The Problem of Evil (XXVII)

[Angrboda]

I've never understood the objection that God's omnipotence is limited by the logically possible.  Does it come from the bible?  If so, where?  God supposedly can perform miracles.  That puts him above natural laws.  Why is he constrained from violating logical laws?  It just seems like something made up to avoid a theological conundrum.

It is foundational to studying God that his mind and actions are logical and therefore (at least parts) can be known and understood. That would also move logic from something created to an intrinsic property of God. It would also follow that humans having the ability to reason is part of being "made in the image of God".

It is foundational? What's that even mean? That it cannot be mistaken? Like I said, it sounds like it's just made up.

[SteveII]

I pulled these statements from your post (it seemed to be your theme). Your reasoning is that God would somehow necessarily have to create a word in which there was no (let's use suffering). I don't think you can support that logically because there is no implicit nor explicit reasons that that should be the case. As long as we can conceive of a possible situation where God would have morally sufficient reasons to permit suffering, there is not a contradiction. Rather, I think it crosses over into a probabilistic argument.

So you've conceived of a possible situation where God would have morally sufficient reasons to permit suffering, despite his tri-Omni super powers. I'd like to hear what it is.

Only an infinite (or nearly so) mind can calculate all the outcomes of a storm or one earthquake--not just in the near term but from that point on through eternity. Just a few possible "good" outcomes from such an event:

1. Community grows stronger in time of crisis. 
2. Neighbors helping neighbors. Recipients lives are touched/changed by compassion. Those giving aid or compassion are themselves changed.
3. Outsiders helping. Some results as #2 but they go back to another place a changed person. 
4. People's lives are refocused on things that matter. More introspection. 
5. Possibly as a result of #1-4 people gain a knowledge of God.
6. People from #5 live lives, come in contact with others, have families, possibly affecting hundreds, thousands, or even millions of future lives.

I'm sure you are familiar with Chaos Theory and the butterfly effect. It cannot be fathomed what effect one little change can have on the rest of eternity.

[SteveII]

It is foundational to studying God that his mind and actions are logical and therefore (at least parts) can be known and understood. That would also move logic from something created to an intrinsic property of God. It would also follow that humans having the ability to reason is part of being "made in the image of God".

It is foundational?  What's that even mean?  That it cannot be mistaken?  Like I said, it sounds like it's just made up.

If the study of God is not governed by logic and reason, then nothing can be known about Him. On the other hand, there is no reason to think that knowledge of God does not conform to logic and reason. Every revelation has been in language we can understand including actually stating the purpose of the revelation is our understanding and knowledge of God.

[ApeNotKillApe]

Instances of God doing evil from the SAB

Jeremiah 18:11 Now therefore go to, speak to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the LORD; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you: return ye now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good

Jeremiah 19:3 And say, Hear ye the word of the LORD, O kings of Judah, and inhabitants of Jerusalem; Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, the which whosoever heareth, his ears shall tingle.

Judges 9:23-24 Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech:
That the cruelty done to the threescore and ten sons of Jerubbaal might come, and their blood be laid upon Abimelech their brother, which slew them; and upon the men of Shechem, which aided him in the killing of his brethren.

Samuel 16:14-15 But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him. And Saul's servants said unto him, Behold now,an evil spirit from God troubleth thee.

2 Chronicles 18:19-22 And the LORD said, Who shall entice Ahab king of Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one spake saying after this manner, and another saying after that manner. Then there came out a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will entice him. And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go out, and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And the Lord said, Thou shalt entice him, and thou shalt also prevail: go out, and do even so. Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil against thee.

[Angrboda]

It is foundational?  What's that even mean?  That it cannot be mistaken?  Like I said, it sounds like it's just made up.

If the study of God is not governed by logic and reason, then nothing can be known about Him. On the other hand, there is no reason to think that knowledge of God does not conform to logic and reason. Every revelation has been in language we can understand including actually stating the purpose of the revelation is our understanding and knowledge of God.

You're conflating obeying the laws of logic with being constrained by them. Even so, there's no reason to think our knowledge of God is reliable. Is that a presupposition?

[wiploc]

[Neo-Scholastic]

I've never understood the objection that God's omnipotence is limited by the logically possible.  Does it come from the bible?...  Why is he constrained from violating logical laws?

John 1:1 explicitly identifies God as the Divine Logos. A basic literal meaning of logos is ‘word’. That said, logos has many senses such as meaningful utterance, factual statement, declaration, and reasoned judgement. The metaphysical interpretation which Christian theology adopted comes from Stoa, who following Heraclitus, used it to signify the divine power or function by which the universe is given its unity coherence and meaning, i.e. logic. Another way of saying that God's existence is identical to His essence, which is basic Christian doctrine, is to say that Reason-Itself is identical with Being-Itself.

[wiploc]

Evil is that which a benevolent god wishes to prevent or minimize.  
 
An omnipotent god could prevent evil if it wanted to.  An omnibenevolent god would want to.  An omniscient god would know how to.  A tri-omni god--if it existed--would prevent all evil.

Therefore: if evil exists, tri-omni gods do not exist.  

If a tri-omni god existed, there would not be any evil.  

It is logically impossible for a tri-omni god to coexist with any kind of evil.

I prefer the LPoE (logical problem of evil).  Tri-omni gods are logically inconsistent with even the tiniest smidgen of evil.   

