The Problem of Evil (XXVII)

[wiploc]

 

Evil is what an omnibenevolent god forsakes, not "other good attributes."  

That is the question isn't it?

I don't understand.

 

The only thing logically incompatible with comfort is discomfort.  The only thing logically incompatible with happiness is unhappiness.  If we call comfort and happiness good, and discomfort and unhappiness evil, then--except for evil--an omnipotent god can have anything it wants in addition to comfort and happiness.  

If what it wants is discomfort and unhappiness, then it is not omnibenevolent.  
If it wants something else and can't have both that and the absence of evil, then it is not omnipotent.  

This is simple, but it's not naive or false: An omnipotent god can have anything it wants that isn't logically incompatible with other things it wants.  An omnibenevolent god doesn't want evil.  Therefore, an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god can have anything it wants.  

I don't believe that comfort and happiness equate with good (at least not on a logical or definitional level).   This it is more of an emotional problem, than logical.

Then pick something else to define as good.  The PoE is bulletproof regardless of what you choose.  

But I'll suggest that you may come back to that after choosing other things.  That is, once god gets some mysterious X-factor that he prefers--once he has accomplished his other and greater goals--won't he still want people to be happy?  And, if not, will you still call him benevolent?  


[/quote]

[SteveII]

@wiploc

Your characterization of the PoE argument as bulletproof is true if you are talking about the argument being logically valid. It is. That does not mean it is a successful argument because there are defeaters for the conclusion that must be addressed.

The question remains can God create an actual world with human free will devoid of suffering. Your response is that God can do so because of his omnipotence. You are right that is not a logical problem in the sense of possible worlds. But it very well might be the case that actualizing such a world in practice is impossible. Your statement "An omnipotent god can do anything that doesn't involve logical contradiction" is not true in this case because of the introduction of the uncertainty of free will. Thus it’s possible that every world feasible for God to create, which contains free will, is a world with suffering.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_possibility

There is another misunderstandings about Plantinga.

Transworld depravity: Therefore, it is certainly possible that a person completes the world by only making morally good choices; that is, there exist possible worlds where a person freely chooses to do no moral evil. However, it may be the case that for each such world, there is some morally significant choice that this person would do differently if these circumstances were to occur in the actual world. In other words, each such possible world contains a world segment, meaning everything about that world up to the point where the person must make that critical choice, such that if that segment was part of the actual world, the person would instead go wrong in completing that world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plan..._depravity

[LadyForCamus]

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.

[wiploc]

I'm likely to fall off the radar for awhile. Entering Canada tomorrow, and don't have any idea whether I'll have internet there.

I'm on my way to Alaska.

[SteveII]

I'm likely to fall off the radar for awhile.  Entering Canada tomorrow, and don't have any idea whether I'll have internet there.  

I'm on my way to Alaska.

Must be a beautiful trip. Enjoy.

[wiploc]

@wiploc

Your characterization of the PoE argument as bulletproof is true if you are talking about the argument being logically valid. It is. That does not mean it is a successful argument because there are defeaters for the conclusion that must be addressed.

You have my attention, but I'm as confused as if you had said, "Yes, you have absolutely proven that seven is larger than six, but I know of a secret refutation."   

The question remains can God create an actual world with human free will devoid of suffering.

An omnipotent god could do that, because an omnipotent god could do anything that doesn't contradict logic.  There is no logical contradiction in free willed people not suffering.  

Your response is that God can do so because of his omnipotence.

Right.  That's what omnipotence is.  

You are right that is not a logical problem in the sense of possible worlds.

But it very well might be the case that actualizing such a world in practice is impossible.

No, that's the whole point of a magic-throwing god:  It can do things that couldn't be done "in practice."  Logic is the only obstacle, and there is no logical problem with creating a free-willed world without suffering.  

Plantinga admits, as he must, that such worlds are among the possible worlds.  An omnipotent god can do anything possible.  

