A Brief History of the Problem of Evil w/ Dr. Jim Madden 

You rock. Happy reading!

Thank you Brendan!!!!

Hoping to do more of these. Thanks!

We approach this along similar lines of thought, John. No surprise, since I have strong affinities for neoplatonism myself. Thanks for sharing your reflections on this. Valuable, and insightful!

Thank so much for investing in my work!!!!

Yes, thanks for supporting the good professor. Description updated with link to the book!

​@@jimmadden23 evil, the problem of: The so-called “problem of evil” is a term used almost exclusively in the Theological and philosophical communities, in reference to the fact that there appears to be an inordinate amount of pain and/or suffering in the world than ought to be expected, assuming the existence of an omnibenevolent Creator God/dess. For example, if there is an all-loving Father/Mother God/dess, why do animals experience an extravagant amount of pain/suffering? Furthermore, why are many babies born with horrific deformities? Below are four possible responses to the problem of undue suffering (i.e. pain), from the four major metaphysical world-views: 1. Naturalism/Physicalism: Since there is nothing beyond this closed material universe, gratuitous pain and suffering is a consequence of the mechanics of the physical world alone, especially of evolutionary processes. Since the universe is indifferent to both the physical phenomena and the mental processes contained therein, a stoic disposition to suffering/pain ought to be taken. 2. Panpsychism/Pantheism: Since, as in naturalism, there is no Creator (neither a Personal Creator God, nor an Intelligent Impersonal Designer) in most versions of panpsychism and pantheism, there is no explanation for gratuitous pain and suffering. It is what it is. 3. Monism/Idealism: Under the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta (dual-aspect monism) promulgated within this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, the notion of intelligent design, that is, that this universe is the design of Universal Conscious Awareness Itself, is supported (Cf. intelligent design). Hence, superficially, it may seem logical to substitute the Personal Deity for Infinite Awareness, and make the very same accusation (that is, that Brahman is responsible for pain/suffering). I have two responses to this dilemma: Firstly, there is nothing without Brahman, so you, the reader, is hypostatically, that Unlimited Conscious Beingness Itself, and therefore whom is there to blame for any apparent occurrences of undue pain? N.B. This view is not to be confused with solipsism. Secondly, those instances of disproportionate pain/suffering (as well as everything else in existence) is merely an appearance in Universal Consciousness, as explained in the fifth and sixth chapters of this work, and is a necessary result of duality. There cannot be pain without pleasure, nor suffering without happiness, just as there cannot be heat without cold, nor beauty without ugliness. Whilst dreaming of painful experiences, we mistake them for real experiences. Similarly, the pain experienced in this life is temporal. Furthermore, if a naturalist was to push-back on this explanation by claiming that Infinite Conscious Awareness could have designed this universe to be free of pain/suffering (despite the fact the he/she would be, essentially, that Infinite Conscious Awareness), then I would respond thus: How would it be possible for a pluralistic/dualistic world to be perfectly pain-free? For example, if every living creature experienced nothing but pure, unadulterated bliss from conception to death, it would indicate an absolute state of being, and therefore, incongruous with a relativistic universe. This would imply that it would feel ecstatic for a person to insert his or her hand into a pot of boiling mercury! Pain is (almost) as unavoidable as pleasure, and the acceptance of this fact is conducive to peace. Additionally, it could be posited that the mere fact that the individual organism experiences death, is itself a form of pain (or “evil”). 4. Theism: As very expertly demonstrated in the seventh chapter of this Holy Scripture, the existence of a Supreme Deity is a logical impossibility, so this so-called “problem of evil” is ostensibly redundant. However, Theists have formulated several Theodicies (responses to the problem of evil). The three most common Theodicies are: God has given humans free-will, and the pain/suffering we experience is due to our freedom of volition; We become purified through life’s trials (which is also predicated on freedom of will); God has also promised that such evil and suffering persists for only a finite time in human history, and will bring an end to it all. Furthermore, the future hope that God offers will compensate for, or at least put into perspective, this present world’s evil. Those Theologians who believe in reincarnation (notably those in most Indian traditions, and the New Age) will use that concept to explain how any apparent pain/suffering experienced in a human’s life is due to any and all conscious decisions made in the past, including in any past lives. Of course, these Theodicies can be easily defeated by anyone with an above-average intelligence quotient, so it is unnecessary to waste precious space here to do so, suffice to indicate that the first-mentioned Theodicy fails to account for the pain experienced by those animals deemed to lack any semblance of freedom of volition. N.B. As implied in the first paragraph of this Glossary entry, the terms “pain” and “suffering” are invariably equated with “evil” by those who use the phrase “the problem of evil”. The first point that ought to be made in this regard is that pain and suffering are NOT, in fact, synonymous, according to the tenants proffered in this book (see Chapter 15). Personally, if I was to rename this argument, I would call it the “problem of undue pain”, since pain can be useful in certain circumstances, yet in many instances, proven to be gratuitous or unjustifiable, and thus making the existence of an omnibenevolent, personal Creator questionable.

None at the moment, sorry. I will let everyone know as soon as I know!

Good to have you here, and good question. There is a long history, and large literature, around the notion of omnipotence. Various critics raise puzzles and paradoxes of the sort you’ve stated, and, of course, various proponents offer replies, often along the lines of restricting our understanding of omnipotence (though hopefully in a principled, non-arbitrary way). In short, this is still very much an active, and quite lively, debate. For my money, I think the traditional “metaphysics first” approach to omnipotence is best, since it helps to avoid many of the usual sorts of puzzles & paradoxes. I say a bit more about this traditional approach here: chroniclesofstrength.substack.com/p/responding-to-feser-the-pitfalls

​@@PhilosophyforthePeople, why would the Absolute require OMNIPOTENCE, when there is naught but the Absolute extant? Of course, Theists would argue that once God has created the material universe, He requires total power and control over His creation (otherwise He wouldn’t be, by definition, the Supreme). However, that argument itself easily falls apart when one understands the simple fact that the universe (at least our particular bubble universe) is composed of space-time, that time is relative, and therefore, cannot supervene upon the eternal, timeless Absolute.