In sections X and XI, Philo and Demea catalogue human misery and Philo uses this evidence to prove that either God does NOT exist or He is NOT benevolent. Is this argument sound? If not, where does the argument fail? What about the possibility that suffering is part of some great good like free will or character development (a theodicy)?
One argument against God's existence is the idea that God would not allow human suffering and misery because he is omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent. The combination of these characteristics means that God would not want humans to suffer, know that humans do suffer, and have the capability to stop human suffering and misery. In contrast to this, humans do suffer and have misery which means that either there is no God or God does not have these characteristics. This argument is not a complete argument for the lack of existence of a God although that is a possibility. It is rather an objection to what many believe to be God. A different God could exist within this argument, but it would allow for human suffering and misery which would contradict the general idea of God that many have because it would not be omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent. There is one way in which God could keep these characteristics and still allow for human suffering. This argument says that the existence of suffering is for the greater good of humanity. In other words, suffering leads to the betterment of human morals and activity. This would allow God to have the classical characteristics of God while human suffering still exists. I think this argument is similar to the 'God works in mysterious ways' argument where due to God's superiority, we cannot know the intention of what he allows to exist in our world, and therefore we should not question it. I think the idea that we need suffering or at least some form of it to become good people is valid and true, and I do not see a reason for it to inhibit God's benevolence.
ReplyDeletePhilo has a relatively straightforward argument: because we know that evil exists in the world (premise), we know that God as we define him does not exist, as an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient being would not allow evil.
ReplyDeleteI think the conciseness and simplicity of this argument is truly its downfall. After all, the argument ignores the possibility of how suffering can be good and how it is a necessary aspect of free will. Why do we as humans work? Because if we don't, we will suffer and won't survive. Suffering, or rather avoiding suffering, motivates us as humans to be active - something that I would personally consider to be "good." Also, there's this concept of free will. If God is this omnibenevolent being, wouldn't it be his moral responsibility to give the world some sense of autonomy? Under this assumption, the suffering that exists would not be caused by God, but rather by humans themselves.
And then I think there's also something to be mentioned about how evil will always exist. I think Kennedy brought up a great point regarding this in class today. Essentially, in a hypothetical world where only "good" existed, this goodness would still occur on a relative scale; some good would be more good than other good. Would the lesser good not then be considered evil, even though we originally considered it as objectively good? In fact, these states of goodness and evil are subjective themselves. Perhaps God's omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and omniscience provided us with the faculties to do good, but our inherent faults as human beings lead to what we subjectively perceive as suffering. Does this possibility make God anything less than what we'd define him as? I think no, and therefore, I'd say Philo's argument falls short.
The existence of suffering and human misery does not disprove the existence of God, even if God is benevolent. If we consider the idea of a perfect God once more, and consider the idea that, everything someone/something-perfect makes is perfect since they are made in his own image and likeness that would mean that everything God creates is perfect, but we know that not to be true because we have errors. That is because God gave us free will to choose our path, and therefore we can make mistakes and God can still be perfect. I feel as though a similar argument can be made for a benevolent God. If God is benevolent, the world in which we live and all of us would also be all good since he created it, but it is not the case. That is because of free will. We have the free will to make decisions that lead to our misery or the misery of those around us, which then keeps the possibility of having a benevolent God still possible. The suffering in the world is a result of our actions and decisions. From that, I think it is safe to say that he did not disprove anything at all because there can still be a benevolent God even if we live a terrible life. After all, the terribleness is solely dependent on our free will/decisions as well as those we are surrounded by. So by using analogy, since the perfect status of the world is not dependent on the perfectness of God, why should the goodness of the world be dependent on the goodness of a God.
ReplyDeleteAt first, the argument that either God does not exist, or he exists, but is not omnibenevolent seems sound. However, I think that there is a flaw with believing in this argument. In general, I think that having evil in the world in the long run may be better for the world and make individuals better people. Like we discussed in class, you don’t necessarily know goodness when you see it unless you know what the contrast of darkness and evil looks like.
ReplyDeleteFor example, there are charities that donate food to people suffering from hunger. In this situation, according to Hume, if God exists, it may seem that he should simply eliminate the evil (hunger) that is causing those people to be in need of help. This would absolutely make life so much easier and fair for so many more people. Therefore, since this is not a reality, God does not exist. Or, Hume argues, God exists, but simply does not care about humanity and does not care if there is suffering in the world. In my eyes, I see a third possibility though: God exists, and he has weighed all of the possibilities and decided that it is better for everyone’s character development and lives that hunger does exist in the world. Maybe this is better for the world because the people who are struggling of hunger will be more grateful and appreciative, while the people who are not struggling from hunger will be more benevolent and thankful for having what others do not.
So, I think that either God does not exist, and that is why there is evil in the world, or that God exists and he weighs every possibility and does what is best for people’s character development.
