The Problem of Evil (XXVII)

[wiploc]

@wiploc

Logically possible propositions are propositions that have no contradictions in them. It is the broadest category of possibility that a proposition can fall into. While it does provide assurance that the conclusion might be true, it does not provide assurance that it is true.

An example: "It is logically possible that I am in Paris" is perfectly true. However, I am not.

In a logical argument, first we check to see if there are any contradictions in the premises and that the conclusion follows from the premises. The PoE argument is logically possible in the broad sense. There are no logical contradictions in the statement. All that gets you is that it may be true.

1. An all-powerful (omnipotent) God could prevent evil from existing in the world.
   
2. An all-knowing (omniscient) God would know that there was evil in the world.
   
3. An all-good (omnibenevolent) God would wish to prevent evil from existing in the world.
   
4. There is evil in the world.
   
5. Therefore God does not exist. 
   

Next, you have to fend off all defeaters (challenges) that might make a premise or the conclusion false. There are opposing defeaters where you argue that a premise is incompatible with another belief that is thought to be true. There are also undercutting defeaters that if true cast doubt on a premise. A defeater for my example above would be that I am really present in New Jersey and I cannot be in two place at the same time.

Plantinga proposes that when you compare the broadly logically possible world God could make with a real one, for every decision that a person made in the possible world, he could very well made a different one in the actual world (free will and all). That would be an opposing defeater for #1.

You could offer defeater defeaters until you iron out every possible objection. Only if the PoE argument is defended against all defeaters would it be considered a "successful argument".

Let's try it this way:

P1: An existing god, if omnibenevolent, would prevent all evil if it was able to.
P2: An existing god, if omnipotent, would be able to prevent all evil.
C1: Therefore, an omnibenevolent omnipotent god would prevent all evil.
C2: Therefore, if there were an omnipotent omnibenevolent god, there would be no evil.
C3: Therefore, if there is evil, there is no omnibenevolent omnipotent god.
C4: Therefore, anyone who believes in evil, and also believes in an omnibenevolent omnipotent god is wrong.

It's a proof.  Show me your defeaters. 

If I said "Two plus two is four," would you say, "That's only true if you deal with the defeaters"?

[wiploc]

For the next few days, I'll be in Jasper and Banff, national parks in the Canadian Rockies.  Stunning beauty, but no internet.  

But you don't have to feel sorry for me ... because I'll be in Jasper and Banff!

[Nihilist Virus]

There is no problem of evil

Sure there is.  

An omnipotent god would have the power to prevent all evil.
An omniscient god would know how to prevent all evil.  
An omnibenevolent god would choose to prevent all evil.  
Therefore, a tri-omni god would prevent all evil.  
Therefore, if evil exists, tri-omni gods do not exist.  

That's a logical relationship.  It has a name.  It is called "The Problem of Evil."  

because there is no claim in the Bible that God is omnibenevolent.

Maybe you're right, and maybe you're wrong.  Actually, I assume you're wrong, because whenever the bible says one thing over here, it'll say something else over there.  But, hey, let's stipulate that you're right:  The bible doesn't claim god is omnipotent.  

I don't see how that's relevant.  A lot of Christians believe their god is omnipotent, and that he's omnisicient, and that he's omnibenevolent, and that he coexists with evil.  Those Christians are wrong.  

How do we know they're wrong?  The PoE.  

In Christian theology, God is tautologically "good" but he is nowhere near benevolent.

To be benevolent is to desire good.  

Problem solved.

The PoE is already a solution.  It is a logical proof that you cannot logically believe in a tri-omni god who coexists with evil.

I said the Bible makes no claim of God's benevolence. I agree the Bible contradicts itself left and right, but there's no way to contradict yourself if you've made no claim.

[robvalue]

God violates free will multiple times in the bible.

And if he has any kind of "plan" or answers prayers, that also requires constantly messing with free will. Oh, you got the job did you, because of a prayer? Nice of God to influence the boss' free will.

If god's plan involves me being alive for the next 40 years, he can't exactly let me kill myself then can he. Or let anyone else kill me.

[Foxaèr]

God ceased to be worthy of recognition when he disowned Adam and Eve.

That is not the definition of being a father, which begs the question why idiotic supporters of this false god praise him as the best thing ever.

