Skeptical theism and the evidential problem of evil

jayem

Naturalist
Jun 24, 2003
15,262
6,943
72
St. Louis, MO.
✟371,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
That is a very interesting and valid point, but it is not what is being discussed in this thread. A logical argument was made, I have agreed with every premise made and have shown that these do not preclude a moral God.

The existence of evil also doesn't preclude a God who is dualistic--sometimes is good and sometimes not. Or a God who is fundamentally evil, but deceptive. In the sense that God, at times, allows happiness, benevolence, charity, and answered prayers in order to disguise his true nature. (This is similar to how people afflicted with anti-social personality disorder can behave) As I see it, the Bible, and long-standing religious tradition, are the only bases for believing that God's moral nature is good and only good. But even then, a deceptive God could have inspired the Bible's authors to portray him falsely. In the end, it comes down to faith. One just has to have faith that God is benevolent. Everything we observe about the world is also logically consistent with a deity who has evil tendencies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,966
12,052
East Coast
✟830,414.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The existence of evil also doesn't preclude a God who is dualistic--sometimes is good and sometimes not. Or a God who is fundamentally evil, but deceptive. In the sense that God, at times, allows happiness, benevolence, charity, and answered prayers in order to disguise his true nature. (This is similar to how people afflicted with anti-social personality disorder can behave) As I see it, the Bible, and long-standing religious tradition, are the only bases for believing that God's moral nature is good and only good. But even then, a deceptive God could have inspired the Bible's authors to portray him falsely. In the end, it comes down to faith. One just has to have faith that God is benevolent. Everything we observe about the world is also logically consistent with a deity who has evil tendencies.

I agree with this. The situation in the world is ambiguous enough that using the amount of good and evil as a clear indicator of divine benevolence is problematic, at best. Descartes' "evil demon" is essentially the idea that the creator is malevolent. So, it is certainly a logical possibility, based in experience.

I also agree that, in some sense, the idea of divine benevolence is assumed to be a matter of revelation. Or, without revelation, divine benevolence wouldn't be known (believed). It's telling that when Paul mentions that God is known through creation, he mentions that God's power and divinity (theotes) are seen, but makes no specific mention of benevolence. One could argue benevolence is part of the divine nature, and so it is, understood by faith. But, one could likewise argue that, even if it is, it is not an aspect that comes through the medium of creation, i.e. it must be specifically revealed (religious texts, epiphany, divine appearing, incarnation, etc.) and simply assumed as true. Christians would call it "faith." Obviously, others would disagree.
 
Upvote 0

jayem

Naturalist
Jun 24, 2003
15,262
6,943
72
St. Louis, MO.
✟371,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I agree with this. The situation in the world is ambiguous enough that using the amount of good and evil as a clear indicator of divine benevolence is problematic, at best. Descartes' "evil demon" is essentially the idea that the creator is malevolent. So, it is certainly a logical possibility, based in experience.

I also agree that, in some sense, the idea of divine benevolence is assumed to be a matter of revelation. Or, without revelation, divine benevolence wouldn't be known (believed). It's telling that when Paul mentions that God is known through creation, he mentions that God's power and divinity (theotes) are seen, but makes no specific mention of benevolence. One could argue benevolence is part of the divine nature, and so it is, understood by faith. But, one could likewise argue that, even if it is, it is not an aspect that comes through the medium of creation, i.e. it must be specifically revealed (religious texts, epiphany, divine appearing, incarnation, etc.) and simply assumed as true. Christians would call it "faith." Obviously, others would disagree.

There's an early 20th century French novel, La Revolte des Anges (The Revolt of the Angels) by Anatole France that's based on the idea that God is exactly the opposite of what believers have always been taught. A wealthy man's guardian angel (the lowest order of angels) comes to earth to study in the man's extensive library. He reads books on philosophy, theology, science, history, literature, and other topics. He comes to realize that everything he believed about God is upside down. God is not a righteous, just, and benevolent Supreme Being. God is actually a demiurge--a lesser deity who created the world as a place of evil. And who has become a power-mad, tyrannical, demagogue. While Satan--the brightest of all the angels who led the unsuccessful rebellion against the tyrant--is the one who truly loves mankind. And who has been slandered throughout the ages by God and his minions as a wicked demon. The angel wants Satan to lead another revolt against God and take his rightful place as the true noble, virtuous, and beneficent universal sovereign. It's somewhat heavy reading, but a thought-provoking book. Of course, it was immediately banned by the RCC. But Anatole France still won the Nobel Prize for literature.

