03:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• I support the removal of this picture. Can't we replace it with another picture that will convey the same message, without being this shocking to the eye? For example the large scale effects of an earthquake or a tsunami? As for inducing empathy: that's not the job of an encyclopedia. --Fabullus (talk) 05:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The section under Biblical Tradition is incomplete and inaccurate regarding the account of Job. It is essential to understanding it to know that in the account it is Satan that challenges God regarding Job. - see Job 1:6 - 12

Satan claims that Job only serves God because of the blessings and protection that Job has received from God. According to the account, God allows the challenge.

I added text to the article to make this clear. Please, do not change/edit without reading the book of Job. It's not that long and it is actually easy to understand. Thanks! DannyMuse (talk) 23:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the book of Job is for our purposes a primary source, and for that section to improve, we should rely on modern scholarship on that topic. Thanks, Merzul (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Merzul, I'm unclear about the point you're trying to make. Could you please explain? Thanks, -- DannyMuse (talk) 20:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that interpreting the book of Job is original research, and very serious one at that. Ideally, we should have some philosophers interpretation on how the Book of Job relates to the problem of evil. Merzul (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to add, I'm not disputing the material in question. I'm just saying how things should ideally be done. I'm not in a rush to remove it or anything. Merzul (talk) 20:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Just so you know, I am clear on WP:OR. The content I added is easily verifiable. Anyone could read Job 1:6-12. As you mentioned this is the primary source. For the skeptical or perhaps the lazy, they can read the WP article Book of Job. Although I did some rewording, all the content I added is from that source.

Do you think there should be a link to an online Bible? If so, which one? Thanks, -- DannyMuse (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I like this style: Job 1:6–12, using {{bibleverse-lb}}. Merzul (talk) 21:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice, are you going to make it so, or would you like me to? -- DannyMuse (talk) 22:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead. I don't own this article, I just spam the talk-page :) Merzul (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I changed the uncited (no date, publication version etc.) for Hume quote to match Project Gutenberg's version. Part of the quote previously in this article -- then why call Him God? -- was not in the text so I cut it. Words lacking capitalization are as in the cited version. Penguinwithin (talk) 02:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I just read in the german Wikipedia that this is not actually from Epicurus and not even from his school, but from an unknown sceptic. They cite:

Reinhold F. Glei: Et invidus et inbecillus. Das angebliche Epikurfragment bei Laktanz, De ira dei 13,20-21, in: Vigiliae Christianae 42 (1988), S. 47-58; Arthur Stanley Pease (Hrsg.): M. Tulli Ciceronis De natura deorum. Libri secundus et tertius, Cambridge (Mass.) 1958, S. 1232f.

I can´t verify this, someone should perhaps look it up and se if it should have consequences for the article. 89.246.55.33 (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

the true story that one man who ate lots of snake meat, and later himself had become snake like being with the snake skin on his body. I'm not sure which evil harboured him

http://inter-disciplinary.net/publishing/idp/eBooks/Considering%20Evil%20v1.2.pdf#page=124 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.14.152.15 (talk) 08:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

http://ent.775.com/2004/6-17/152514.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.14.152.15 (talk) 08:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

However, the case needs to be validated by cross-validation, which means that another similar case having also occurred outside of China needs to be brought foward.

Any other human being ate snakes as a staple food without methaphysical intervention???

Hong Kong people have the tradition of eating snake meat bought from market, which can not be used as validation materials.

One thing that can be studied indicatively is that doing comparison of population surveyes between in Hong Kong/Guandong and other region on the people who were born in the year of Snake in Chinese zodiac +/- one year gap, to see if there is any significant differences. Vise versa, similar indicative study can be conducted on the comparison of the populations between China and any western countries, where beef is a popular food, on the people who were born in the year of Ox in Chinese zodiac before 1961. The reason to limit the population after 1961 +/- one year gap is due to the influence of Korean war which have brought lots of Ox karmic spirits to China.

Even if we accept that free will requires the potential to do evil, between an individual deciding to do evil and the consequence of that action coming to fruition, God still has the ability to intervene with his awesome powers.

Also, if free will leads to evil, and heaven is all good no bad, does that mean there is no free will in heaven? Or is heaven not as rosy a place as people imagine?--Dodo bird (talk) 03:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Does not matter if free will requires evil or not, if evil exists this means that either god can do nothing, is not willing to, or simple doesn't exists, so why bother ?