And it only goes downhill from there with this god character.

Why any rational being would consider a monster to be a god clearly refers to the delusion of the believer.

[GUBU]

Lady for Camus, I believe this was our very first exchange on your thread called Scientific Knowledge verus spiritual knowledge: http://atheistforums.org/thread-40576-po...pid1161465
I did not call you stupid. I said you were ignorant, specifically with regards to the definition of knowledge as it has been understood in the field of philosophy since the time of Plato. Later I did call you stupid  in response to you saying that theists were not welcome on AF: http://atheistforums.org/thread-40576-po...pid1161481 So yes, you are right I did call you stupid and ignorant. I overreacted. If I did not already do so, I apologize.

I do not say this in any way to excuse what I said.  I am glad that you feel you have found a home on AF in the 6+ months you have been here. I hope you can understand why I reacted negatively. I have been contributing for about 4 years now so when you said theists are not welcome on AF, I took that as a sign of great disrespect, not just to me, but to AF as a whole. Since you joined, you seemed very hostile to the long-time theists on this board before taking the time to understand that we have history with some of the other members with whom we trade playful jabs. Occasionally, a long-time atheist member and I will have bitter disputes that include insults and vulgarities on both sides. The vigor of our debates does not mean that at the end of the day we don't still have a modicum of respect for one another.

Um...okay?  You apologized to me and then put me on ignore?  If your reasoning is lack of a prompt response on my part, I'm sorry.  I was not ignoring you, I'm just home with a two year old all day, so my time during the day is limited.  I will agree with you that I most certainly have a feeble grasp of philosophy.  If you will take me off of ignore I have every intention of giving a detailed and thoughtful response to your words, but if you'd prefer to sever communications that's obviously your choice, and I won't waste my time.  

I've learned in the last few days that Wooters' response when pulled up on some of his behaviou is to throw a hisdy fit, claim victimhood and then put the people who have shown him up on ignore. I doubt very much if he has the civil decency to properly engage with you.

[GUBU]

If god and free will exist then that god is not omnipotent as it doesn't have power over all things, suffering existing or not.

What we believe is that He does have the power to take away our free will but chooses not to.

Whether god allows free will by his own choice or cannot prevent it doesn't matter as there are now things outside his control, limiting the scope of his power and rendering him less than all powerful. The same reasoning is valid to show free will is in compatible with omniscience as it prevents certain knowledge of the future.

[GUBU]

If god and free will exist then that god is not omnipotent as it doesn't have power over all things, suffering existing or not.

God choice not to violate free will in no way comes close to undercutting the concept of omnipotence. That would be like you saying because I choose not to lift my arm I don't have power over my body.

Yes it does, free will limits his power over those with free will:

1) God wants me to punch my nose.
2) I don't want to
3) God tries to make me punch my nose
4) I use my free will to override god's want
This has two conclusions
5a) I don't punch my nose
5b) God forces me to punch my nose overriding my free will

As you can see the two conclusions show that eithr god is not all powerful or my free will is illusory (as god will remove it if I go against his will). Quad Erat Demonstrandum

[purplepurpose]

According to hindu holy scriptures people who value pride, independence, pleasure in the end will be erased as souls according to karma system. Those who strive towards the bitter altruism/patriotism/love/good deeds will have a chance to inherit eternal life as Saints who draw happiness from perfect lifestyle of "good deeds". God strives towards perfection I guess.

I personally find immortality a luxury I will never attempt to have, the same as mansion with harem and lambo.

[GUBU]

If god and free will exist then that god is not omnipotent as it doesn't have power over all things, suffering existing or not.

That doesn't make sense to me.  Does the fact that you have authority over your kids mean that they don't have any free will?

Leaving aside the fact that I've no childers, having authority iver another person doesn't negate their free will. For example, if I were minding my cousins and I said X was verboten and laid out the punishments, they still have a choice, either follow my instructions or go against them and face the risk of being caught and suffering the consequences.

When you remove free will you remove a person's agency and their autonomy of thought, it is more than the simple imposition of rules or the issuing of orders, it is about removing any possible deviaition (even simply in thinking) from the will of the imposer. Ever read the book Ninetern Eighty-Four? I believe Orwell's exchange between Winston and O'Brien and his appendix on Newspeak capture my line of thinking on this matter.