The Revolt of the Angels by Anatole France
 
  • Informative
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0

Amoranemix

Democrat
Apr 12, 2004
906
34
Belgium
✟16,446.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
public hermit OP said:
Various analogies are offered to show that the noseeum inference is logically dubious. For example, a novice chess player's inability to discern a chess master's choice of moves cannot be used to infer that there is no good reason for the move.
Of course not. It would be atypical for a chess master to make moves without good reason. However, as far as I know it is not atypical for deities to allow gratuitous evil.

Here is a reason to accept the existence of gratuitous evil as likely : it appears true.
That constitutes evidence according to the following principle :
Without good reason to doubt it, an appearance is probably true.
By giving God certain attributes, that creates certain expecations for his behaviour, like doing good and preventing evil. God does not meet those expections, which casts doubt on his attributes or his existence.

Why did Superman not rescue the people trapped in the World Trade Center on september 11th 2001 ? It would be easy to argue based on his inaction that Superman doesn't exist. However, it would be a weak argument, because Superman could have good reason for not intervening. Yet almost no Christians believes in Superman.

public hermit OP said:
Skeptical theism provides a defense against the evidential argument from evil, but does not take a position on God’s actual reason for allowing a particular instance of evil.[1] The defense seeks to show that there are good reasons to believe that God could have justified reasons for allowing a particular evil that we cannot discern.[2] Consequently, we are in no position to endorse the minor premise (2) of the argument from evil because we cannot be more than agnostic about the accuracy of the premise. This conclusion would be an undercutting defeater for the premise because there would be no justification for the conclusion that evils in our world are gratuitous. To justify this conclusion, the skeptical theist argues that the limits of human cognitive faculties are grounds for skepticism about our ability to draw conclusions about God's motives or lack of motives;[3]
[1] Of course not, for the actual reason is not known.
[2] Could have ? That is a weak defense. It would not imply he has reason.
[3] The skeptical theists are free to present reasons for their skepticism.

I tend to interpret POE argument in context. There is no compelling evidence on God's morality. All theists have is ''The Bible says so'' and personal experience. Are these so-called skeptical theists as skeptical about the Bible as they are about the POE argument ? I suspect not. So they have almost nothing. In that context a weak argument suffices to counter the evidence for God's benevolence. It may not be good, but it's good enough.

Consider the Problem of Good argument :
1. If an omniscient, omnimalevolent and omnipotent god exists, there should be no gratuitous good.
2. There exist instances of gratuitous good.
3. Therefore, an omniscient, omnimalevolent and omnipotent God does not exist
Premise 2 of that argument is just a weak as the POE argument, yet it is strong enough to convince me that it is unlikely that such omnimalevolent god exists.

Christians are also happy to dismiss God's omnimalevolence without any other evidence. They praise and worship God like there is no tomorrow. Without any evidence, that God deserves any praise or worship is just their personal opinion, an opinion no better or worse than the one from someone who is loathing and cursing God like there is no tommorrow. However, the former are dominating the world, while the latter are insignificant. There clearly exists a strong bias in favour of God.

Tolworth John post 9 said:
public hermit OP said:
If an omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent God exists, there should be no gratuitous evil
It does not follow that God will not permit the existence of evil.[4]
If man has the ability to choose between good and evil, there has to be the option for the consequence of that choice.[5]
Adam choose evil.

Apart from this what is 'good' and what is 'evil' ?[6]
Without defining these the discussion is meaningless.
[4] God is exaggerating in his permissivness. There is no conclusive evidence that he stops any evil.
[5] Why is that ?
[6] It doesn't seem important as long as we mostly have the same intuitive understanding of it and there is no disagreement on important examples. A pandemic is evil, right ?

com7fy8 10 to public hermit said:
There is evil, but this does not have to mean God is allowing it.
Not preventing or stopping something you could, qualifies as allowing it.

com7fy8 10 said:
Well, I do not think God is allowing evil, but He has control of what can happen and how far it can go. Plus, He makes His good use, somehow, of every thing.
God makes good use of the evil he is not allowing ? How and where is the evidence ?