Regarding the heaven, they could say that there is free will but no one would do bad things because only the "good" people go to heaven.

Notice that, as more we think about this theme, the arguments, regardless who made it, converge to a society problem and put god in background. 189.46.45.232 (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

This article, and the most, if not all, of the arguments within it, all have one problem, they make many assumptions about God.

1) They often assume that God is all-powerful, that he has no force that can oppose him without him allowing it.

2) They often assume God is perfect, with no flaws at all, least of all evil, especially compared to human beings.

3) They assume God is benevolent, that he is good and only desires good for humans.

4) They often assume that God exists.

However, they rarely, if ever, consider that any or all of these things might be false, most of all number 3 (and by extenstion 2). I have never seen an argument for the problem of evil that is rather simple, that God may be evil himself. That God may, for whatever reason desire that mankind suffer, intentionlly cause suffering to mankind, and desire that we cause suffering to each other. The reason, in my opinion, is that God is intended to be everything we aspire to be, to teach us good values, and to have something to strive for. This would something that would be impossible to do with a God that is less that perfect.

Note: This discussion is perfectly valid, as it point out many faults in the arguments within the article. Do not remove it unless you have a valid reason. This section is not intended to be a forum, and if it comes across as one, I apologize. This is intended to be a request to refute my claim, and, as said before, to point out a problem with the arguments within the article. Once again, do not remove unless you have a valid reason, I am not convinced that you have one, and until I am, I will not allow my section to be vandalized. 66.41.44.102 (talk) 07:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Understood, sorry for misunderstanding that this was directed at the article. If you can present WP:reliable sources from philosophers proving that these points are used, then we can incorporate them into the article. Wikipedia does not allow WP:OR, and perhaps this article already contains some of it, but it seems to mainly go over classical debates. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 05:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the reliable sources is that what I'm trying to get others to find, because I'm not very good at it. I wanted others to see if they could find info from philosophers or other good sources that either varifies or denies my claim; varifing would probably be difficult it find, as what I am saying flies in the face of most concepts of God.66.41.44.102 (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

In conventional philosophy, God is defined as a being that has three traits:
Omnipotence: He is all-powerful
Omniscience: He knows all. He sees all.
Omnibenevolence: He all and only good.
In philosophical terms, if God does not satisfy these three requirements, He does not exist. If God does not exist, then no further discussion is necessary. The problem of evil is generally presented within this framework. I hate to sound condescending, but this is basic Philosophy 101 stuff. 129.237.90.25 (talk) 04:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I know, but what I'm getting at is that an argument that God does not satisfy omnibenevolence is one that I don't see here, or much of anywhere for that matter. It's as if such a argument is unheard of, that there is no possiblity of such a thing. I also wanted to point out that the info in the article and by extenstion the citations make only assumptions about God, it does not state facts. This applies to both arguments for and against God's existence. However, I do realize that it is difficult, if not impossible, to find true facts about a being that is created by the human mind, or a spirtual being, or whatever one believes.66.41.44.102 (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, the moment you say that God doesn't satisfy omnibenevolence as a trait, your not dealing with God. Your dealing with a omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being. Not with God. God is BY DEFINITION all those traits the previous contributor mentioned. For example, if I present you with a drink not for drinking, then I'm not presenting you a drink. Because by definition, drinks are liquids for drinking. But, if you watch closely, these arguments you state aren't rebuked are in fact what is rebuked during the analysis, just read the tenth point in the "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil#Detailed_arguments" argument. And, yes, it impossible to find factual information about this subject, as arguments depend more on logic. Factual evidence of God would be, simply put, big news. If you believe he is a being created by human mind, with His attributes, you'd need to prove just that, it was created by human mind. And that would involve time travel... If you believe He is a spiritual being, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, you'd need Him to actually want you to find the evidence. 205.211.221.52 (talk) 06:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Defining something is not that simple, for instance: Suppose all rabbits were defined as being only brown, and suddenly a white rabbit was discovered, one would not determine that the white rabbit could not be defined as a rabbit, one would alter the defintion of rabbits to include white rabbits. God is the same, if we were to discover that God was not omnibelevolent (don't ask me how), we would still be talking about God, but we would change our defintion of him to reflect that.