Your statement "An omnipotent god can do anything that doesn't involve logical contradiction" is not true in this case because of the introduction of the uncertainty of free will.

An omniscient god would know of every decision that every person would make in every possible (and, according to Plantinga, in every impossible) world.  For an omniscient god, there is no uncertainty of free will.  

Thus it’s possible that every world feasible for God to create, which contains free will, is a world with suffering.

No so.  You can't arbitrarily select a category of worlds and say, "Maybe these aren't possible."  

"Possible worlds" is a known concept.  Any world that isn't impossible is possible.  Any world that doesn't have square circles, or some other logical contradiction, is possible.  There is no logical contradiction in happy people having free will.  Therefore, worlds in which happy people have free will are possible.  Therefore, an omnipotent god can create them.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_possibility

There is another misunderstandings about Plantinga.

Transworld depravity: Therefore, it is certainly possible that a person completes the world by only making morally good choices; that is, there exist possible worlds where a person freely chooses to do no moral evil. However, it may be the case that for each such world, there is some morally significant choice that this person would do differently if these circumstances were to occur in the actual world. In other words, each such possible world contains a world segment, meaning everything about that world up to the point where the person must make that critical choice, such that if that segment was part of the actual world, the person would instead go wrong in completing that world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plan..._depravity

I don't like that. 

That is, I find the whole transworld depravity thing difficult.  On the one hand, Plantinga claims that everything in one world is, in another world, the thing that is most similar.  Set aside the fact that this is arbitrary (you think Joe is me in world B because Joe looks like me, and I think Sara is me in world B because Sara thinks like me) it creates paradoxes.  If World C has three people, Joe, Sara, and Ignatius, and world D has only one person, Ray, then, according to Plantinga's logic, Ray is Sara because he is the thing most like Sara in world D.  But, by the same logic, Ray is also Joe and Ignatius.  So Sara is Joe and Joe is Ignatius. 

I have a problem with that. 

I understand that me having a problem is not a defeater.  And I understand that possible-world talk is really a way of expressing normal mundane concepts that are (sometimes, at least) not even controversial. 

The bottom line is that you're going to have to speak clearly and persuasively if you want to use transworld-depravity talk to convince me that something as simple as "seven is larger than six" isn't really true. 

Plantinga has already admitted that goodworlds with free will are possible.  And it is patently true that an omnipotent god can make possible worlds.  I'm not going to be moved by the notion that there are only a few possible worlds, and that it just happens that none of them have happy people with free will.  

As far as I can see, that may be Plantinga's notion, that we only get to roll the dice a few times, that god, though he knew all of the infinity of possible worlds, he was somehow restricted (by an even more powerful god?) to choosing from a limited selection of them. 

This is a difficult area for me.  Murky.  In the area that I understand clearly, it is obvious that a tri-omni god could make a goodworld with free will.  And it is obvious, if we adopted Plantinga's specious logic about god's creating a world robbing that world of free will, that a god couldn't make any world with free will. 

I'm willing to be instructed.  I'll keep an open mind.  But I don't see how you can lead me into the murk of transworld depravity and there convince me of something that is obviously false when viewed in clear light.

[wiploc]

I'm likely to fall off the radar for awhile.  Entering Canada tomorrow, and don't have any idea whether I'll have internet there.  

I'm on my way to Alaska.

Must be a beautiful trip. Enjoy.

It's glorious.  I'll put pictures here: http://wherearecharlieandtoni.blogspot.com/

[Neo-Scholastic]

What is wrong with the idea of a Multiverse in which all possible worlds are exhasted and we just got a crumby one?

[robvalue]

I'd like to make this general observation:

Is it reasonable that God needs so much explaining and justifying?

[Pat Mustard]

It is foundational?  What's that even mean?  That it cannot be mistaken?  Like I said, it sounds like it's just made up.

That's why I don't care about whether God could do logically impossible things. Theists made him up, they can make his superpowers be whatever they want.

Yhwh is the reverse Superman. The longer his myth is being retold the fewer his powers become in number.