The Problem of Evil (XXVII)

[wiploc]

Traditionally, the excuses mostly consist of temporarily forgetting that god is supposed to be omnipotent, or that that he is supposed to be omniscient, or that he's supposed to be omnibenevolent.  I say temporarily because the people who give up god's benevolence for the sake of argument will then turn around and worship him for his goodness. 

So I like to say that the art of defending against the problem of evil consists largely of not realizing what you have given up.  To be consistent, you have to give up omnipotence, omniscience, or omnibenevolence; but, to continue worshiping a tri-omni god, you have to not realize that you gave it up.  

But these people, people who actually give up omnipotence, omniscience, or omnibenevolence (as opposed to just making a feint in that direction and then reverting to their prior beliefs) don't have any reason to argue against the PoE.  They already know that a tri-omni god can't coexist with evil, which is why their gods aren't tri-omni.

While stated often, I don't think that the case has been made, where logically; to be omnibenevolent, other good attributes must be forsaken.

 

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

The argument is normally presented as a simple and naïve false dichotomy.  One where comfort and happiness are presented as supreme, and the one making the argument seems to forget about everything else. 

 

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 agree with Steve, that it is more of an emotional problem, than a logical one. 

 

The emotional problem Steve described, if I understand it, is something like, "You are describing a god who sucks.  I wouldn't like that god even if he existed."   You can try to change the subject to that, but this subject will remain:  

If a god had the power and the knowledge and the will to prevent all evil, then there would be no evil.  Therefore, if evil exists, no such tri-omni god exists.  

Let me ask you, if I told you that there was a fix for the things you attribute to the problem of evil; would you do everything within your power, to save as many as you could from suffering?

 


I'm not omnibenevolent.  I may not even be particularly good. 

I'll tell you this, though:  If I was the god of Oklahoma, and Jehovah was the god of everywhere else, everybody would move to Oklahoma.