There is a problem with using logic to argue God, all the arguments against and for God have no basis in fact, they are always: if A is true then B MUST be true. They use opinions, assumptions, and supposed facts that could easily be fabricated or misunderstood, (i.e. The Bible). The flaw with using this process to define and learn about something is that we don't know if A is true, and thus if B is. We don't know if God is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, etc. For all we know, God could not exist, or our definition of him could be completely wrong, or completely right, we just don't know. The A=B process is only effective or applicable only if one knows that A is true, otherwise B is unknowable. Besides, if there is no factual evidence of God, then by the standards of science he does not exist.66.41.44.102 (talk) 02:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood him/her. What he/she is stating is that God doesn't refer to just any idea of a single all-powerful creator, it refers to the single all-powerful creator who is omnibenevolent, among other attributes. If we did have a creator who wasn't that, it wouldn't be God, it would be some other all-powerful creator figure, even if it's the only one in existence. Basically, God wouldn't exist, but instead the world would have been created by this sole deity, who doesn't reflect the idea of God. When philosophers, whatever their religious background, discuss the existence of God, the trait of benevolence (along with various deity traits relating to knowledge and power) is part of the entire conception of what they are describing. This is going into deep terminology, and I'm not sure if he/she is right about that. We'd need sources, either way. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 02:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The flaw in your argument is this, a being that exists is not the sum of it's definition, it determines it's definition. Only an as a yet non-existent idea is the sum of it's definition, by determining that God must fit an idea, you are effectively making his existence an impossiblity.

ex: Suppose we discovered a being, exactly as we think God is, he would be, without a doubt, God. Then suppose that for whatever reason he suddenly stopped being omnibenevolent, under your argument he would not be God, even though he was just seconds before.66.41.44.102 (talk) 03:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

First off, I'm not making an argument, I am stating that the IP believes that God in philosophy represents a static definition of attributes, which to my knowledge is correct: when philosophers deal with this idea of God, they include his benevolence into his nature. Second, I think you misunderstand what I was trying to explain, if God stopped being omnibenevolent, he'd still be the deity who created the universe and perhaps the only deity in existence, but he would no longer fit the idea of God philosophers deal with or propose existence of. I am not taking sides, I am saying we need to cite this one way or the other. Now tell me, to your knowledge, does God refer to just any idea of a single deity, or a deity who fulfills various attributes which philosopher presume when trying to prove his existence or understand him, such as benevolence? Do you have some sources? --♥pashtun ismailiyya 03:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This is getting pretty out of whack, guys. The argument at hand has ASSUMPTIONS, because it deals with something that cannot be adequately quantified without them (unless God actually comes down and displays His traits, in which case there wouldn't be much of an argument anyway). The foremost of these assumptions is the definition of God. If we don't accept a common definition of what constitutes God, then I can claim I'm God and the subject is closed. Traditionally, philosophers agree upon the 3-O definition of God (Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent). Basically, if you find an all-knowing being that's neither all-powerful nor all-good, it's not God (it's just some all-knowing thing). So it is with the other traits. God is also assumed to be the sole force that brought about the creation of the universe (as opposed to those other 3-O beings lazing about). The Problem of Evil asserts that those two assumptions are at odds, and hence that one or both are false. In a purely logical framework, proving the Problem of Evil would prove definitively that God (as a 3-O being that created the universe) cannot logically exist, and therefore does not exist. Wikipedia's not a place to argue the validity of these claims, it's a place to define them. 129.237.90.25 (talk) 03:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, exactly what I am saying. Can we get some sources and close this now? --♥pashtun ismailiyya 04:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Pardon, but how can one define a claim in wikipedia without first determining it is vaild? I do not understand your logic. As for the sources, my point to begin with was that this article has only sources that are based only on assumptions, opinions, and unverifible facts, not true, verifible facts. As such, it would not be encyclopedic to use them. However, I also admitted that in subjects such as God that true facts are a premium, that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to give encyclopedic information in light of this.66.41.44.102 (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If we have generally bad sources, they need replacing. There is very little complexity in getting sources that state whether omni benevolence is mandatory to the definition of God or not. Simple and clean. I'll keep my eye on this article. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 22:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That's the problem, as I stated, few if any sources exist that can provide the factual encyclopedic information that is needed this article to appear in wikipedia. This is because the subject itself is based around assumptions, not facts; which in turn are evaluated by logic which results in more assumptions. As such, replacing these sources would be extremely difficult, one cannot present a non-presence.66.41.44.102 (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Our using sources is going to be something to the extent that, "Most philosophers have presumed God to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omni benevolent." We just need to see what philosophers historically have presumed, and what they have suggested, that's all the article really needs to cover. These sources definitely do exist, we could probably easily cite an elementary textbook on philosophy for this. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 03:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

