Posts: 7
Threads: 1
Joined: April 28, 2013
Reputation:
1
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.
Posts: 3117
Threads: 16
Joined: September 17, 2012
Reputation:
35
RE: The Problem of Evil, Free Will, and the "Greater Good"
April 28, 2013 at 10:03 pm
(April 28, 2013 at 9:52 pm)Venom7513 Wrote: 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.
Actually, the first is not. Biblical Christianity (especially the OT) does not portray god as omnibenevolent.
John Adams Wrote:The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.
Posts: 2658
Threads: 121
Joined: March 19, 2012
Reputation:
27
RE: The Problem of Evil, Free Will, and the "Greater Good"
April 28, 2013 at 10:27 pm
I also think the Problem of Evil isn't a strong argument against the Christian God. That's not to say that a lesser being not possessing the 3 omni's isn't plagued with its own philosophical dilemmas...
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
Posts: 13392
Threads: 187
Joined: March 18, 2012
Reputation:
48
RE: The Problem of Evil, Free Will, and the "Greater Good"
April 28, 2013 at 11:26 pm
(April 28, 2013 at 10:03 pm)Darkstar Wrote: (April 28, 2013 at 9:52 pm)Venom7513 Wrote: 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.
Actually, the first is not. Biblical Christianity (especially the OT) does not portray god as omnibenevolent.
Holy crap i almost fell out of my Chair! Wow i guess at least some of what I have said has stuck.. Even if it wasn't my words specifically your are pointed in the right direction.
That said you can also expand the God of the Nt as not being 'omni benevolent' through the vengence and wrath being poured out on the last generation of revelations. Not to mention what Christ says about the unrepentant sinners.
For the God of the OT and Nt are the Same God, the only thing that has changes is we now have a buffer between us and God's wrath. That buffer according to the book of Revelation has an experation date meaning it is not infinate. Once the cup of man's iniquity is full God's wrath will rain down upon this world one final time.
Posts: 2658
Threads: 121
Joined: March 19, 2012
Reputation:
27
RE: The Problem of Evil, Free Will, and the "Greater Good"
April 28, 2013 at 11:29 pm
Yeah, too bad Jesus didn't come back during the life times of his disciples like he said he would.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
Posts: 13392
Threads: 187
Joined: March 18, 2012
Reputation:
48
RE: The Problem of Evil, Free Will, and the "Greater Good"
April 28, 2013 at 11:29 pm
(This post was last modified: April 28, 2013 at 11:31 pm by Drich.)
(April 28, 2013 at 10:27 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: I also think the Problem of Evil isn't a strong argument against the Christian God. That's not to say that a lesser being not possessing the 3 omni's isn't plagued with its own philosophical dilemmas...  hock:
Now i am on the floor.
(April 28, 2013 at 11:29 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: Yeah, too bad Jesus didn't come back during the life times of his disciples like he said he would.
I knew it was too good to last.
We talked about this the word for generation also translates into 'people' as in the Jewish people. The Jewish people have not 'passed away' have they?
Posts: 2658
Threads: 121
Joined: March 19, 2012
Reputation:
27
RE: The Problem of Evil, Free Will, and the "Greater Good"
April 28, 2013 at 11:34 pm
(This post was last modified: April 28, 2013 at 11:35 pm by FallentoReason.)
(April 28, 2013 at 11:29 pm)Drich Wrote: (April 28, 2013 at 10:27 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: I also think the Problem of Evil isn't a strong argument against the Christian God. That's not to say that a lesser being not possessing the 3 omni's isn't plagued with its own philosophical dilemmas... hock:
Now i am on the floor.
While on the surface you might see it as a "step in the right direction", it is actually a solid step towards atheism. I've come to the realisation that I have no right to discuss history, biology, geology and physics like I know what I'm saying. The only thing any of us here can discuss in confidence is philosophy because all we need is a working mind. With that being said, I can now only refute religion by first properly understanding what the theist is saying philosophically/theologically.
Nothing has really changed in the greater scheme of things I'm afraid.
Drich Wrote:We talked about this the word for generation also translates into 'people' as in the Jewish people. The Jewish people have not 'passed away' have they?
The Jewish aren't exactly the people you want to be referring to. They will confidently sit down with you and show you why Jesus wasn't a godman.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
Posts: 13392
Threads: 187
Joined: March 18, 2012
Reputation:
48
RE: The Problem of Evil, Free Will, and the "Greater Good"
April 28, 2013 at 11:37 pm
(April 28, 2013 at 9:52 pm)Venom7513 Wrote: 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.
Even though it is in a formal debate form I still see an Epicurean paradox at the heart of your formal arguement. This is a link where we orginally discussed this supposed paradox.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-11945.html
Posts: 2658
Threads: 121
Joined: March 19, 2012
Reputation:
27
RE: The Problem of Evil, Free Will, and the "Greater Good"
April 28, 2013 at 11:43 pm
^challenge accepted!
I'll write up my objections when I'm on the computer again (on my phone right now).
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
Posts: 13392
Threads: 187
Joined: March 18, 2012
Reputation:
48
RE: The Problem of Evil, Free Will, and the "Greater Good"
April 28, 2013 at 11:45 pm
(April 28, 2013 at 11:34 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: While on the surface you might see it as a "step in the right direction", it is actually a solid step towards atheism. I've come to the realisation that I have no right to discuss history, biology, geology and physics like I know what I'm saying. The only thing any of us here can discuss in confidence is philosophy because all we need is a working mind. With that being said, I can now only refute religion by first properly understanding what the theist is saying philosophically/theologically. If you default to honestly questioning God and view Him as He presents himself scripturally, then you will eventually find Him dispite yourself and your initial motives... IF you stay true to looking to understand the God of the bible and not some ideal of Him.
Quote:The Jewish aren't exactly the people you want to be referring to. They will confidently sit down with you and show you why Jesus wasn't a godman.
 Haven't quite thought this one through have you?
The Jews who followed Christ back then what were they called? Jews or Christians? (They were Christians, matter of fact there was a big debate on whether or not one had to become a jew first and then convert to Christianity.) Even so the remaining Jews that are here are here in accordance to what Chirst said. (That the Jewish people will not be disolved/pass from this earth till His second comming.)
|
