The Problem of Evil (XXVII)

[SteveII]

As the greatest conceivable being, there is no possible world where God is not good.

Bullshit!  Why?  Who says so?  There is no possible reason for a god to be good or bad.  Those are human terms.

I am arguing about the God of Christianity so we look at God's self revelation in scripture where it is clear that God is the greatest conceivable being. With a blend of scripture and reason we can do comparisons like "what is greater: omnibenevolence or less than omnibenevolence."

[wiploc]

All of your objections assume that God had no choice but to make humans so frail that all those things pose terrible dangers to us. I guarantee there are no laws of nature that prevent a being that can do anything that is possible from making biological organisms that are hard to kill by falling or drowning.

There are safe places where people are never subject to natural disasters and never will be, but you won't name one?

The most common Christian version of free will is a joke: use your free will to be a Christian or suffer forever. And if the greatest good is knowledge of God, a being that can do anything possible ought not to have a problem with arranging things so everyone has knowledge of God.

Why hasn't God arranged for everyone to be able to have knowledge of God? Romans 1:20 comes to mind: "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." There are many more verses that speak about how the heavens, etc. declare this or that about God. That seems to be the "God Shaped Hole" in our psyche that psychologist like to talk about. 

So, this time, "good" equals something like "vague alleged hints that gods exist, but which aren't strong or logical enough to persuade the Hellbound"?  
 
If you think that's going to keep the PoE from working, you are wrong.  

In addition, I think that God has a different idea than you do about where the line between freely choosing God from a) the amount of information that has been revealed and b) the amount of information needed that would be so obvious that freely choosing God would not play into it. I think philosophers call it morally sufficient freedom. 

Perhaps "morally significant free will"?  

An omnipotent god could combine morally significant (or sufficient) freedom with everybody freely choosing god.  No problem.  

Plantinga works it this way (though of course an omnipotent omniscient god could work it in an infinity of other ways, many of them beyond our comprehension):  

God, at the beginning, knew of every possible world.  He was omniscient, so he knew which worlds had free will, and which worlds had evil.  He knew which had free will without having evil (call these "goodworlds").  He could start any one of these possible worlds that was made by a god.  (He couldn't make a world that wasn't made by a god.  Worlds that both were and weren't made by gods were impossible worlds.)  He knew, in each of these god-made goodworlds (as well as every other world, possible and impossible) whether he would intervene, and, if he would intervene, exactly how many times he would intervene, and to what effect.  

And, knowing all this, he chose to start one particular world, Kronos, this world, the actual world.  But he could have chosen any one of the possible god-created worlds, including an infinite number of god-created goodworlds. But he chose a bad one.  

But the point is, one way to have morally significant freedom plus everybody freely choosing god is simply to create one of the worlds in which god knows that will happen.  Then nobody is forced to do anything, and everybody has morally significant free will.  

This is no problem for an omnipotent omniscient creator god.  

Another question: If we are in a "fallen state" or a have a "sin nature" affecting us, why wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude (as does the Bible) that our cognitive abilities have been impaired and our built-in selfcenteredness (pride) prevents us from seeing evidence that conflicts with the selfcenteredness (a kind of noetic effect).

That doesn't help your case.  A good god wouldn't give us a sin nature.  A good god wouldn't start us off with Adam and Eve he knew they were going to Fall; rather he'd start us off Solomon and Ruth, or whoever it took to achieve success.  A good god wouldn't have put that particular tree in the garden, or he would have fenced it off, or put the serpent somewhere else, or he would have made it cloudy that day, or any one of the other infinity of ineffable (to us mortals) butterfly-effect causal factors that would have resulted in our not Falling.  Or he wouldn't have declared eating fruit to be a sin.  Or he wouldn't have made having a sin nature be the punishment for sin.  Or he would have created one of the infinity of possible worlds in which self-centered cognitively-impaired people happen to choose, uh, to know god, or whatever.  I'm actually having trouble following your above sentence. 

Anyway, the above may not be compelling arguments.  They seem obviously correct, but they're just obvious, not logically bulletproof.

What's logically bulletproof is the PoE:  If a tri-omni god existed, evil would not.  There's no way around that.


ETA:  I'm not quoting Plantinga.  I'm not paraphrasing.  I'm building on his ideas, following them to their logical conclusions.  I didn't know where I'd wind up when I started the above with "Plantinga works it this way."  Plantinga obviously didn't reach the conclusion I did.  Though he should have.

[robvalue]

I want to mention that I admire SteveII's manner with us, even though I have trouble understanding his points. I appreciate him being respectful. We need more discourse like this, instead of it degenerating into arrogant dismissal, insults or threats.

[SteveII]

I want to mention that I admire SteveII's manner with us, even though I have trouble understanding his points. I appreciate him being respectful. We need more discourse like this, instead of it degenerating into arrogant dismissal, insults or threats.

Thanks Rob. I appreciate that.

[robvalue]

You're welcome

[wiploc]

I deny and repudiate that line of argument.  

The PoE (problem of evil) is bulletproof regardless of how you define evil.  

Let us stipulate, temporarily and for the sake of argument, that "good" means three things:  
- First and most importantly, it means knowing god.  
- Second, and second in importance, it means having free will.  
- Third, and last in importance, it means being happy.  

Posit a benevolent god of limited power:  If he had to choose between these three, he would give up happiness and free will to get knowledge of god.  If he had to choose between free will and happiness, he would prefer free will.  

This god may be omnibenevolent, but he is not omnipotent.  An omnipotent god would not have to choose between these.  An omnipotent god can do anything that does not contradict logic.  

