A note on evil

One of the standard theistic reposes to "why does God permit evil to happen" is St. Iranaeus' concept that the world is a place of soul building. By this, evil is necessary for humans to better themselves. Does this potentially raise problems though?

1. With evil existing in the world, we can try and prevent suffering and better ourselves. Evil allows us to become better people. Does this make evil a good thing then? God being benevolent can only do good acts, so the creation of evil must be good and thus evil itself becomes a good.
2. If evil is then a good should we still resist evil. Does that then make us "bad" if we fight this "good". Even if our purpose is to combat it are we still behaving wrongly?
3. Should we try and eradicate suffering if suffering is good? If we find a solution to all disease and poverty etc., should we use it? If we should fight evil, should we only do so to an extent? 
4. Would it be moral if I caused suffering. If evil is a good am I acting in a good manner by blowing up buildings, destroying wells in African villages or even killing people's loved ones? If I do these things, I cause suffering which allows other people to "build their souls". Although my acts could be wrong in themselves, am I benefiting other people?

God did seem to go a bit over the top when creating suffering in the world. Surely there would still be enough suffering without aids for example. 

Why I remain a “fool”.

1. God is the greatest possible being which can be conceived.

2. God may either exist in intellectu or in re.

3. Something which exists in reality and in the mind is greater that something that exists in the mind alone.

4. Therefore, being the greatest possible being, God must exist in reality and in the mind.

1. God is the greatest possible being which can be conceived.

No.

Firstly the act of conceiving such a being;

1. God by definition is infinite

2. The human mind is only finite

3. Therefore a finite mind can only conceive a finite being.

4. Ergo we cannot conceive God

5. The first line of the argument fails.

Secondly the greatest possible being would have to be perfect;

1. God by definition is perfect

2. God by definition is creator

3. Imperfect things exist

4. Perfection cannot create imperfection without becoming imperfect itself. Guilty of association.

5. God cannot be perfect AND the creator or everything.

6. Therefore God is not the greatest being conceivable.

Thirdly;

1. God by definition is perfect

2. The world is imperfect

3. As I live in the world I have no experiences of perfection

4. Therefore I cannot conceive something which is perfect, as I do not know perfection.

5. Ergo, I cannot conceive God.

Fourthly;

1. There are lots of teapots in the world
2. One teapot is the greatest teapot
3. I know this because it is better than the other teapots
4. It is greatest as it is better than the other teapots.
5. There can only be one God (according to the Bible)
6. God cannot be the greatest as there are no other Gods for God to be greater than
7. If you maintain God is the greatest, logically God must also be the worst God as it is the only God; she is both the worst and the best.
8. If something is the greatest thing imaginable it cannot be the worst of its kind.

Fifthly;

People have different concepts on what greatest being which can be conceived is, some people may think it is personal, some impersonal for example. The concept of perfection is subjective, it can only be absolute if an omniscient being says it is, but God’s existence cannot be proven because God herself says she exists.

Sixthly;

1.      The greatest possible being would be the most good being.

2.      Plato- Is something good because God commands it does God command it because it is good.

3.      The greatest being cannot command something because she knows it is good, as she would then be subordinate to a being that is of a greater good.

4.      If the greatest possible being says something is good because she commands it, it must be purely arbitrary as if this being uses reason to work out what is good, it links back to point 3.

5.      Morality based on arbitrary whim is not morality.

6.      The greatest possible being must be moral but cannot be, in terms of morality, Peter Singer/cat > God.

Stupid word play;

1. Nothing is better than God

2. A cat is better than nothing.

3. Logically Cat > God

4. God is no longer the greatest being conceivable.

2. God may either exist in intellectu or in re.

God by definition exists so it cannot only exist in intellectu.

3. Something which exists in reality and in the mind is greater that something that exists in the mind alone./4. Therefore, being the greatest possible being, God must exist in reality and in the mind.

Definition of greatest- highest in quality. Ergo better. Reductio ad absurdum;

1. In my mind unicorns are lovely

2. Some unicorns are lovelier than others.

3. One unicorn must be the loveliest (greatest) possible unicorn that could be.

4. Unfortunately unicorns do not exist.

5. But I can imagine the greatest possible unicorn

6. If it is the greatest possible unicorn, it must exist in re as if would be a lesser unicorn if it existed in intellectu.

7. Therefore unicorns exist

8. But unicorns do not exist

9. This logic is flawed.

Postulation that reality and the mind are entirely separate;

• The mind is part of reality
• What exists in the mind exists in reality also to an extend
• Thus claiming “Something which exists in reality and in the mind is greater that something that exists in the mind alone” is like saying a teapot is superior to a teapot- they are the same thing.

The devil is scary;

1. The devil exists in my mind

2. According to Anselm what exists in my mind would be better if it also existed in reality.

3. The devil is rather nasty, or so I hear.

4. It would be better if he did not exist in re.

5. This point of the ontological argument is disproved.

(You could replace “devil” with God if you like)

BUT it could be argued the devil is a good thing, as he is evil and evil is needed to create Iraneaus’ world of soul building.

BUT would you still say it would be better if your family were killed by a Tsunami in re or in intellectu.

Anselm’s Second argument.

2. Something which cannot be thought not to exist is greater than anything which can be thought not to exist.
3. Therefore it is impossible to think that this being cannot exist.
4. And this being is what we call “God”.

1. See first argument.

2./3.

• I can physically think that God does not exist.
• Therefore it is possible to think that this being cannot exist and the third point is disproven.

    Also

• Can I think of something that does not exist.
• To imagine something, I must have had experiences of it or I could not be thinking of it.
• To think that something must not exist, it must have existed in the first place in order for the thought of the object’s non existence to occur.

5. This God is still not necessarily the Abrahamic God; it could be almost any of the fourteen thousand Gods that have been worshipped throughout mankind’s history. A certain Kantian minded angel could spring to mind.

Also if God is omnipotent can God make it so that she does not exist? Would this then render the concept of a necessary existence for God invalid?