3 statements
 

There are 3 statements. Only 2 of which can be true.
1. God is all powerful.
2. God is all good.
3. There is evil in the world.

So, tfp'ers, which ones are true? and why do think so?

well, just to go with your game, i'd say that 1 and 3 would be true, with 2 being an incorrect statement.

my simple-minded explanation -

God is all-powerful, he has to be, otherwise he wouldn't be god. 3 would be true because we see what we as mortals deem evil all around us. God being all good isnt what i would say incorrect as much as i would say its the least correct of the three. Because good and evil are purely subjective, we as mortals with our imperfect and biased point of view and logic couldn't comprehend what God would determine to be good or evil.

I'd say as the terms are defined, ellipsys has it right.

But in my own definitions...
* God Is. (universal)
* God tends towards good because it promotes growth
* Evil or destruction is sometimes a byproduct of universal balance. (like a zit)

God is all knowing, God is everything.

There is only evil in the world because of man. There is no evil in nature. If a lion mauls a zebra, it is not evil, it is nature. It is not because animals are more advanced than us, it is because they cannot recognize good or evil. We as humans can and do recognize it, but we need to trancend it to a point where there is no good, or evil, there just is. And that is, is God. Everything, but nothing all at once. Nondual.

---------------------------------------------
1. God is all powerful.
2. God is all good.
3. There is evil in the world.
---------------------------------------------
Only two can be true - but I think only one is; the third one.

I don't think that god "is" - anything.

only #3 has an inkling of truth, and it doesn't seem to fit the pattern.

I don't think that there can be evil in the world in the absence of a divine being. In a world of absolutes, good and evil can only be constructions of society.

However, assuming the truth of (1) and the existance of God, (2) and (3) aren't mutually exclusive. The whole thing with free will is that even though God could get rid of the evil, he wants to let humans make their own choices. Eve made that decision when she ate the apple; after that, God's hands were tied. He isn't a fan of the evil, but he realises that humans value free will more than they would want a utopian society, so here we are.

What TIO said.

i have no idea how anyone can totally not believe in a supreme being.. i mean, its impossible to *prove* that a God exists or does not exist.. so why go the pessimist's route and screw yourself over in the afterlife if your 50% chance turned out to be the wrong one. nothing to lose in believing in a God, except, well, you won't be able to start arguments as often.

Philosophers answer that all three are true. Because some evil is needed.
The classic example they use is the parent who must deny their child a life of total pleasure - the child must go to school and do homework and eat vegetables etc.

Ellipsys, your argument is known as Pascal's Wager. I do have something to lose by believing in God; I lose the time spent in the rituals of worship, I lose the ability to write the rules of my own life, and most importantly, I lose the knowledge that I am living my life based on what I truly believe to be the truth.

Even if I did hedge my bets, why should I choose the Christian faith? Why not convert to Islam or Hindu or Scientology?

Besides, you're not giving your own God much credit if you don't think He would know that I was only pretending to believe. How far do you think that would get me?


To add to my last post: I said that good and evil are social constructs. I would like to clarify that I think that they are very necessary constructs, and outside a philosophy essay, I don't think there's any harm in discussing them as absolutes, and behaving as if they were.

Re: 3 statements
 

1 & 2: God doesn't exist
3: "Evil" is subjective

Why must only 2 be true? For some reason unknown to us, it may be 'good' to allow evil to exist (various arguments exist for this)

However, I'd just chuck out the first two, and agree with CSFlim that evil is a highly subjective matter - I'm fairly emotivist when it comes to morality...

John Paul Sartre wrote a philosophical book about this topic (believe it was called "Free Will vs Determinism"). Anyhow, it was a great book and I still struggle with the dilemma he presents about their being an all powerfull, all knowing God.

All are subjective (even being all powerful), so how can they be true?

if i had to choose between the 3 though, i'll say 2 and 3 because they are the most believable.

Regarding the original post:

It's been proven pretty conclusively that those three are not, in fact, contradictory. Philosophers these days trying to make the case against Christianity with evil argue that evil constitutes good evidence against Christianity, not that it contradicts Christianity. As was, I believe, posted earlier, just because God is good and omnipotent, doesn't mean he might not allow some evil for the sake of some greater good.

Regarding Pascal:

Well, the reason you should hedge your bets is a simple matter of the stakes. If you're wrong, you would only gain a finite amount of pain by believing, but you would gain an infinite amount of pain by not-believing. If you're right, you would only gain a finite amount of good by not-believing, but an infinite amoung of good by believing. So, as long as the existence of God is merely possible, it's worth it to believe.

Why Christianity above other religions? Well, if Christianity is right, and you believe in another religion, you're pretty bad off. But for any other religion, if you're a Christian, you're all right. (Not sure what Judaism teaches, but Islam teaches that Christian go to heaven, but a lesser level of heaven. The reincarnationistic relgions all teach that Christianity isn't terribly bad on your karma, and so on.)

The point that Pascal was trying to make, and that I would want to make, is that you're right, it's worthless to pretend you believe. So you have to make yourself believe. But you can't just tell yourself "Okay, I'm going to believe this now" and magically start believing. You have to act in the way that you would act if you believed, not in the sense of pretending to believe, but of training yourself to believe.

I've never been and probably never will be sure how I really feel about Pascal's Wager in the end. It's a nifty piece of argumentation, but does it really work to convert people? I have my doubts...

Asaris, you're still simplifying things. Acting like I believe and wanting to believe won't make me really believe.

Well, at this point, about all I can say is "Sure it will." Unless you can give me an account of how we come to have beliefs that doesn't reduce to "They just happen to us."

Most people come to beliefs because they are raised that way. People choose what they choose for a reason, and you cant just up and make yourself believe something else unless you really have a valid reason for making the switch (a valid reason in your own mind). Even if you see that a switch would be good, if you cant justify a switch in terms of validity over another argument, then you will just be faking it. Actually I think most people are scared into being Christian by a fear of burning in hell, not by a promise of heaven.

Well, I pretty much agree with most of what you said. But there has to be some way to come to believe something other than what we were raised with -- after all, many people stop believing what they were raised to believe.

Asiris, that's usually because we meet someone more persuasive than our parents. Are you contending that people become religious because the intrinsic truth in the universe leads them to it?

That's kind of egotistical, from the religious point of view, though simultaneously a valid point, as long as you believe in both the innate goodness of god (or a god, whatever) and the innate desire of man to emulate that divine goodness (made in his image, etc, etc.)

I've always been a huge defender of anything that goes against Determinism, and, consequently, this has led me into plenty of conflict with religous dogma; though, admittedly, not spirituality. Not that that has anything to do with the debate, but it does provide a basis in order to find the grain of salt that one would need to take my statements with.

Yeah....sorry about that.

In my humble opinion, none of these three statements are entirely true. Or can be proved to be entirely true, anyways.

I'm with you on that, at least if you take the three statements to mean:

1. God can do anything whatsoever, even the logically impossible.
2. God only does nice things.

It would, I think, be hard to disagree with the third.

But I take the first two to mean:

1. God can do anything that is actually something. NOT the logically impossible. As C.S. Lewis wrote, "Nonsense doesn't stop being nonsense by placing the words 'God can' in front of it."

2. God only does good things.

I think alot of atheists (and, to be fair, alot of Christians) read these premises the first way, in which case you do have problems with the existence of evil.

Man creates evil and all that is good in the world comes from god. Or at least, if I had more conviction, that's how I would explain it.

God is not ALL good... *Balance* *Justice* *Life* *Whatever*
but i like to think he is almost completely good