I'm sure we've all heard the best of all possible worlds defense. The gist of it is that while things might look bad, and we'd wonder why a good god would allow it, perhaps God only has so much control over the universe, and this setup nets the greatest possible good.
Now, it's presuppositional as hell, and that's where it's greatest weakness lies. Once you're willing to go down that road, you can really start presupposing anything under these assumptions. The apologetic can be neatly turned against the apologist.
So, the apologist starts by assuming that things like horrible childhood illnesses are here because they are part of the greatest possible good. I'd say that sounds preposterous and that I can't possibly see how the world gets worse by removing them. The closest thing to a sane defense is for the apologist to say that the plan is so big and grand, that I can't possibly see it all, and I lack the foresight and judgment of Almighty God. Fair enough (well, not really). Lets try another scenario:
Can the apologist prove that the best possible good isn't attained by God sometimes lying to his people? Of course not. The idea is as nonfalsifiable as is the idea that God would never lie. I'll posit that we can't really understand what's "good for us", and God lies when it helps things. Their best defense would basically be to say "Nuh uh! That's not the god I believe in!", because that's all they've really got at this point: a preconceived notion of God and some nonfalsifiable defenses to prop up that god.
As long as we're willing to go that far, I could posit that the "greatest possible good" isn't really "good" in any sense that we'd use the word; it's just the exact outcome God wants. Again, can the apologist prove that childhood diseases aren't an ends unto themselves? Maybe that's exactly what he wants. It's not part of some puzzle to make the world a "better" place in some cryptic fashion; God just likes watching people suffer. Again, you'll be written off because this isn't the god that they want to picture. You only employ nonfalsifiable apologetics to uphold what you want, not what you don't.
In short, I think this illustrates how much this stock apologetic relies on circular reasoning (assume the god you want, then prove it by assuming it!) and special pleading (but don't prove gods you don't like by assuming). It's yet another tool to make the believer feel better while offering nothing of substance to a skeptic.
Now, it's presuppositional as hell, and that's where it's greatest weakness lies. Once you're willing to go down that road, you can really start presupposing anything under these assumptions. The apologetic can be neatly turned against the apologist.
So, the apologist starts by assuming that things like horrible childhood illnesses are here because they are part of the greatest possible good. I'd say that sounds preposterous and that I can't possibly see how the world gets worse by removing them. The closest thing to a sane defense is for the apologist to say that the plan is so big and grand, that I can't possibly see it all, and I lack the foresight and judgment of Almighty God. Fair enough (well, not really). Lets try another scenario:
Can the apologist prove that the best possible good isn't attained by God sometimes lying to his people? Of course not. The idea is as nonfalsifiable as is the idea that God would never lie. I'll posit that we can't really understand what's "good for us", and God lies when it helps things. Their best defense would basically be to say "Nuh uh! That's not the god I believe in!", because that's all they've really got at this point: a preconceived notion of God and some nonfalsifiable defenses to prop up that god.
As long as we're willing to go that far, I could posit that the "greatest possible good" isn't really "good" in any sense that we'd use the word; it's just the exact outcome God wants. Again, can the apologist prove that childhood diseases aren't an ends unto themselves? Maybe that's exactly what he wants. It's not part of some puzzle to make the world a "better" place in some cryptic fashion; God just likes watching people suffer. Again, you'll be written off because this isn't the god that they want to picture. You only employ nonfalsifiable apologetics to uphold what you want, not what you don't.
In short, I think this illustrates how much this stock apologetic relies on circular reasoning (assume the god you want, then prove it by assuming it!) and special pleading (but don't prove gods you don't like by assuming). It's yet another tool to make the believer feel better while offering nothing of substance to a skeptic.
