Ethics: Problem of evil part 2

67문장 0% 중국어 번역 0명 참여 출처 : 칸아카데미
2 영상보기
영어 to
중국어
2단 보기 1단 보기

Ethics: Problem of evil part 2

(intro music) Hi, my name is Greg Ganssle, and I'm a Senior Fellow at the Rivendell Institute at Yale University.

We're discussing the philosophical problem of evil.

So in the last lecture, we looked at the philosophical problem of evil and we said that atheists want to deny premise one, that is, "God exists and is omniscient omnipotent, and wholly good", while theists want to investigate the additional premises more carefully.

So let us check to see.

Are these premises true? So let's look at premise three first: "There are no limits to what an omnipotent, omniscient being can do."

Is this true? Well, let's think about it. You've probably heard this question: "Can God make a rock so big that even He can't move it?"

What about this: "Can God make a class so boring that even He falls asleep?"

These are the kinds of questions some people think are going to be unanswerable.

But they boil down to, especially the rock question boils down to, "Can God make contradictions true?"

You see, a rock so big that an all-powerful being cannot move it is a contradiction.

So the question is, can God make a contradiction true?

So let's answer the question "Yes" and let's answer the question "No" and see what happens.

Yes: If God can make contradictions true, then he can make a rock so big that he cannot move it.

But then, he can also move it, because he can make the contradiction true that he cannot move the rock and he also can move the rock.

So this is not a problem.

But what if God cannot do contradiction?

Then we will have to say that God cannot make this kind of a rock.

It's not something that, as an all-powerful being, He can accomplish.

Now traditionally, most theologians and philosophers have understood God's power such that He cannot do contradictions.

And it's very important for the atheist to hold this view.

Because the atheist wants to have an argument that God does not exist, such as John Mackie's argument.

So suppose Mackie has a successful argument: There's a contradiction in believing that God exists and that evil exists.

The theist can simply say, "Well, if God can do contradictions, he can make that contradiction true.

There is no contradiction that challenges the existence of God."

So in order to have any argument against the existence of God at all, we have to assume that God's power does not extend to being able to make contradictions true.

So we are going to say that premise three as it stands is false.

There are some limits to what an all-powerful being can do.

There are logical limits. God cannot draw a square circle.

God cannot make a rock so big He cannot move it.

These are contradictions. So we need to rewrite premise three.

We'll call it "Three*":There are no non-logical limits to what an omnipotent, omniscient being can do.

So we've revised premise three; let's look at premise four.

Premise four: "A good being always eliminates evil as far as it can."

This too turns out to be false.

Often, a good parent allows evil and suffering into her child's life even if she could eliminate it.

In our family, we had a very strict rule that the children were not allowed to eat candy before breakfast, and sometimes this caused distress.

But we knew we had a good reason to allow this kind of suffering.

It didn't make us bad parents.

So we have to revise premise four as well.

Four*: A good being always eliminates evil as far as it can unless it has a good reason to allow it.

This has a chance of being true.

So the theist says, "We need to revise those two premises.

Let's plug them back into our argument and see if we can still get a contradiction."

Evil exists. Premise three*.Premise one remains the same. Premise two remains the same.

There are no non-logical limits to what an omnipotent being can do. Premise four*.

A good being always eliminates evil as far as it can, unless it has a good reason to allow it.

From these four, we can go through the steps.

Statement five is actually going to be statement five* now: God can eliminate all the evil that it's logically possible to eliminate.

Statement six becomes statement six*:God will eliminate all the evil He can eliminate because He is good, unless He has a good reason to allow it.

From statement five* and statement six*, we get statement seven*:God eliminates all the evil He logically can eliminate, unless He has a good reason to allow it.

Statement eight*: There is evil and there is no evil, unless God has a good reason to allow it.

And this is not a contradiction.

So what the theists have recognized is that if it's possible that God has a good reason to allow evil, there is no contradiction in claiming that God exists, God is wholly good, all-powerful, all-knowing, and yet evil exists.

Could it be that God has a good reason to allow evil, but we don't have to know what His reasons are for any particular evil?

There are some things that have come up as suggestions for why God might allow some of the evils we encounter.

First, human freedom. Many philosophers believe that if God allows us to be free in a significant way, then He cannot determine that we always choose what's right.

That would be a contradiction: a determined action that's free.

Secondly, many people think that the regularities in the universe require the possibility of natural evils such as drownings and burnings.

It's the very same properties of water that make it biologically useful that make it possible for us to drown.

If we're going to have a regular cause and effect universe, we need to have a stable world.

These might be some of the reasons that God allows evil in the world.

We don't know His particular reasons.

So the charge of contradiction is the charge that there is a contradiction between the existence of God and the existence of evil.

We've shown that there's probably no contradiction.

If God can have a reason to allow evil, then the argument has been answered.

Of course, this leads to the next problem of evil called "the evidential problem." But that's for another day.