ZNP 11 said:
I think it is an excellent question, it leads to wonderful insights into God and the Bible, but I am always disappointed in the atheists who ask this because they are asking a question that they feel is unanswerable and in my experience will close their ears to the answer.
Maybe that is because the answer is usually an unevidenced story. Skeptics want evidence.

ZNP 11 said:
1. I believe that God is omnipotent and omniscient, two attributes that define what it is to be God.
If God is not also supposed to be benevolent, then the POE does not apply.

ZNP said:
Now I would also like to point out that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. He cannot lie.
If God is light, then it is true that he (or rather it) cannot lie. However, it would also contradict your beliefs, for light is omnipotent nor omniscient.

ZNP 11 said:
Now most atheists who bring this argument feel that it is rock solid. God created everything, if we have evil then God created it, yet I argue that in God there is no evil and therefore could not have created it [7] and yet I also agree that many things that have happened in human history are evil.
[7] How is that supposed to follow.

ZNP 11 said:
To me the Bible gives a very clear answer on this and it is the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil.
Without evidence your story is not any more plausible than a story I would make up.

ZNP said:
God gave us two choices, we could obey God unquestioning, whether we understood or not, whatever He says do it, and that would have been the tree of life. Or we could choose to “be like God” figure these things out for ourselves by trial and error, learn from our mistakes, and basically take a scientific approach to life. That is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. However, if you choose the second approach it means that we will make every single possible mistake, and we will have evil men like Hitler.
A problem with your story is that it equates everyone (referred to as 'we'), that we all agree and take decisions and responsibilities as a group.
Why would 'we' make every possible mistake if 'we' chooses the tree of knowledge of good and evil ?

ZNP said:
So just like scientists go into controlled environment of the lab to do experiments God said that if we choose this second tree that the moment we do that it is a controlled environment. The first thing that happens is that we die even though our souls are eternal. This limits the potential damage to an extraordinary degree (what is our life compared to eternity -- a vapor, a mist)
What damage does people dying limit ? You seem to suggest that killing people is good thing, because when they are dead, they can't do bad things.

ZNP said:
2nd we cannot take the tree of life and cannot live eternally, for someone like Hitler to do that would clearly violate what a benevolent God could allow.
There are many things a benevolent god clearly would not allow, yet happen. That is why skeptics reject the existence of such god.

ZNP said:
God has essentially created a simulated world.
ZNP said:
You can move and act in this world, it reveals the thoughts and intents of the heart, but when your time in the simulation is up you must wait for the final judgement. Hebrews describes those in the simulation as being on the field of play while all those who have died before us surround us in the stadium and are watching what is going on intently because apart from us they cannot be made perfect. Determining whether or not your life is perfect is dependent on the life and actions of those that follow you, similar to the Lord saying “you will know them by their fruit”.
Why would whether or not someone's life is perfect depend on later lives ?

ZNP said:
No one views the horror of a commercial airline filled with passengers and crashing into apartment complexes in a computer simulation as truly evil, only simulated evil. Likewise this life there is no real evil the can touch eternity, only simulated evil.
So, the holocaust wasn't really a problem because it was just a simulation. Is that correct ?

ZNP 14 said:
public hermit 13 said:
So, contra Rowe, are you saying God is morally justified in permitting the evil and suffering in this world because it is only simulated?
I am saying that the evil you see is no more real than the evil that takes place in a video game when you see the little pixels change color. The Bible says the same thing:
4 “I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. 5 But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.
According to WL Craig, objective moral values and duties exist because deep down we all know some things are really immoral, like raping children for fun. Do we all know wrong ?
 
Upvote 0

ZNP

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2020
4,311
1,382
Atlanta
✟54,279.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Maybe that is because the answer is usually an unevidenced story. Skeptics want evidence.

The Lord said they have Moses and prophets, if you won't believe them neither will you believe if one were to come back from the dead.

If God is not also supposed to be benevolent, then the POE does not apply.

Like He said let God be true and every man a liar. By taking the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil man said he wanted to figure this out for himself so that he could be like God knowing both good and evil. God is allowing man to figure it for himself without doing any real damage.