Having happiness and free will and knowledge does not contradict logic.  So an omnipotent god could do it.  

Even an omnipotent god couldn't have pure happiness, but also unhappiness.  It couldn't have complete knowledge of god but also ignorance of god.  It could not have everybody having free will but some people not having free will.  Those would be contradictions.  Not even an omnipotent god could achieve contradictions.  

But there is no contradiction between happiness, knowledge, and free will.  An omnipotent god could effect that effortlessly.  No problem.  

The PoE is bulletproof regardless of how you define good.  If there was a god who wanted us to be happy, and who wanted us to know him, and who wanted us to have free will, then (if this god was also omniscient and omnibenevolent) we would have all three of those things.  

If we do not have all three of those things, then such a god does not exist.  


"A universe of physical laws"?  Are you saying that your god can't throw magic?  If you posit a less-than-omnipotent god, then of course it can coexist with evil, just as a less-than-omniscient or less-than-omnibenevolent god could. 

The PoE has nothing to say about such inferior gods.

You are resting your case on the fact that God could orchestrate a scenario that achieves all three of your points above with omnipotence.

Yes.

You are not providing arguments that it is illogical, you are arguing that it is improbable.

Probability doesn't come into it.  It's all terminology and deductive logic.  An omnipotent god (one who can do anything except violate logic) can achieve any three goals that do not logically contradict each other.  Knowing a god, having free will, and being happy are not logically contradictory.  Therefore, an omnipotent god could do all three.  An omniscient god would know how to do all three.  An omnibenevolent god (assuming we define those three things as good) would choose to achieve all three.  Therefore, in any world in which these three things are not achieved, tri-omni gods do not exist.  

Feel free to show me where I injected statistics and probability into that.  

It all comes down to your position that omnibenevolence = obligation to use all means to avoid anything that isn't good.

I deny and repudiate that argument.  By now you know that it is a misrepresentation.  I do not see gods as obligated in any way. 

That would mean preventing any and all suffering.

A god who is all about preventing suffering would prevent any and all suffering, insofar as that was in his capacity.  If he had omnipotence, preventing all suffering would be a doddle.  Duck soup.  Easy peasy.  No problem at all.  No effort required.  

A god who only wanted to prevent some suffering would not be omnibenevolent.  A god who wanted to prevent all suffering but wasn't able to do so would not be omnipotent.  

A tri-omni god would prevent any and all suffering--even if not in any way obligated to do so.  

It does not seem to me that we could have a world where we have free will and not have suffering because every wrong choice we made that resulted in suffering (however small) would be met with a supernatural intervention.

Some possible goodworlds have interventions.  Some don't.  If the god is comfortable with interventions, he can have them.  If not, not.  

Such a state of affairs would result in a singular lack of morally sufficient freedom --effectively eliminating free will.

Only if you define it that way.  Plantinga does.  He says god couldn't create a goodworld with free will, because his choosing to create that particular world (knowing, as he would in his omniscience, every choice everyone would ever make in that world) would deny the inhabitants free will.  

There are two problems with that.  

One (and I want you to pretty much ignore this one, let's not have a long digression about it) is that it makes free will worthless.  I like my free will as much as you like yours.  And if you tell me this world was created by an all-knowing god, and that therefore, according to Planting's perverse and self-serving definition, my will isn't technically free, that doesn't make me like it any less.  

The other objection is that Plantinga engaged in special pleading.  If god's knowing our decisions beforehand robs us of free will in a goodworld, then it will also do that in a badworld.  The logical result of Plantinga's logic is that tri-omni gods cannot create any world with free will.  

In which case, a goodworld without free will would be better than a badworld without free will.  

So a good god, if it existed, and if it was omniscient and omnipotent, would still have created a goodworld.  

So it would seem that a world in which everyone had free will but no possibility of suffering would not be able to be actualized.

Again, just because you have a possibility doesn't mean you have to do something.  If you had to do it, that wouldn't be a possibility, it would be a necessity.

If a god could create worlds with free will, then he could create one in which we could choose evil, but decided not to.  If we couldn't decide not to, that wouldn't be free will.

[wiploc]

I want to mention that I admire SteveII's manner with us, even though I have trouble understanding his points. I appreciate him being respectful. We need more discourse like this, instead of it degenerating into arrogant dismissal, insults or threats.

I'm totally with you.  Steve isn't a hit and run poster, and he isn't a bait and flame poster.  He is the kind of person who makes boards like this worthwhile.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I want to mention that I admire SteveII's manner with us, even though I have trouble understanding his points. I appreciate him being respectful. We need more discourse like this, instead of it degenerating into arrogant dismissal, insults or threats.

Fuck you. ;-). Seriously though. I was insulted and treated like shit from day one. Maybe I've become a bit jaded. And I really did make every effort to debate with gentleness and respect. Many atheists it seems know the literal meanings of the bible but I must say their grasp of theology is pretty simplistic. Maybe their objections stump your average evangelical but those objections don't really pose serious theological problems. It saddens me to think that people settle for the arguments that satisfy their own preconceptions rather than explore the limits of their philosophy.

[Cecelia]

People keep saying that God is the greatest conceivable being. But I can conceive of a much greater being than the God of the Bible. I don't know maybe one who doesn't drown people, or let children starve to death. That's a good start. In fact I'd say that the God of the bible is one of the worst villains in literature. I mean he's going to throw billions into a lake of fire for not believing he exists.

[robvalue]

Okay Chad. I wasn't here on day 1, and you've been incredibly and consistently rude to me which is why I'm currently ignoring you.