I pulled these statements from your post (it seemed to be your theme). Your reasoning is that God would somehow necessarily have to create a word in which there was no (let's use suffering). [Emphasis added]

It's not necessary for a vegetarian to abstain from meat, but someone who doesn't abstain from meat is not a vegetarian.

Likewise, it is not necessary for a god to oppose evil (yes, let's do call it suffering) but a god who does not oppose suffering is not benevolent, .  And a god who does not totally, strongly, purely, unconfictedly oppose suffering is not omnibenevolent.  

I don't think you can support that logically because there is no implicit nor explicit reasons that that should be the case.

It's just a matter of whether words have meaning.  If you want to define "omnibenevolent" as, "Doesn't have anything against evil," then you are free to do so.  If you want "omnipotent" to mean "can't even supersize fries," you can do that. 

But, of course, then you wouldn't be responding to my argument.  When I set out my argument, I made it clear what the words of the argument mean.  

I'm not saying gods ought to do anything.  I'm saying that benevolence consists of opposition to evil.  If evil is suffering, then benevolence is opposition to suffering.  If you don't  oppose suffering, you aren't benevolent. 

This has nothing to do with what god's ought to do or necessarily must do.  It does have to do with the conflicting claims that gods
1. Are all about preventing suffering, but they
2. don't prevent suffering.  

That's a contradiction.  

When people point out that it's a contradiction, you can't waive that away by saying, "You're trying to tell god what to do," or "You're saying it is necessary for god to be benevolent."  

(Note: You, Steve, haven't used the "You're trying to tell god what to do," line, but I run across that far more often than the one you use.) 

There are five relevant responses to the PoE:

1. God can't prevent suffering because he isn't isn't really all that powerful.  
2. God can't prevent suffering because he isn't smart or knowing enough to know how to do so.
3. God doesn't prevent suffering because he isn't that isn't so much against it.  
4. There is no suffering; it doesn't exist. 
5. Logic sucks: I believe that a tri-omni god coexists with evil, even if that belief is irrational.  

In discussions like this, I've run across all five responses.  I suspect you're after #3, but you haven't been specific.  If, instead of saying something like, "Why do you think it is necessary for god to oppose evil," you say instead something like, "My god is not opposed to evil," then we'll know.  

I'd like to know.  I'd like you to take a specific position.  

As long as we can conceive of a possible situation where God would have morally sufficient reasons to permit suffering, there is not a contradiction. ...

That confuses me.  Morality is supposed to be about reducing evil, isn't it?  What would be a moral reason for promoting evil?

In any case, no, there is no possible situation where a tri-omni god could have a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil.  This is because it is tri-omni. 

Let's say this god wants a teddy bear.  It can have a teddy bear and prevent evil.  It can do this because it is omnipotent: it can do anything that doesn't contradict logic.  It also has the smarts to do both, because it is omniscient.  And it can do both while being omnibenevolent because having a teddy bear doesn't necessarily increase evil.  (An omnipotent omniscient god can have a teddy bear without allowing evil.) 

If you don't think a teddy bear is a "morally sufficient reason," then you can plug in any other goal into that spot, and you will get the same result.  An omnipotent omniscient god can eliminate evil and have anything else it wants, because it is omnipotent. 

The only exception is if the other goal is evil itself.  Even an omnipotent god can't both eliminate evil and retain evil.  But a god who wanted to retain evil wouldn't be omnibenevolent. 

So, no, you cannot conceive of any "morally sufficient reason" that a tri-omni god would have for allowing evil.

[ApeNotKillApe]

When you say God, are you talking about Yahweh? The god who destroyed cities and flooded the earth?

[wiploc]

IMHO, all a Christian believer can really say is that skeptics have not adequately shown that a better world than ours was possible. Skeptics have only their incredulity. The bible records many instances where people of faith expressed the same doubts about Divine Justice. Job comes to mind. So we, as believers, shouldn’t fool ourselves into thinking that we have any proof  that vindicates God. In the end, we really only have plausible excuses and our trust in His Lordship. For the faithful, the mere possibility of a plausible excuse is sufficient to overcome their own incredulity.

That said, the skeptic cannot say that Christian’s offer no plausible excuses. There are many, but even still, Christian vindications of Benevolent Providence remain tentative at best. The problem of evil is and emotional, not logical, rejection of the Christian God**.

1. A tri-Omni entity who can't do better than this world is a contradiction in terms.
2. Lots of excuses, none of them plausible.

Traditionally, the excuses mostly consist of temporarily forgetting that god is supposed to be omnipotent, or that that he is supposed to be omniscient, or that he's supposed to be omnibenevolent.  I say temporarily because the people who give up god's benevolence for the sake of argument will then turn around and worship him for his goodness. 

So I like to say that the art of defending against the problem of evil consists largely of not realizing what you have given up.  To be consistent, you have to give up omnipotence, omniscience, or omnibenevolence; but, to continue worshiping a tri-omni god, you have to not realize that you gave it up. 

Not all responses to the PoE are of this equivocal nature.  Some people really don't believe god is all that benevolent.  Some don't think he knows the future.  (He had to guess what would make the Hebrews happy.  When having them cut off the ends of their dicks didn't work, he went on to try other things.)  Some really don't think god is all that smart. 

But these people, people who actually give up omnipotence, omniscience, or omnibenevolence (as opposed to just making a feint in that direction and then reverting to their prior beliefs) don't have any reason to argue against the PoE.  They already know that a tri-omni god can't coexist with evil, which is why their gods aren't tri-omni.