If God is light, then it is true that he (or rather it) cannot lie. However, it would also contradict your beliefs, for light is omnipotent nor omniscient.

My belief is that the things of creation are a shadow of God.


Without evidence your story is not any more plausible than a story I would make up.


A problem with your story is that it equates everyone (referred to as 'we'), that we all agree and take decisions and responsibilities as a group.
Why would 'we' make every possible mistake if 'we' chooses the tree of knowledge of good and evil ?

Hunter Gatherers cannot coexist with Agricultural revolution. The agricultural revolution is a great science experiment where we are testing out all kinds of poisons like pesticides and herbicides, as well as fertilizers, soil techniques, grafting, breeding, etc. It is difficult for me to believe you have chosen to remain a hunter gatherer in the Amazon rain forest since you are online on this forum.


What damage does people dying limit ? You seem to suggest that killing people is good thing, because when they are dead, they can't do bad things.

If you spent an afternoon playing some video game in which you shot and killed hundreds of "bad guys" you would be outraged if we then arrested you and put you in jail, you would argue that you hadn't done any damage, those were just pixels. In the context of eternity where all Hitler can do is harm the body and can't harm the soul, how is that any different? Your argument is hypocritical.


Why would whether or not someone's life is perfect depend on later lives ?

Consider Paul -- he shared a ministry to the church. If his words make a difference then his ministry can be judged a success. You can't possibly judge Paul's ministry without looking at what happened after his death.


So, the holocaust wasn't really a problem because it was just a simulation. Is that correct ?

In eternity Hitler will be judged and those that suffered during the Holocaust will also enter into eternity. The deaths and pain will all be a distant memory, a blip in eternity. I used to play Risk, and I didn't like to lose, but I am not still crying about some game of Risk I played 40 years ago.
 
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,966
12,052
East Coast
✟830,414.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
There are many things a benevolent god clearly would not allow, yet happen.

So, you believe the argument is sound? Do you hold that there are no reasons that God might have for allowing evil to which you are not privy?

All theists have is ''The Bible says so'' and personal experience. Are these so-called skeptical theists as skeptical about the Bible as they are about the POE argument ? I suspect not. So they have almost nothing.

You're bringing things into the Rowe's argument that aren't there. You are assuming a theist accepts the bible. A Christian might, in some form or another. A theist, not necessarily. I realize this forum is Christian Apologetics. Not all theists are Christians, but all Christians (I assume ) are theists, so it's not wholly inappropriate. Whatever the case, just so we're clear, Rowe's argument is geared towards theists, in general. The argument only involves three divine attributes, the bible not being one of them. As an atheist, he feels his argument stands on its own and defeats not just one religion, but theism in general.

What exactly are skeptical theists skeptical about? They are skeptical about a human's ability to know what possible reasons a tri-Omni God might have for allowing evil. So, yes, they are skeptical about the POE, but their skepticism is more specific.

We can take this a bit further. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, you are one of those atheists who admits one cannot know for sure that God does not exist. I think that position is pretty common, but I don't mind being corrected if it's uncommon. Assuming that's the case, then how would that same atheist (you) show that if such a God did exist, they could know all the possible reasons such a God might have for allowing evil? That just seems like a hard position to hold. But I may be missing something obvious (it wouldn't be the first time). If you have any ideas I'm interested.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,863.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
From wiki:

The evidential argument from evil

"The evidential argument from evil asserts that the amount, types, or distribution of evils, provide an evidential basis for concluding that God's existence is improbable. The argument has a number of formulation, but can be stated in the Modus ponens logical form:

  1. If an omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent God exists, there should be no gratuitous evil.
  2. There exists instances of gratuitous evil.
  3. Therefore, an omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent God does not exist.
In this logical form the conclusion (3) is true, if both the major premise (1) and minor premise (2) are true. Philosophers have challenged both premises, but skeptical theism focus is on the minor premise (2).

In 1979, philosopher William Rowe provided a defense of the minor premise (2). He argued that no state of affairs we know of is such that an omnipotent, omniscient being’s obtaining it would morally justify that being’s permitting some instances of horrific suffering. Therefore, Rowe concludes, it is likely that no state of affairs exists that would morally justify that being in permitting such suffering. In other words, Rowe argues that his inability to think of a good reason why God would allow a particular evil justifies the conclusion that there is no such reason, and the conclusion that God does not exist."

