The Problem of Evil (XXVII)

[wiploc]

@wiploc

When I use the term omnibenevolent, I mean it is a property describing the essence of God as perfect goodness or moral perfection.

Who gets to define "perfect"?  This seems like a subjective standard.  Who gets to define morality?  

I'm a utilitarian myself, so my definition of omnibenevolent is congruent with my definition of moral perfection. 

But, hey, let's say we have a god who, in his moral perfection, created man just so that he can enjoy watching us suffer.  Then he's not omni-against suffering. 

We can accommodate this god by defining suffering as good, and by defining happiness as evil.  Then this god can be both omnibenevolent and perfectly moral.  What does this do to the PoE?  Nothing.  It would still be true that evil would not exist if a tri-omni god existed. 

If we make benevolence and morality conflict (say by defining "good" as ignorance and "moral" as knowledge) then a god cannot be both omnibenevolent and perfectly moral.  Not even an omnipotent god could manage that. 

But, if "good" is happiness, and if "moral" is anything other than unhappiness, then an omnipotent god could have both.  There would be no conflict.

You are defining it more along the lines of infinite benevolence.

Omni benevolence is perfect benevolence, yes.  

Rather than a descriptive property, you are taking a step further and are claiming it creates an obligation to avoid all suffering.

No, I never do that. 

Vegetarians can eat meat all they want.  They are in no way obligated to refrain from eating meat.  But if they eat meat, they--by definition--won't be vegetarians.  

Omnibenevolent people can cause all the suffering they want.  They are under no obligation to avoid causing harm.  The  thing is, if they do choose to cause suffering, then they aren't omnibenevolent.  

So, no, I won't fall for this misrepresentation.  I do not claim that that benevolent gods are obliged to do good; rather, I claim that doing good is what makes a god benevolent.  

It's a matter of definition, not of obligation.  If words have meaning, omnibenevolent gods choose always good and never evil.  

But by using this definition, you cannot stop at just natural suffering--you would have to apply it to all suffering (even man-made), otherwise preventing this suffering vs that suffering is arbitrary and therefore is not a real property. 

I'm an LPoE (logical problem of evil) kinda guy:  I never stop at just natural suffering.  

If a tri-omni god existed, there would be no suffering of any kind.  If you believe that suffering exists, then you cannot logically believe that tri-omni gods exist.   

In response to both the free will and the knowledge of God defense, you say that if God thinks these things are more valuable than preventing suffering he is not omnibenevolent.

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.  

I can see you point with your definition.

The PoE is bulletproof with any definition.

I don't think argument is strong with the definition I have.

As I have demonstrated, you are wrong about this.  

Moral perfection in a universe of physical laws and free will does not entail preventing suffering if 1) there are greater goods to acheive or 2) someone makes a choice that results in suffering.

"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.