A quick run to Google produces:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/#RelConGod - I don't know if WP allows linking to other encyclopediae
http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/evil-log.htm - This cites J. L. Mackie and H. J. McCloskey as good sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibenevolence - :) I should have gone here first.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy#Other_views - Proof within the article itself that this quality is assumed in philosophical constructions of the argument.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/evil.html - a substantive list of articles on the Problem of Evil, which can likely be cribbed as sources for other citation-needing parts of the article, too.
Choose the best and toss them in.129.237.90.25 (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The Theodicy article should be merged with this article. A theodicy is one type of answer to the problem of evil but authors disagree on how it differs from of other types. So difficult and confusing to state what should be or not be in a separate theodicy article. The current content of the theodicy article is therefore not surprisingly very similar to this article. Also better to have the central discussions regarding the problem of evil in one article. One problem could be the length of the merged article but removing the many duplications and the unsourced OR will drastically reduce the size.Ht686rg90 (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The Theodicy article is simply a redirect to this article. In essence they already are merged, so to say. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 21:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, merged and redirected now.Ht686rg90 (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

To:

Q: "if God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, why can he allow evil?"

my answer use to be: "yeah, if!" or on persistence: "on the other hand, if the green cows on Moon attack the space elves, how come emperor Nero doesn't intervene?". I think the Problem of evil is a logical malquestion related to the Omnipotence paradox. If Omnipotence is redefined according to Geach #4 solution, the problem of evil is not a problem, so in a way the illogics of the initial question should be reflected in the article. IMHO. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 21:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I inserted a somewhat pathetic sentence in the end of subsection Lacking omnipotence or omnibenevolence, but improvements are welcome. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 22:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Many philosophers think that the logical problem of evil is solved if God cannot do logically impossible thing since it is logically possible he must allow evil in order to achieve a greater good such as free evil. However, if you do not think that the free will explanation or any other of the proposed explanations are plausible and probable, then you have not solved the evidential problem of evil.Ht686rg90 (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I got that impression. Although I ignored the will-explanations because they IMHO don't deal with the logic at all. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 17:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The section entitled "Evidential problem of evil" quotes:

"The logical possibility of hidden reasons for the existence of evil still exist. However, the existence of God is viewed as any other hypothesis. Any hypothesis which lack plausible reasons for the observed facts and instead claims that that there are hidden reasons, might possibly, but less likely, be correct.[3]"

The issue with this statement is the phrase "less likely." If the term "God" in the hypothesis "Does God Exist?" assumes an omnipotent deity (and it always does in instances of theodicy), then the term "hidden reasons" refers to data of the hypothesis which are unknown to non omnipotent beings who are forming the hypothesis (i.e. humans) - the "hidden reasons" postulated in this arguement are assumed to things unknowable to humans.

One cannot assume that one possible conclusion of the hypothesis is more likely to be correct than another without knowing all of the relevant facts. In this case, the relevant facts are whether or not there are "hidden reasons" for the existence of evil. Therefore, since not all of the relevant facts of the hypothesis are known, neither conclusion can be said to be more or less likely.

I believe the entire second sentence should be deleted from this quote. As it stands, the quote is biased toward a nonexistence perspective.

I don't see how one can assume that one possible conclusion of a hypothesis is more likely than another when the very hypothesis assumes that there is data vital to the conclusion of the hypothesis that is unknowable to the person formulating the hypothesis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.100.129.195 (talk) 04:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Look at a suspect in a criminal case. If no motive can be found for this person, then he may still possible have done the crime for hidden or unknown reasons, but this weakens the case against him.Ht686rg90 (talk) 10:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, text changed to "Any hypothesis which lack plausible reasons for the observed facts and instead claims that that there are hidden reasons, might possibly, but with lower probability as compared with if plausible reasons exist, be correct." in order to avoid misunderstanding regarding "less likely".Ht686rg90 (talk) 12:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The Marcion section appears to end mid-thought. Can anyone fix/expand it? Wuapinmon (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

User Anthony on Stilts has recently made large scale changes to both this article and the theodicy article. Apparently this is due to his belief that theodicy refers to something more than an answer to the problem of evil. In order to avoid an edit war I would as him to discuss here in order to reach a consensus first.