The "noseeum" inference

The philosophers Michael Bergmann and Michael Rea described William Rowe's justification for the second premise of the argument from evil:

Some evidential arguments from evil ... rely on a “noseeum” inference of the following sort: NI: If, after thinking hard, we can’t think of any God-justifying reason for permitting some horrific evil then it is likely that there is no such reason. (The reason NI is called a ‘noseeum’ inference is that it says, more or less, that because we don’t see ‘um, they probably ain’t there.)

Various analogies are offered to show that the noseeum inference is logically dubious. For example, a novice chess player's inability to discern a chess master's choice of moves cannot be used to infer that there is no good reason for the move.

The skeptical theist's response

Skeptical theism provides a defense against the evidential argument from evil, but does not take a position on God’s actual reason for allowing a particular instance of evil. The defense seeks to show that there are good reasons to believe that God could have justified reasons for allowing a particular evil that we cannot discern. Consequently, we are in no position to endorse the minor premise (2) of the argument from evil because we cannot be more than agnostic about the accuracy of the premise. This conclusion would be an undercutting defeater for the premise because there would be no justification for the conclusion that evils in our world are gratuitous. To justify this conclusion, the skeptical theist argues that the limits of human cognitive faculties are grounds for skepticism about our ability to draw conclusions about God's motives or lack of motives; it is therefore reasonable to doubt the second premise. Bergmann and Rae thus concluded that Rowe's inference is unsound."

Skeptical theism - Wikipedia

Thoughts?

My thoughts? Well, my thoughts aren't too popular, but I'll just go with the fact that within the biblical paradigm I don't think we need to give a rat's petoot about assessing the pertinent issues through secular, pagan, or generically derived philosophical notions about God as far as the issue of Evil is concerned, or even that of Gratuitious Evil. The biblical moral 'fact' is that God created human beings with the capacity to make moral and immoral choices, and these same human beings will be those who act before His evaluative gaze at every moment of time within our world.

Therefore, a continuum of moral/immoral agents must be expected to exist in our world, and being that a wide range of moral and immoral human agency is purposed by God, again biblically speaking, then it stands further to reason that if this is the case, we should EXPECT to not only find a wide variety of moral agents in the world who act out in various ways and in various kinds of social interactions, but some whose acts will be very egregious and will even bring vast amounts of grief to others (e.g. Cain). And those who perpetrate disobedience toward God's moral Will and break His opportunities for Covenant will be those whom God will observe and deal with as He sees the need to do within the realm of Eternity and His Sovereign applications of both Grace and Judgement.

So, yeah. As painful as it is, we should realize that if the bible is true, then there will be all kinds of evil in this world, but just as God has laid out in the Torah (e.g. Leviticus 18) that human potential for evil exists, there can also be (even if not always be) the potential for ramifications against the various kinds of evil that humanity might perpetrate, if not in the here and now, then in the Eschatological "then and later."

In the meantime, we should ask ourselves: why are some of us committing acts of gratuitous evil? What the hell is wrong with us? And why do we blame God for it?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,966
12,052
East Coast
✟830,414.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
n the meantime, we should ask ourselves: why are some of us committing acts of gratuitous evil? What the hell is wrong with us? And why do we blame God for it?

Good point.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,863.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I agree with this. The situation in the world is ambiguous enough that using the amount of good and evil as a clear indicator of divine benevolence is problematic, at best. Descartes' "evil demon" is essentially the idea that the creator is malevolent. So, it is certainly a logical possibility, based in experience.

I also agree that, in some sense, the idea of divine benevolence is assumed to be a matter of revelation. Or, without revelation, divine benevolence wouldn't be known (believed). It's telling that when Paul mentions that God is known through creation, he mentions that God's power and divinity (theotes) are seen, but makes no specific mention of benevolence. One could argue benevolence is part of the divine nature, and so it is, understood by faith. But, one could likewise argue that, even if it is, it is not an aspect that comes through the medium of creation, i.e. it must be specifically revealed (religious texts, epiphany, divine appearing, incarnation, etc.) and simply assumed as true. Christians would call it "faith." Obviously, others would disagree.

