Originally posted by Mister Meaner
Would you mind explaining this one a little more, I looked for the post you referred to but wasn't able to find it...
1) The Pantheistic Problem of Evil’s first premise has the same basic core as the theistic one in substantiating the existence of “evil” – morally objectionable actions/events.
2) The second premise is that all is God and God is all.
3) To resolve the two seemingly contradictory premises, there are 4 resolutions regarding good and evil -- all problematic:
i)
God is all good: This is obviously impossible, since evil must therefore exist apart from God. But, premise 2) states that God is all – nothing can exist that is not God.
ii)
God is all evil: This is not possible either, since good must then also exist apart from God. Premise 2) refutes this position.
iii)
God is both all good and all evil: This is a self-contradictory statement, since X cannot be both A and non-A.
iv)
Good and evil are illusory: This is the common position for pantheists; but if evil is only an illusion, then ultimately there is no such thing as good and evil thoughts or actions. Hence, what difference would it make whether we praise or curse, counsel or rape, love or murder someone? If there is no final moral difference between those actions, moral responsibilities do not exist. Cruelty and non-cruelty are ultimately the same.
The second objection to the 4th resolution is that if evil is not real, then what is the origin of the illusion? Why have people experienced it for so long, and why does it seem so real? Despite the pantheist’s claim to the contrary, he or she also experiences pain, suffering, and will eventually die. Even pantheists double-over in pain when they get appendicitis. They jump out of the way of an on-coming truck so as not to get hurt.
If pantheism is correct in that reality is not moral - that good and evil, right and wrong, are inapplicable to what is, then to be right is as meaningless as to be wrong -- which kinda defeats the object of even having this discussion.