Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 12, 2022 10:43:29 GMT
The most frequent and workable argument against the Problem of Evil (about co-existence of God and evil) is an argument for the greater good. This argument says that an occurrence of evil leads to the greater good, and, therefore, it has to be not so bad decision for evil to happen. Also, the followers of this argument say that allowing evil to occur is a necessary decision for the greater good. Firstly, let's look closely at it bringing the logical shell of it:
There's a state of affairs S1
God allows evil to occur
The evil changes the current states of affairs to S2
S2 leads to S3, where S3 is better, than S2 & S1
I see this argument to have two weak points, and I'm going to detail them. The first of them demostrates that not only God may want to allow evil to happen, and, thus, we cannot be sure that it was a God's decision. The second one says that any new greater good leads to the newer, and so on, so this infinity is a really bad point for using as an argument. Let's start form the 1st:
There's a state of affairs S1
X wants evil to happen
X arranges things for evil to occur
Evil changes the previous states of affairs to S2
S2 leads to S3, where S3 is better, than S2 & S1
There is no necessity for X to be God. This may be someone else, let's say a devil. I am sure God does not want evil to happen. I think God is good, and evil is not what God wishes or intends to allow to happen.
Another point against the argument of the greater good is that it leads to the weird infinity:
There's a state of affairs S1
Evil occurs
Evil changes the previous states of affairs to S2
S2 leads to S3, where S3 is better, than S2 & S1
S3 leads to S4, where S4 is better, than S3 & S2 & S1
.....
Sn leads to Sn+1, where Sn+1 is better, than Sn & ... & S2 & S1
As we may see, Sn+1 must be greater, than any previous good, and it seems that if Sn+1 must be truly better, Sn+1 has to be have really serious justification to have it, because each new step requires evil to occur, and it must be noted, that evil also must be greater or have degrees. As an additional point: seems this argument may prove not only the greater good, but the greater evil, and, let's say, the evil in the step n is much more worse, than the evil in the step k, where k << n.
In my opinion God does only good, and people are whom think that someone else, except of them, must response for their sins. Even if this argument disproves the argument of the greater good it demostrates the weakness of human rational horizon as well.
There's a state of affairs S1
God allows evil to occur
The evil changes the current states of affairs to S2
S2 leads to S3, where S3 is better, than S2 & S1
I see this argument to have two weak points, and I'm going to detail them. The first of them demostrates that not only God may want to allow evil to happen, and, thus, we cannot be sure that it was a God's decision. The second one says that any new greater good leads to the newer, and so on, so this infinity is a really bad point for using as an argument. Let's start form the 1st:
There's a state of affairs S1
X wants evil to happen
X arranges things for evil to occur
Evil changes the previous states of affairs to S2
S2 leads to S3, where S3 is better, than S2 & S1
There is no necessity for X to be God. This may be someone else, let's say a devil. I am sure God does not want evil to happen. I think God is good, and evil is not what God wishes or intends to allow to happen.
Another point against the argument of the greater good is that it leads to the weird infinity:
There's a state of affairs S1
Evil occurs
Evil changes the previous states of affairs to S2
S2 leads to S3, where S3 is better, than S2 & S1
S3 leads to S4, where S4 is better, than S3 & S2 & S1
.....
Sn leads to Sn+1, where Sn+1 is better, than Sn & ... & S2 & S1
As we may see, Sn+1 must be greater, than any previous good, and it seems that if Sn+1 must be truly better, Sn+1 has to be have really serious justification to have it, because each new step requires evil to occur, and it must be noted, that evil also must be greater or have degrees. As an additional point: seems this argument may prove not only the greater good, but the greater evil, and, let's say, the evil in the step n is much more worse, than the evil in the step k, where k << n.
In my opinion God does only good, and people are whom think that someone else, except of them, must response for their sins. Even if this argument disproves the argument of the greater good it demostrates the weakness of human rational horizon as well.
