Solved Theodicy?

[_Velvet_]

Hey guys, as usual I was thinking about the best ways to approach theist arguments without putting them on defensive, trying to make them think critically circumventing (at first) any direct attack to their deity figure and etc.

On particular, the problem of evil was one of my tools for doing so, but I was having trouble getting to understand how the "free will refutation" could even be considered a refutation for anyone, even theists.

For me its too obvious that everything would still be under god's will anyways, predicted in god's plan anyways according to his design anyways, regardless of free will, on a way that I just couldn't understand how could ever Yahweh not be responsible for evil, an omnipotent and omniscient being would have to necessarily be responsible for everything at any given time and I don't think there's a possible alternative to that.

So I was having problems to empathise with the theist reasoning (even knowing that it would be flawled somewhere I can most of the times at least follow the line of thought) enough to start building anything out of the free will refute.

Thinking about this subject I came up with something that Ive never seen any philosopher proposing before (fell free to correct me, on anything)

Yahweh, being omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent would had realized on his creation plans that on any conflict of "avoiding pain" vs "granting free will" would be preferable to maximize freedom on each and every case, that sacrificing freedom was always less benevolent than something else.

(I'm assuming that being free would be moraly preferable than not, I fell its a somewhat safe assumption to make, even tho the bible (at best) doesn't give slavery one tiny fuck)

It would follow that according to his ominibenevolence, love, bla bla bla, he rather maximize his creation's freedom, freedom from himself ofc.

He, being a omnipotent being, couldn't ever have anything go against his desires and plans (by definition if a omnipotent being would desire something, supposedly that said something would now be, unless he somehow make a case of desiring something he actually would rather not doing so, if that makes any sense).

So as Yahweh, maximizing freedom of something would follow that this something would now be able to defy (and probably even be intrinsically indiferent to) his will and plans.

But naturally there wasn't such a thing as something different from the only omnipotent and omniscient being's desire and plan, this concept therefore didn't existed until then.

Being the case, Yahweh would have willingly created something which is the exact opposite of what consists his will, desire and nature, which would be evil, and made humans intrinsically able to be evil, and to be fair, they would statistically do so on a 50% chance given he doesn't further interfere on the creation.

Therefore on this philosophical scenario, Yahweh would have created evil, and with good reasons to do so, his omnibenevolence, omnipotence, and omniscience not conflicting with each other (for the very first time!).

So, what you guys think?

Should I hide this idea before w.l. craig introduce this on his speech?

Should I cover myself in shame because my reasoning was crap?

Should I open a church and become very rich?

[robvalue]

Hmm, I'm not sure I follow it all, but it looks fun

The problem I find is that people generally try and give God so many superlatives that he ends up being paralysed by them. He can't do anything, without violating something or other. Even the act of making something other than himself is reducing existence from perfect to less than perfect.

I find what theists do is they jump between an all powerful God who can do anything, and a weaker version who is bound by these arbitrary constraints so as to excuse sub-optimal decision making. If they stick with the first side all the time, you can't keep the blame off him. But they refuse to stick with the second, because then it's just some guy with limited resources, working in an environment, rather than a god.

It's absolutely ludicrous to try and attribute superlatives to something anyway. Even if it made itself known to all, it can't demonstrate to us that it has any superlatives. For example, how does it demonstrate it knows everything? Beat us at trivial pursuit 100 times?

Yeah. Precognition and free will are at odds, no matter how much the theist desparately tries to wriggle out of it. And beyond it all is the question of "why". Why do any of this? And if you're going to do it, why be so shit at it? "Plans" are for beings that don't know the future and are trying to plot the best path. "Goals" are for beings who aren't certain of what they will achieve.

[Soldat Du Christ]

These are called human paradox's. Things we may not be able to comprehend in our 3D minds, but doesn't mean there isn't a cohesive answer. And of course we still strive to understand these things, even getting quite close to the absolute truth. For example we can deduce that a creator of the universe cannot also be bound by the same laws it created, for example time-less, space-less, material-less. Those i'd say are pretty clear. The "probelm of evil" is heavily contextualised and defferent people have their own interpretations, so it'd be easy for an atheist to argue against (insert strawman of choice here). There is the free will argument, as well as the moral reason argument. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle of this, personaly.

[vorlon13]

I see you've left out 'totipotent' as one of God's attributes.

[tee hee]

[robvalue]

The problem of evil neatly shits all over any all powerful and benevolent god.