번역 0%

Ethics: Problem of evil part 2발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

(intro music) Hi, my name is Greg Ganssle, and I'm a Senior Fellow at the Rivendell Institute at Yale University.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

We're discussing the philosophical problem of evil.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

So in the last lecture, we looked at the philosophical problem of evil and we said that atheists want to deny premise one, that is, "God exists and is omniscient omnipotent, and wholly good", while theists want to investigate the additional premises more carefully.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

So let us check to see.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Are these premises true? So let's look at premise three first: "There are no limits to what an omnipotent, omniscient being can do."발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Is this true? Well, let's think about it. You've probably heard this question: "Can God make a rock so big that even He can't move it?"발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

What about this: "Can God make a class so boring that even He falls asleep?"발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

These are the kinds of questions some people think are going to be unanswerable.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

But they boil down to, especially the rock question boils down to, "Can God make contradictions true?"발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

You see, a rock so big that an all-powerful being cannot move it is a contradiction.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

So the question is, can God make a contradiction true?발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

So let's answer the question "Yes" and let's answer the question "No" and see what happens.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Yes: If God can make contradictions true, then he can make a rock so big that he cannot move it.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

But then, he can also move it, because he can make the contradiction true that he cannot move the rock and he also can move the rock.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

So this is not a problem.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

But what if God cannot do contradiction?발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Then we will have to say that God cannot make this kind of a rock.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

It's not something that, as an all-powerful being, He can accomplish.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Now traditionally, most theologians and philosophers have understood God's power such that He cannot do contradictions.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

And it's very important for the atheist to hold this view.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Because the atheist wants to have an argument that God does not exist, such as John Mackie's argument.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

So suppose Mackie has a successful argument: There's a contradiction in believing that God exists and that evil exists.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

The theist can simply say, "Well, if God can do contradictions, he can make that contradiction true.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

There is no contradiction that challenges the existence of God."발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

So in order to have any argument against the existence of God at all, we have to assume that God's power does not extend to being able to make contradictions true.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

So we are going to say that premise three as it stands is false.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

There are some limits to what an all-powerful being can do.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

There are logical limits. God cannot draw a square circle.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

God cannot make a rock so big He cannot move it.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

These are contradictions. So we need to rewrite premise three.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

We'll call it "Three*":There are no non-logical limits to what an omnipotent, omniscient being can do.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

So we've revised premise three; let's look at premise four.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Premise four: "A good being always eliminates evil as far as it can."발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

This too turns out to be false.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Often, a good parent allows evil and suffering into her child's life even if she could eliminate it.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

In our family, we had a very strict rule that the children were not allowed to eat candy before breakfast, and sometimes this caused distress.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

But we knew we had a good reason to allow this kind of suffering.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

It didn't make us bad parents.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

So we have to revise premise four as well.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Four*: A good being always eliminates evil as far as it can unless it has a good reason to allow it.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

This has a chance of being true.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

So the theist says, "We need to revise those two premises.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Let's plug them back into our argument and see if we can still get a contradiction."발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Evil exists. Premise three*.Premise one remains the same. Premise two remains the same.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

There are no non-logical limits to what an omnipotent being can do. Premise four*.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

A good being always eliminates evil as far as it can, unless it has a good reason to allow it.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

From these four, we can go through the steps.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Statement five is actually going to be statement five* now: God can eliminate all the evil that it's logically possible to eliminate.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Statement six becomes statement six*:God will eliminate all the evil He can eliminate because He is good, unless He has a good reason to allow it.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

From statement five* and statement six*, we get statement seven*:God eliminates all the evil He logically can eliminate, unless He has a good reason to allow it.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Statement eight*: There is evil and there is no evil, unless God has a good reason to allow it.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

And this is not a contradiction.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

So what the theists have recognized is that if it's possible that God has a good reason to allow evil, there is no contradiction in claiming that God exists, God is wholly good, all-powerful, all-knowing, and yet evil exists.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Could it be that God has a good reason to allow evil, but we don't have to know what His reasons are for any particular evil?발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

There are some things that have come up as suggestions for why God might allow some of the evils we encounter.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

First, human freedom. Many philosophers believe that if God allows us to be free in a significant way, then He cannot determine that we always choose what's right.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

That would be a contradiction: a determined action that's free.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Secondly, many people think that the regularities in the universe require the possibility of natural evils such as drownings and burnings.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

It's the very same properties of water that make it biologically useful that make it possible for us to drown.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

If we're going to have a regular cause and effect universe, we need to have a stable world.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

These might be some of the reasons that God allows evil in the world.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

We don't know His particular reasons.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

So the charge of contradiction is the charge that there is a contradiction between the existence of God and the existence of evil.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

We've shown that there's probably no contradiction.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

If God can have a reason to allow evil, then the argument has been answered.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Of course, this leads to the next problem of evil called "the evidential problem." But that's for another day.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

칸아카데미 더보기더 보기

전체보기
Top