Correct observation, AmandoAlvarez. The problem of evil is really the problem of suffering. The answer to the problem of suffering, the way I construe it, takes us closer to the esoteric topics, such as death and afterlife, than mere evil.

AmandoAlvarez wrote:

My own non-philosophical guess is that either 1.  God values the non-determinedness of all his creation. The Newtonian clock-like universe is not our universe.

The more appropriate word is perhaps dynamics, instead of non-determinedness. There's enough intelligibility in the world (my subjective impression of course), but the actualised instances are in constant change. In a sense, there's just one moment actualised, while the rest of the universe (including its history and future) is in potentiality in the Aristotelian sense. The potentiality vastly overpowers the actuality, hence the dynamics that can take us anywhere.

We talk about, for example, causality. Has anybody seen a cause, ever? Not really. We only see effects. Causes are always somewhere in the past or somehow hidden behind the effects, they are never in plain sight. Yet we can't help it and keep talking about causality.

Like every cause, the cause of suffering is hidden from plain sight. The mechanics of the universe is such that there's a certain portion of suffering and a certain portion of happiness actualised, while their causes are hidden from sight, probably in the past, and the full ripening of these causes, the ultimate justice, is tentatively somewhere in the future.

The amount and nature of suffering depends on the perspective that we adopt when talking about it. As a starting point, the perspective may be the history of smallpox, the Holocaust or Ethiopian famines, and we may call these events "wanton suffering", but it would be honest to admit that we know neither the root causes behind these events nor their ultimate purpose. Inasmuch as we don't know these things, is it really correct to call it "wanton suffering", "obvious injustice" or such, as if we knew what they were? Now that scientists have conquered smallpox and other world powers crushed Hitler, maybe this was the purpose of these trials, to provide some sense of accomplishment to humanity, to prove to people that they can overcome difficulties and achieve good ends? Without these hardships, would we have a sense of accomplishment and motivation to plod on?

We may not know the specifics of the potential of the universe, but we can dialectically deduce the scope of it, and the fact is that the scope of it is vast, infinite really. There's only the current moment that is actualised, while the rest lies in potentiality, waiting for its time. The scope of potentiality, being so vast, is a greater reality to consider when determining the nature of any actualised event. In religious terms, surrounding this life is the afterlife, and beyond this world is the otherworldly that provide perspective to the actualised moment. Since these considerations don't concern people who have little faith, much less those with no faith, they are swift to judge events as wanton suffering when there is more to it.

In my opinion, the saddest thing in this context is not any particular event of suffering, but the fact that people refuse to adopt an analytical perspective and that they fail to give a thought to the hidden causes and ultimate outcomes.

Evil and suffering obviously give people a pause, but merriment should make them suspicious too. The world would be in much better balance, if people were horrified at temptations as readily as they are about evil. Suffering and temptations serve the same purpose - opportunity for accomplishment and self-improvement. If this does not sound good enough, then it's time to examine one's own readiness for responsibility and work, and moral state in general.

ArmandoAlvarez wrote:

I will re-read the whole thread again when I'm less tired, but the main contingency discussion seems to have been pretty brief.
DanielCC said, "There are contingent beings in the first place and thus beings doomed to corruption at some point."  That raises several questions that I don't think were address in the rest of the thread.
-Doesn't that turn creation into a kind of fall?  Or rather, doesn't it claim that the suffering normally attributed to the fall was inherent in creation?

 Well, it is only a very small part of creation, so to speak, that contains suffering. 

And from my Platonic pers​pective I would in fact argue that there is a tendency in creation for corporeality to exist. I think in some sense the Forms carry within themselves the capacity to manifest the possibilities that make them up. If this claim is problematic I don't think it is to do with the amount of suffering or anything like that. Such a possiiblity of privation seems to follow from the nature of corporeality, and yet the existence of corporeality does increase the richness and goodness of creation. We can see this even in moral terms, as alluded to by one of the famous theodicies: if there were no corporeality, in the way we now experience it, then there could exist no virtues like courage or effort or struggle. It is a better undertanding of things like how such a view escapes having to believe all possiblities must be manifested separately that I seek, not how the amount of suffering is dealt with.
 

I found an article that talks about the evidential/probabilistic argument from evil: http://www.strangenotions.com/why-the-problem-of-evil-makes-god-unlikely/
What do you guys think?

I'll have to look further into the idea that God is not a moral agent.  Could someone please explain it to me or point me to a good introductory article?  It sounds akin to the argument that God could will whatever he wanted to and it would be moral, which I have always heard most Christians discuss with contempt.
As to the idea that "God doesn't owe us anything," either I don't understand it or I don't know that I agree.  People say all the time that, for example, a couple who can't provide for children shouldn't get married or have sex until they can, because it would be immoral to bring children in the world if, for example, you can't afford to feed them.  I don't think there really are any genetic diseases that work like this, but I think most people would tell a man who had a genetic condition that caused 100% of his children to suffer in great pain for a few months after birth and die that it would be better for him to remain celibate.
  Why wouldn't a similar argument could be applied to God (if God is a moral agent)?  For example, wouldn't predestining some beings to damnation be immoral?  Now, maybe we can say that the actual fate of all creation is not so bad that their creation is immoral, but I think I can certainly conceive of beings that suffered to an extant that it would be better for them not to exist than to exist purely to suffer.  For example, a being that was damned at its creation, a being that always suffered and didn't know the reason that it was suffering, and could never have communion with God despite willing it.
I imagine these objections are simply the product of missing some steps implicit in your arguments, so treat them as though they were the objections that Aquinas raises to his arguments.
 

Last edited by ArmandoAlvarez (9/06/2015 2:35 pm)

The Problem Of Natural Evil.   I believe that Natural Evil is used to demonstrate . ( real intended Human Premeditated Evil  acts )    and Natural Good is also Used and miXed with  Human Premeditated Evil  acts.    Both Good and Evil are interchangable and dependant upon the Eye of the beholder.

At times, Self Defence calls for one to commit an action of self preservation that would be considered immoral or Evil if commited by someone not defending themselves.