Different people define morality differently, so it stands to reason that an action which is ultimately good must either belong to the "correct" moral framework, or be moral under all frameworks. It seems contrived to say that God has some more grand conception of morality that we cannot comprehend, as this is the same as saying whatever God does must be moral; this does not prove an omnibenevolent God, but rather starts with that conclusion and redefines morality in order to accommodate such a being. Therefore, we ought to accept the second of these options, that a purely good action should be one which is best under all conceivable philosophies.
ReplyDeleteWhen debating what morality is and judging the actions of humans, we don't say someone needs to adhere to all forms of morality is because different frameworks often conflict. However, God does not have the same limitations, being all-powerful, and thus can conceivably take actions which are moral under all frameworks, or if this is somehow not possible, using his infinite power to change the universe, making it possible. In spite of this, if a being of infinite power does to exist, and has to imbue humans with free will knowing that given our limited judgement we might commit immoral acts with that will, then he has provided us with the means to do harm to ourselves or others. Plato, in the first chapter of The Republic, condemns the allegorically similar action of giving someone a weapon knowing they are in a poor mental state and might misuse it, meaning that according to at least one conception of morality, God is not good. This argument does not indicate that a hypothetical creator being could not be benevolent in a limited sense, simply that the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being cannot exist, as the simultaneous existence of evil, infinite goodness, and infinite power contradict each other. Therefore, "God" as he is typically defined, does not exist, making Philo's argument legitimate.
Philo’s argument against the existence of God is decently strong. The argument is not able to prove that God doesn’t exists, but it challenges the idea that God is perfect. Philo claims that the world is full of bad things. If God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then he not only would end suffering but also has the power to do so. Therefore since suffering exists, God cannot exist. The main issue with this argument is that the conclusion is not justified. A better conclusion would be that God cannot be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent since the argument does not prove that God doesn’t exist. However, it does question the definition of God. There is an argument for upholding the traditional definition of God. Philo claims that God would get rid of suffering if he were able to. However, God could have a reasoning for the existence of suffering. For example, if he believed that suffering makes humans more virtuous creatures, he could still allow suffering to exist and be omnibenevolent. However, this argument can still prove that God is not perfect. God cannot be a perfect being because he allows for sin and suffering to exist in his creation. If God were perfect, he could theoretically create a universe without the existence of suffering but with the positive effects on humans. Therefore since we have suffered, God cannot be perfect. Overall, Philo’s argument is firm but not strong enough to disprove the existence of God. Instead, it can prove that God cannot be perfect. However, there still is a possibility that God is the omnipotent and omnibenevolent being that he is traditionally believed to be.
ReplyDeletePhilo argues that since there is clearly plenty of suffering in the world, our idea of an omnibenevolent God is incompatible with the real world, meaning that God either does not exist or is not omnibenevolent. While this argument may seem convincing at first, it actually neglects several arguments about a greater good.
ReplyDeleteFirst, it could be argued that human suffering is a catalyst for growth of character, and if humans can overcome their suffering, it would be for a greater good than simply being comfortable and never suffering. Also, suffering and joy are relative terms. So, if humans never suffered, they would not know true suffering and thus, the lack of suffering and joy would not offer a feeling of joy as intense as that felt in a world that has suffering. Thus, a world without suffering may not really be better than one with suffering, and an omnibenevolent God might still choose to create a world with suffering.
Second, it can be argued that the existence of free will for humans is a greater good than a world without suffering. In order to create a world devoid of suffering, God would have to take free will away from humans. Humans have a natural proclivity to do things onto others, and sometimes themselves, that causes suffering, so our free will prevents us from living without suffering. Therefore, a world without suffering would be a world without free will. One could certainly argue that having free will is a greater good than living in a world without suffering.
Philo’s argument does not address either of these two ideas, which indicate that a world without suffering may not be the world that has the most good. So, he does not successfully show that God does not exist or is not omnibenevolent.
Philo’s argument challenges the idea that God is omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent. His argument states that if God is all of the three omnis, then he should be able to rid the world of evil. However, there is clearly evil all around the world. If God truly has those three characteristics, then he would not want humans to suffer, he would know that humans do suffer, and he should have the capability to stop humans from pain and misery. Therefore, there cannot be a God because all humans suffer and it is deemed to be inevitable. This argument has strong points. However, his argument does not provide enough information to prove that God doesn’t exist. A counter argument is that God isn’t all the way powerful enough to stop humans from pain and misery. This idea of God contradicts the universal perspective of God.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading, there is an argument to be made that God does not exist if the deity is truly omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient. One would argue that a being with these characteristics could not possibly allow human suffering and the many imperfections in our world. This then leads to the conclusion that he must not exist at all, or he does not possess such "godly" characteristics. Nevertheless, if God is such a complex being, wouldn't his actions and plans for us be incomprehensible? Philo fails to address God's reasoning and at best makes a case that God is imperfect. Just because man is unhappy and God is powerful does not mean he is flawed. Demea makes great argument to show how small the human perspective is in comparison to an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient being. God's reasoning can be beyond our reach, and human suffering could be a result of God wanting to enhance character, with a larger plan in store for us. It is true that this is an assumption, but if God is as powerful as Philo claims, this argument is not far fetched.
ReplyDelete