Here are some sources for the definition of theodicy:

• Encyclopedia Britannica: "(from Greek theos, “god”; dikē, “justice”), explanation of why a perfectly good, almighty, and all-knowing God permits evil."

• Catholic encyclopedia: "Imitating the example of Leibniz other philosophers now called their treatises on the problem of evil "theodicies".

• Random House Dictionary: "a vindication of the divine attributes, particularly holiness and justice, in establishing or allowing the existence of physical and moral evil."

• The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition: "A vindication of God's goodness and justice in the face of the existence of evil."

• Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary: "defense of God's goodness and omnipotence in view of the existence of evil"

If there are other sources stating that theodicy refers to something more than an answer to the problem of evil, then please state them here.Ht686rg90 (talk) 06:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

There has also been numerous other changes with much material moved without prior discussion to the theodicy article. Material also extensively moved within the articles to strange sections like all Hinduism material moved to a "punishment" section in the theodicy article. Off-topic material inserted like the section on evolutionary ethics which does not mention God. Or the creation of a new section called "secular ethics" and much unrelated material moved there. Secular ethics by definition does not include supernatural beings such as God. Numerous other unsourced opinions and factual errors inserted. Both articles are now an incoherent mess.Ht686rg90 (talk) 09:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

There are also whole sections of sourced material simply deleted and now not existing in either article. Like "Appeal to arguments for the existence of God" and "No best of all possible worlds".Ht686rg90 (talk) 08:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

If not there are no justifications for these changes I will restore the previous versions.Ht686rg90 (talk) 09:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You don't own the article, so don't make threats like 'If not there are no justifications for these changes I will restore the previous versions'.

And if you read Wikipedia:Blanking a page, you'll note that editors should not replace articles with blank text. Even if the entire page is inappropriate, the deletion policy must be followed. [emphasis added]

And if you read Wikipedia:Reversion, you'll note that it says Don't revert to undo a good faith reversion of your change.

Anthony on Stilts (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, The Problem of Evil is not limited to just Theodicy. It covers aspects of secular ethics, namely the 'secular problem of evil'^[1], which doesn't bring God/gods into the discussion at all^[2][3]. It also covers aspects of evolutionary ethics, specifically the Evolution of Evil^[4][5].

Conversely, Theodicy is not limited to just the Problem of Evil. For example, it includes attempts to justify the philandering behaviour of Greek gods^[6][7]. The clue really is in the word 'theodicy' its made up of 'theo'+'dike' = 'god' + 'justice' ie. 'justify god', not 'justify god in a specific circumstance'. If it was exclusively about 'evil' it would be something more like 'theohypmalidicy'.

Let's take a brief look at one of your above quotes: Random House Dictionary: a vindication of the divine attributes, particularly holiness and justice, in establishing or allowing the existence of physical and moral evil.

It doesn't say 'problem of evil' or 'justification of the simultaneous existence of god and evil' (or similar). It has a much broader definition - 'vindication of the divine attributes'. The mention of evil there is merely part of the clause 'particularly ...justice, in ...allowing the existence of...evil'. You'll note it says 'particularly' not 'exclusively'

The Concise Oxford Dictionary (that's part of the Oxford English Dictionary; if you don't know the significance of that, I suggest you read the article) gives : vindication of the divine attributes. And stops there. It doesn't mention a connection between theodicy and 'evil' at all. Its not 'vindication of one specific set of attributes exclusively in relation to one specific question' its a general 'vindication of the divine attributes'.

Anthony on Stilts (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, 'Best of all possible worlds' has its own article Best of all possible worlds, which is linked from the 'origin of the term' section in Theodicy

Anthony on Stilts (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You give lots of claimed sources but few quotes. Could you please proved quotes also. The random house quote only mentions evil and not a more general discussion of the behavior of gods. You ignored all my other quotes that only mention theodicy in connection with the problem of evil.Ht686rg90 (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Please also respond to my other criticisms of your large scale changes.Ht686rg90 (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, please do give whole books as sources. Page numbers please.Ht686rg90 (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the phrase "problem of evil" or more generally problems with evil are used outside religion. Obviously there are lots of problems with evil. But as usually understood, the phrase refers to problem in connection with a 3-0 being. See the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and their entry of the Problem of Evil.Ht686rg90 (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

What you could do is split off a separate article Argument from evil to cover explicitly problems of evil in the philosophy of religion. This article can then summarize all problems of evil, but there is also the articles evil, good and evil, and banality of evil, which could discuss secular matters. Vesal (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)