The Problem of Evil, Free Will, and the "Greater Good"
April 28, 2013 at 9:52 pm
(This post was last modified: April 28, 2013 at 9:58 pm by Venom7513.)
It seems that many Christians try to avoid the problem of evil by arguing that God has given men "free will", but doesn't this just hide the problem behind another layer of abstraction?
Syllogistic Argument:
I. If a being is omnipotent, then he has a means to every end to which any other being has a means, and he carries out all means to which he wills the ends.
II. If a being is omnibenevolent, then every end that he wills is good, and he wills all ends that are good and to which he has a means.
III. There exists at least one scenario in which there exists two distinct beings (A and B) such that A carries out a means to an evil end E, and B has a means to an end E' such that if B would have carried out the means to E' then A would not have had the means to E.
Proof: Assume there exists some being G such that G is simultaneously omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then G has (I) but does not carry out (III) the means to E'. Hence, G does not will E' (I) which implies that E' is not good (II). Assuming objective morality, it is then, therefore, wrong for B to carry out the means to E'.
Intuitive Appeal:
Bob hates Bobbette and decides that he is going kill her, but first confides in his close friend Bobby. Bobby could call the police and stop Bob, but since he also hates Bobbette, he decides to let his friend go through with his sinister plan. Since Bobby has a means to stop Bob from killing Bobbette, certainly an omnipotent god would also have some means. This god could act to stop the murder but does not; thus, he does not want to stop the murder. If this god is also omnibenvolent, he or she wants only what is good, so the act of stopping Bobbette's murder must not have been good. Assuming objective morality, it would have been wrong for Bobby to stop Bob. To put it plainly, either no omnipotent, omnibenevolent god exists, or it is wrong to inhibit another from evil. Both are absurd in light of Biblical Christianity.
Syllogistic Argument:
I. If a being is omnipotent, then he has a means to every end to which any other being has a means, and he carries out all means to which he wills the ends.
II. If a being is omnibenevolent, then every end that he wills is good, and he wills all ends that are good and to which he has a means.
III. There exists at least one scenario in which there exists two distinct beings (A and B) such that A carries out a means to an evil end E, and B has a means to an end E' such that if B would have carried out the means to E' then A would not have had the means to E.
Proof: Assume there exists some being G such that G is simultaneously omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then G has (I) but does not carry out (III) the means to E'. Hence, G does not will E' (I) which implies that E' is not good (II). Assuming objective morality, it is then, therefore, wrong for B to carry out the means to E'.
Intuitive Appeal:
Bob hates Bobbette and decides that he is going kill her, but first confides in his close friend Bobby. Bobby could call the police and stop Bob, but since he also hates Bobbette, he decides to let his friend go through with his sinister plan. Since Bobby has a means to stop Bob from killing Bobbette, certainly an omnipotent god would also have some means. This god could act to stop the murder but does not; thus, he does not want to stop the murder. If this god is also omnibenvolent, he or she wants only what is good, so the act of stopping Bobbette's murder must not have been good. Assuming objective morality, it would have been wrong for Bobby to stop Bob. To put it plainly, either no omnipotent, omnibenevolent god exists, or it is wrong to inhibit another from evil. Both are absurd in light of Biblical Christianity.