I quite empathize with the feeling that the moral "meaning" of our world is ambiguous and punches us in the gut with so many problems that we can't help but to question them all as they come at us like bullets from a machine gun.

Likewise, I've often felt that one of the weaknesses of Paul's teaching is that when he mentions that we supposedly 'see' God's power and divinity in nature which is supposed to, in turn, influence us within our individual human conscience to thereby recognize 'the Good,' it is also ambiguous.

However, as for the general insights that are said to come by way of General Revelation, insights from Paul which I've thought are somewhat ambiguous in their moral and epistemic connotations, as opposed to the more specific teaching from Special Revelation about salvation in Jesus Christ, I've surmised the following (although not in dogmatic terms.)

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/divine-hiddenness.8105504/#post-73742559

In fact, PH, I'm wondering if what was begun in that other discussion I had with that other individual, in the thread I've linked to above, might 'feed into' this discussion you've made about how we grapple theologically and ethically with Gratuitous Evil. Does what I've said there help here to some extent ...?
Maybe? Maybe not?
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0

Amoranemix

Democrat
Apr 12, 2004
906
34
Belgium
✟16,446.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
ZNP 25 said:
Amoranemix 24 said:
Maybe that is because the answer is usually an unevidenced story. Skeptics want evidence.
he Lord said they have Moses and prophets, if you won't believe them neither will you believe if one were to come back from the dead.
Perhaps, or perhaps not, but either way it remains understandable that some sceptics are uninterested in unevidenced stories.

ZNP 25 said:
Amoranemix 24 said:
If God is not also supposed to be benevolent, then the POE does not apply.
Like He said let God be true and every man a liar. By taking the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil man said he wanted to figure this out for himself so that he could be like God knowing both good and evil. God is allowing man to figure it for himself without doing any real damage.
God is allowing many things and so is Superman.

ZNP 25 said:
Amoranemix 24 said:
[7] How is that supposed to follow.
[no response]
You forgot to answer my question.

ZNP 25 said:
Amoranemix 24 said:
Without evidence your story is not any more plausible than a story I would make up.
A problem with your story is that it equates everyone (referred to as 'we'), that we all agree and take decisions and responsibilities as a group.
Why would 'we' make every possible mistake if 'we' chooses the tree of knowledge of good and evil ?
Hunter Gatherers cannot coexist with Agricultural revolution. The agricultural revolution is a great science experiment where we are testing out all kinds of poisons like pesticides and herbicides, as well as fertilizers, soil techniques, grafting, breeding, etc. It is difficult for me to believe you have chosen to remain a hunter gatherer in the Amazon rain forest since you are online on this forum.
I assume you blatantly ignored my two points and merely attempted to answer my question. However, I fail to understand how your rebuttal is supposed to do that.

ZNP 25 said:
Amoranemix 24 said:
What damage does people dying limit ? You seem to suggest that killing people is good thing, because when they are dead, they can't do bad things.
If you spent an afternoon playing some video game in which you shot and killed hundreds of "bad guys" you would be outraged if we then arrested you and put you in jail, you would argue that you hadn't done any damage, those were just pixels. In the context of eternity where all Hitler can do is harm the body and can't harm the soul, how is that any different? Your argument is hypocritical.
Assuming that if what appears to be the real world is actually merely a simulation (something you have so far been unable to prove), then two differences come to mind :
1) Adolf Hitler didn't know the world in which he did evil was merely a simulation.
2) In my violent computer game the world in which I would be doing evil would be even less real than the punishment, the former being merely a simulation in a simulation.

If I understand correctly, if I were to go to out now and sneeze corona virusses on people, I wouldn't really be doing anything wrong according to you. Is that so ?

ZNP 25 said:
Amoranemix 24 said:
Why would whether or not someone's life is perfect depend on later lives ?
Consider Paul -- he shared a ministry to the church. If his words make a difference then his ministry can be judged a success. You can't possibly judge Paul's ministry without looking at what happened after his death.
What you seem to be saying is that one judges the quality of someone's life based on the impact they have on other, what can only be evaluated later, even by God. However, you story suggested that no causal relation had to exist in order to impact that quality.

