The Problem of Evil (XXVII)

[LadyForCamus]

I want to mention that I admire SteveII's manner with us, even though I have trouble understanding his points. I appreciate him being respectful. We need more discourse like this, instead of it degenerating into arrogant dismissal, insults or threats.

Fuck you. ;-). Seriously though. I was insulted and treated like shit from day one. Maybe I've become a bit jaded. And I really did make every effort to debate with gentleness and respect. Many atheists it seems know the literal meanings of the bible but I must say their grasp of theology is pretty simplistic. Maybe their objections stump your average evangelical but those objections don't really pose serious theological problems. It saddens me to think that people settle for the arguments that satisfy their own preconceptions rather than explore the limits of their philosophy.

Why would any God trying to send the message of His Word to His People make said message so complex and layered that only the elite and studied few could ever possibly grasp the full meaning of it? Just more arrogance on your part. Less educated, "average evangelicals" aren't true Christians ether, apparently.

[Gemini]

Can you clearly define what gratuitous suffering is and how your argument gets around the greater good and free will defense?

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy gives a pretty good explanation of gratuitous suffering:

"...specific types of evil—in particular, situations where animals die agonizing deaths in forest fires, or where children undergo lingering suffering and eventual death due to cancer. The thrust of the argument was then that, first of all, an omniscient and omnipotent person could have prevented the existence of such evils without thereby either allowing equal or greater evils, or preventing equal or greater goods, and, secondly, that any omniscient and morally perfect person will prevent the existence of such evils if that can be done without either allowing equal or greater evils, or preventing equal or greater goods..." http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/#...cForEviFor

If you've read Plantinga's free will defense of natural evil, you know amounted to something out of the Silmarilion, where volcanoes and earthquakes etc. are caused by malevolent supernatural persons like Morgoth exercising their free will. It makes for good fantasy, but as philosophy, it was only intended to establish the mere logical possibility that the existence of evil could be compatible with a tri-omni God (and even this is controversial; Quentin Smith argued that Plantinga still failed http://www.apologeticsinthechurch.com/up...m-evil.pdf).

David Lewis argued that trying to defeat the logical argument from evil with a preposterous theodicy like that was pretty cheap.

The greater good defense requires extreme skepticism of our ability to understand morality, and ends up undermining pretty much everything theologians would like to believe about God. If God permits a world so saturated with gratuitous suffering as this one apparently is for the greater good, perhaps he lies to us for the greater good as well.

[LadyForCamus]

Okay Chad. I wasn't here on day 1, and you've been incredibly and consistently rude to me which is why I'm currently ignoring you.

One of first things Chad ever said to me here at AF was that I was stupid, and had no business commenting on the human experience, lol. But he's the one getting shit slung at him. Funny. [emoji12]

[RoadRunner79]

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?

God wouldn't, apparently.

If you are saying that God hasn't done anything about the problem of Evil, this would be entirely incorrect.

[RoadRunner79]

First: that site your referenced doesn't contradict anything that Chad had said.

Second: what in Chad's posts, drew you to your opening remark?   It seems that you are trying to pick a fight, and putting words in others mouths to do so.

Chad's post implied that he speaks for all Christians on their view of God's omnipotence. He certainly doesn't. As a great theologian once said: if the Bible said that Jonah swallowed the whale, he'd believe it.

I find that it is a good portion of them, that do agree with Chad, especially those who have given it any thought, or listened to those who had.   In any case, if your discussing with Chad, then it would seem that it is his view that needs to be addressed.  I don't think that demanding he adhere to a weaker view so you can make your argument is the correct course.

[RoadRunner79]

---

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

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

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?

---

Let's say that I wouldn't lift a finger. Would you make any effort to still find a way to consider me benevolent?

It depends on the reason why you did not.

[RoadRunner79]

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."  

That is the question isn't it?

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 don't believe that comfort and happiness equate with good (at least not on a logical or definitional level).   This it is more of an emotional problem, than logical.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Fuck you. ;-). Seriously though. I was insulted and treated like shit from day one. Maybe I've become a bit jaded. And I really did make every effort to debate with gentleness and respect. Many atheists it seems know the literal meanings of the bible but I must say their grasp of theology is pretty simplistic. Maybe their objections stump your average evangelical but those objections don't really pose serious theological problems. It saddens me to think that people settle for the arguments that satisfy their own preconceptions rather than explore the limits of their philosophy.

Why would any God trying to send the message of His Word to His People make said message so complex and layered that only the elite and studied few could ever possibly grasp the full meaning of it? Just more arrogance on your part. Less educated, "average evangelicals" aren't true Christians ether, apparently.

"More arrogance on my part" - It is the common opinion of many scholars, including both Swedenborg and Aquinas, that Scripture contains meanings on many layers. This is so that it can serve as a guide to all men and women regardless of their education. Jesus spoke to the masses in parables and revealed their deeper significance to his close followers. It would be false humility for me to deny my own education and learning. At the same time I do not make arguments from authority. I state my reasons as plainly as I can but even then sometimes that requires me to use theological nomenclature and philosophy term that may not be common. I do not think it is wrong to expect that people who want to debate philosophical issues at least try to familiarize themselves with basic concepts that have direct bearing. So yes. I do lose my patience with people that lightly dismiss and mock things they don't understand and do not even try to understand. These forums are a rough place for theists. It is very difficult to stay gracious in an environment of open hostility to what you value in your life above all other things. I get that many people have been mistreated by church leaders or beaten down by overly judgmental doctrines. I try to take that into account. Lately I posted my agreements with some atheists only to have them misconstrue what I wrote just to disagree with me because of my belief. I know I can be an ass myself. I'm not that oblivious. At the same time I try to go with the rough and tumble by trading barbs with some I consider old friends.

I don't know. In the last couple of months I've been very disappointed with the philosophy forums. The people I most respect haven't been posting much and the level of discourse has gone way down it seems. Maybe we understand each other too well to bicker over intractable differences.

[SteveII]

deleted

[SteveII]

You are not providing arguments that it is illogical, you are arguing that it is improbable.

Probability doesn't come into it.  It's all terminology and deductive logic.  An omnipotent god (one who can do anything except violate logic) can achieve any three goals that do not logically contradict each other.  Knowing a god, having free will, and being happy are not logically contradictory.  Therefore, an omnipotent god could do all three.  An omniscient god would know how to do all three.  An omnibenevolent god (assuming we define those three things as good) would choose to achieve all three.  Therefore, in any world in which these three things are not achieved, tri-omni gods do not exist.  

Feel free to show me where I injected statistics and probability into that.  

It all comes down to your position that omnibenevolence = obligation to use all means to avoid anything that isn't good.

I deny and repudiate that argument.  By now you know that it is a misrepresentation.  I do not see gods as obligated in any way. 

Okay, so I am not clear on something. My amended understanding of your argument that you are making has three underlying assumptions: 

1. If God is omnipotent, then he can create any world he desires,
2. If God is omnibenevolent then he must actualize a world without suffering, and 
3. If God is omniscient then he would know how. 

My misunderstanding centers around 2. I think if your position is as I wrote it, it contradicts 1. I then assumed (incorrectly) that then you were making the weaker claim (a probabilistic argument) that given the tri-omni properties we should see a world without suffering (you used phrases like "would choose").

So, what exactly do you mean? Does omnibenevolence entail that God must choose no suffering (logical route)? Or are you okay with the weaker claim "should" choose no suffering (probabilistic route)?