Philosophy: Problem of Evil Part 1

Part 1 of a trilogy. Greg Ganssle (Yale University) lays out a classic argument that God does not exist, called 'The Problem of Evil'. He distinguishes two versions of that argument, which are sometimes called 'the deductive' and 'the evidential' version. He goes into some details on the deductive version.

Help us caption & translate this video!

[TheVoid]

Mackie admitted that Alvin Plantinga has refuted the logical problem of evil and that God could exist and there would still be evil. “Since this defence is formally possible, and its principle involves no real abandonment of our ordinary view of the opposition between good and evil, we can concede that the problem of evil does not, after all, show that the central doctrines of theism are logically inconsistent with one another” (J. L. Mackie, The Miracle of Theism [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982], 145).

[unfluster]

The problem with this is you first have to accept his definition of God. Then you can accept these logical deductions. I think this is more about logic than evil.

[WirelessPhilosophy]

Hi William!

Ganssle does, in fact, address those very worries in later videos. What did you think of that discussion?

You know, I'm not sure it is so obvious that 4 is in error; I think it takes a little work to show how the existence of evil is compatible with God's goodness (if it is).

[WirelessPhilosophy]

Thanks! Your compliment keeps us motivated! We welcome you to visit our channel regularly, since we upload new content often.

In meanwhile, be sure to subscribe to our channel and "like" us on Facebook if you haven't already (link to Facebook is on our channel)!

[tomrhodes]

The answer to the "problem of evil" is known once one understands: a) what 'God" is, b) what YOU are, and c) the reason why you are experiencing this world of LIMITATION. And the answer to all of these questions is revealed (in a most compelling fashion I must say) in my book "The Holy Grail is Found." Yes, the answers are available to those who TRULY desire and seek Truth. But, unfortunately, they are a tiny minority, as most people seek to LIMIT Truth to their desires....which, as it turns, was our Original Error; the error that landed us in this realm of limitation in the first place!

[mulllhausen]

3:40 distress =/= evil. evil has a very specific definition in the bible. for example, slavery is not classed as evil in the bible, infact it is unambiguously condoned.

[thescoobymike]

A maximally great being would be able to prevent evil even without violating free will.

[alexsmit]

If "there are limits to what an omnipotent and omniscient being can do, " then why worship it, and if "God is not wholly good, " why worship it? The Theists always know how to misuse logic or use it against themselves.

[jl]

i really enjoyed this, thanks for helping me find my inner christ

[nipundave]

In Hindu Mythology, it is believed that God is forgiving and he waits for the moment until the evil is unbearable and then eliminates it. So if that's true then He has no need to eliminate Evil at one go and can give fare chances to the Evil itself

[thoraxepi]

But what about those who don't believe in omnibenevolence but are still theists?

[anoadance]

The premise "it's pretty obvious evil exists" at 4:51 is an undefined assumption that was used to conclude the argument. "Evil" defined as "profoundly immoral and malevolent" is subject to time and culture. The Mayans routinely sacrificed humans and considered it very holy, but today we see it as barbaric and evil. What is evil is highly dependent on individual (and collective) perception. Evil exist only in hindsight, that is, conclusions based on conscious thought which is influenced by our pre-conscious and subconscious (where reason usually takes a backseat to what we feel). I have always found this statement helpful when thoughts of condemnation arise: "Forget not that the witness to the world of evil cannot speak except for what has seen a need for evil in the world". In essence, evil is not real except to those who need it to be real. Highly subjective.

[chrissolomon]

As an atheist I don't necessarily disagree with the conclusion of this video, but this video doesn't really address the actual Problem of Evil. The Problem of Evil isn't about whether or not God exists, but rather hypothetically if there was a God, how could that God be good if that God created this universe, wherein evil obviously exists? I wouldn't say omnibenevolence is an actual property of God by God's most basic or "popular" definition (along with, say, omnipotence and omniscience). The Euthyphro Dilemma shows that God's "goodness" would always be relative to something else (whether it would be his own personal conception of "goodness" or from a higher, more objective standard) so it wouldn't be an inherent property of God. The problem of Evil isn't really whether or not God is inherently good, but why should *we personally* consider such a God to be good for creating a world replete with evil and suffering.
Many apologists use the "free will" argument to solve the problem of evil, saying that God wanted to give humans free will and evil exists as a natural consequence, but even this argument falls flat, since it doesn't explain the existence of natural evils and it is entirely conceivable for there to exist a universe in which its inhabitants could only do "good" or altruistic actions, yet could still choose *what kinds* of good things to do, still having freedom of choice (which I understand may not be the same thing as "free will, " but I don't believe in pure, unimpeded FREE will, regardless of the existence of a God or not).
Ultimately, there's no way to justify an omnipotent and omniscient God creating a universe in which evil exists. If there was a God, that God would be undeniably evil.

[nipundave]

But firstly you need to define what is evil at least

[TheyDontKnowImHere]

I feel like ‘God’ is used as a straw man in this debate. Evil is a human problem. We as a sentient species should decide what is considered evil and implement punishments for those who perpetuate it.
Humans allow evil. The question os why?

[eddieruminski]

This totally hinges on a very narrow definition of god and its properties. The facts about evil are only depicted here as leading to two outcomes; "God does not exist" or "It's most likely that god does not exist", however its clear there are many other possibilities, including but not limited to "God exists but chooses to allow evil", "God exists and cannot stop evil", or even "god no longer exists".

[WilliamBrownGuitar]

Just a few immediate observations ( I have not listened to the rest of the series yet - Ganssle must address these points).. Mackie's premises are clearly in error:

No. 3: There are things that God cannot do. He cannot make a square circle, etc. etc. No. 4: "A wholly good being always eliminates or prevents evil." Not quite: It's our meagre understanding of eternity and of the big picture that's the problem, not God's goodness. Certainly we see God working seeming evil in the Bible.

[couchbaby]

Premise 4 doesn't make any sense. I mean.. says who? What does "wholly good" imply. Premise 1 can be misinterpreted and is where everything else gets affected.

[BlueLightningSky]

I believe the easiest premise to attack would be premise 4. Does it mean that if one is wholly good one must get rid of evil? In fact what does it even mean to be good?

[rafaelhan]

and let's say that god is omnipotent, so he can create a creature that he can't predict, even thought omnipotent means he can predict anything.
what's wrong in here is that your view about omnipotence is absolute wrong.The only one that describe good and evil cant be described by the describtion that he made