ZNP 25 said:
Amoranemix 24 said:
So, the holocaust wasn't really a problem because it was just a simulation. Is that correct ?
In eternity Hitler will be judged and those that suffered during the Holocaust will also enter into eternity.[8] The deaths and pain will all be a distant memory, a blip in eternity. I used to play Risk, and I didn't like to lose, but I am not still crying about some game of Risk I played 40 years ago.[9]
You forgot to answer my question.
[8] Can you prove that ?
[9] Are you saying it is OK to cheat at board games, since the people that unfairly lost because of it wouldn't be crying about it 40 years later ?

ZNP 25 said:
Amoranemix 24 said:
According to WL Craig, objective moral values and duties exist because deep down we all know some things are really immoral, like raping children for fun. Do we all know wrong ?
[no response]
You forgot to answer my question.

public hermit 26 said:
Amoranemix 24 said:
There are many things a benevolent god clearly would not allow, yet happen.
So, you believe the argument is sound? Do you hold that there are no reasons that God might have for allowing evil to which you are not privy?
The first premise has three attributes (omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent) and one concept (gratuitous evil) that are not clearly defined. However, the way I understand them make that premise true. Premise two is also probably true, but that doesn't mean I can prove it.
Almost anything might be possible. Donald Trump might be an alien. The Knight's Templar treasure might be buried in my garden. I might be immune to COVID-19. If one believes everything that might be, one is probably dead or locked up in a mental institution. Theists are very selective in their beliefs of what might be.

public hermit 26 said:
Amoranemix 24 said:
All theists have is ''The Bible says so'' and personal experience. Are these so-called skeptical theists as skeptical about the Bible as they are about the POE argument ? I suspect not. So they have almost nothing.
You're bringing things into the Rowe's argument that aren't there. You are assuming a theist accepts the bible.A Christian might, in some form or another. A theist, not necessarily. I realize this forum is Christian Apologetics. Not all theists are Christians, but all Christians (I assume ) are theists, so it's not wholly inappropriate. Whatever the case, just so we're clear, Rowe's argument is geared towards theists, in general. The argument only involves three divine attributes, the bible not being one of them. As an atheist, he feels his argument stands on its own and defeats not just one religion, but theism in general.
[10] Might ? Do you know many Christians that don't believe the Bible in some form or another ?
I agree the argument has a broader scope than Christianity. Yet the argument is about monotheistic religions and there aren't many without holy scriptures that their adherents are supposed to believe, so my remark would still apply.

public hermit 26 said:
What exactly are skeptical theists skeptical about? They are skeptical about a human's ability to know what possible reasons a tri-Omni God might have for allowing evil. So, yes, they are skeptical about the POE, but their skepticism is more specific.
I would like to believe skeptical theists have good reasons for their skepticism and not that they are irrationally skeptical.

public hermit 26 said:
We can take this a bit further. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, you are one of those atheists who admits one cannot know for sure that God does not exist.[11] I think that position is pretty common, but I don't mind being corrected if it's uncommon. Assuming that's the case, then how would that same atheist (you) show that if such a God did exist, they could know all the possible reasons such a God might have for allowing evil?[12] That just seems like a hard position to hold. But I may be missing something obvious (it wouldn't be the first time). If you have any ideas I'm interested.
[11] I am agnostic atheist.
[12] Who says that atheist knows that ? That atheist appeals to the best explanation and contrary to the 'skeptical' theist he does not make an exception for God.
When the Nazis gassed Jews, they might have had good reasons to do so and the atheists and the skeptical theist are just not smart enough to think of any. However, that would be a bad explanation and therefore the atheist and the skeptical theist reject it.

2PhiloVoid 27 to OP said:
The biblical moral 'fact' is that God created human beings with the capacity to make moral and immoral choices, and these same human beings will be those who act before His evaluative gaze at every moment of time within our world.
It is typcial for Christians to limit the PoE to human evil, as if no koalas ever roasted in Australian bush fires. That way they have a scapegoat to blame to divert attention away from the responsibility of their god.