He causes or allows suffering. If this is somehow necessary or beneficial, he set things up so that it would be this way.

Watching people try and wriggle out of this is almost exactly like listening to battered spouses making excuses for their abusive partners.

[Mudhammam]

Being the case, Yahweh would have willingly created something which is the exact opposite of what consists his will, desire and nature, which would be evil, and made humans intrinsically able to be evil, and to be fair, they would statistically do so on a 50% chance given he doesn't further interfere on the creation.

Therefore on this philosophical scenario, Yahweh would have created evil, and with good reasons to do so, his omnibenevolence, omnipotence, and omniscience not conflicting with each other (for the very first time!).

Everything you said up until this point sounds like Plantinga's "free will defense" of the logical problem of evil, but I don't see how God creates the evil that is enacted voluntarily by free beings if the premises of the free will defense are sound, and that a world of free creatures in possession of moral responsibility is a better world despite the evil that will inevitably result.  In such a case, God creates the beings, with a freedom which is intrinsically more valuable than a lack thereof, and what those free beings choose to do as a result, even if sometimes it goes against God's particular will, is consistent with his general will, which involved free beings, moral responsibility, and in the biblical narrative, atonement.  In the end, to put a Leibnizian head on it, I suppose one might say that this world is the best of all worlds, at least if we're temporarily setting aside natural evils, because it includes the greatest number of possible free beings whom would choose to do good, or contrarily, the least number of possible free beings would choose to do evil.

[Ravenshire]

The problem of evil neatly shits all over any all powerful and benevolent god.

He causes or allows suffering. If this is somehow necessary or beneficial, he set things up so that it would be this way.

Watching people try and wriggle out of this is almost exactly like listening to battered spouses making excuses for their abusive partners.

(emphasis is mine)

Gawd causing or allowing suffering isn't necessarily bad. Suffering can, after all, lead to someone becoming greater than they are because of what they suffered. It's the unnecessary suffering that kills the idea of the christer gawd. An omniscient, omnipotent being would know that his design would lead to uncountable unnecessary suffering within it's creation, yet it went and did it anyway. That is evil with malice aforethought.

While I will concede the possibility of some form of watchmaker gawd that set everything in motion with no plan or even any notion how it would all turn out, I simply cannot believe that an all-loving gawd could create the mess that earth is, fully knowing how much pointless suffering would come of it.


Then again, you don't even need the evil/suffering arguments. The logical contradictions are enough to snuff out yahweh. How can a perfectly merciful yet perfectly just being even exist. If it's perfectly merciful, no one ever gets justly punished. If it's perfectly just, everyone who doesn't perfectly follow all it's laws gets denied mercy.

[Eugeny_Anatolievich]

Thinking about this subject I came up with something that Ive never seen any philosopher proposing before (fell free to correct me, on anything)

I think, essay of Immanuel Kant "On the failure of all theoretical attempts in theodicy" can help you.

[Minimalist]

I always thought that should be 'theidiocy.'

[robvalue]

The problem of evil neatly shits all over any all powerful and benevolent god.

He causes or allows suffering. If this is somehow necessary or beneficial, he set things up so that it would be this way.

Watching people try and wriggle out of this is almost exactly like listening to battered spouses making excuses for their abusive partners.

(emphasis is mine)

Gawd causing or allowing suffering isn't necessarily bad. Suffering can, after all, lead to someone becoming greater than they are because of what they suffered. It's the unnecessary suffering that kills the idea of the christer gawd. An omniscient, omnipotent being would know that his design would lead to uncountable unnecessary suffering within it's creation, yet it went and did it anyway. That is evil with malice aforethought.

While I will concede the possibility of some form of watchmaker gawd that set everything in motion with no plan or even any notion how it would all turn out, I simply cannot believe that an all-loving gawd could create the mess that earth is, fully knowing how much pointless suffering would come of it.


Then again, you don't even need the evil/suffering arguments. The logical contradictions are enough to snuff out yahweh. How can a perfectly merciful yet perfectly just being even exist. If it's perfectly merciful, no one ever gets justly punished. If it's perfectly just, everyone who doesn't perfectly follow all it's laws gets denied mercy.

Yeah, but the very fact that suffering can lead to someone becoming greater is how God set things up. If the theist insists God is somehow restricted and had to set things up so that suffering was in any was necessary to achieve any particular goal, God is not all powerful. This is the flip-flopping I always see between "all powerful" and "turned up one day with rules in place" God, because they need both to be true at once.