2PhiloVoid 27 said:
Therefore, a continuum of moral/immoral agents must be expected to exist in our world,[13] and being that a wide range of moral and immoral human agency is purposed by God, again biblically speaking, then it stands further to reason that if this is the case, we should EXPECT to not only find a wide variety of moral agents in the world who act out in various ways and in various kinds of social interactions, but some whose acts will be very egregious and will even bring vast amounts of grief to others (e.g. Cain).[14]
[13] How is that supposed to follow ?
[14] Indeed, if God on purpous created immoral humans, which a benevolent god would not do, then one can expect some humans to do evil.

2PhiloVoid 27 said:
In the meantime, we should ask ourselves: why are some of us committing acts of gratuitous evil? What the hell is wrong with us?[15] And why do we blame God for it?[16]
[15] I have asked myself such questions and obviously God has nothing to do with it, for he doesn't exist. For those believing in an omnimax god those questions are harder to answer.
[16] Whos this 'we' that asks that ?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ZNP

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2020
4,311
1,382
Atlanta
✟54,279.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Perhaps, or perhaps not, but either way it remains understandable that some sceptics are uninterested in unevidenced stories.

Your posts are becoming far too complicated to post and quote, so if you have some "unanswered questions" perhaps ask them clearly.

that said you seem to think that I am implying that what Hitler did was "ok" or "harmless". That is clearly a misunderstanding and I hope not an intentional mischaracterization.

What I have said is that based on the Bible death came in through the tree of the Knowledge of good and evil. Also, based on the Bible human souls are eternal, whereas human life is on average around 80 years, a tiny blip on the screen of eternity. These souls wait for their eternal judgement and this judgement is described in the NT saying that we will be judged for every word. The description of the judgement seems to mirror very closely the judgement portrayed in the movie "Sully" where they are able to pull up the black box, go over every word and action of the pilots and run through scenarios to see if they had made a mistake. There are other relevant Biblical references, but based on my reading the description of human life in the Bible seems to be most analogous to a computer simulation. The key verse being that the Lord says that we should not fear him who can only kill the Body but after that is powerless, rather we need to fear Him who after the body is dead has the power to cast the soul into hell.

Since this response is built on the Biblical discussion of death it seems incomprehensible to me that anyone could conclude that I am saying that actions clearly condemned in the Bible are "ok". Is this intentional slander? My understanding of sin would also be built on the Biblical discussion of these topics as well as your eternal judgement.

What I did say concerning Hitler was no different than what the Lord Jesus said -- Do not fear him who can only kill the body and then has no power, rather fear Him who after the body is dead can then cast the soul into eternal judgment.
 
Upvote 0

RBPerry

Christian Baby Boomer
Supporter
Oct 14, 2013
798
300
75
Northern California
✟86,295.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Thank you, Jeff. Do you have any thoughts on the OP?

Since you are enthralled with philosophy try to consider this. For the sake of argument there is a creator. the created man, instead of having him live by primal instincts he gave him the ability to reason, create, and follow his own passions and desires, another words, fee choice.
Now that God has given humans free choice if he interferes with that free choice he has removed mans ability to act and behave as he so wishes.
Jesus never demanded that anyone follow him, he gave an invitation along with guidelines as to how he would want us to live. As he instructed His disciples, share the gospel, if it is received wonderful, if not, wipe the dust off and move on.
I have sat through too many philosophy classes listening to a professor that were incapable of thinking outside the little box of their mind, or they were just regurgitating some nonsense that some other philosopher came up with. Bottom line your little philosophical mathematical argument is feeble to say the least.
 
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,966
12,052
East Coast
✟830,414.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Since you are enthralled with philosophy try to consider this. For the sake of argument there is a creator. the created man, instead of having him live by primal instincts he gave him the ability to reason, create, and follow his own passions and desires, another words, fee choice.
Now that God has given humans free choice if he interferes with that free choice he has removed mans ability to act and behave as he so wishes.
Jesus never demanded that anyone follow him, he gave an invitation along with guidelines as to how he would want us to live. As he instructed His disciples, share the gospel, if it is received wonderful, if not, wipe the dust off and move on.
I have sat through too many philosophy classes listening to a professor that were incapable of thinking outside the little box of their mind, or they were just regurgitating some nonsense that some other philosopher came up with. Bottom line your little philosophical mathematical argument is feeble to say the least.

Your general comments about philosophy are noted. Do you believe there is such a thing as gratuitous evil? If so, does that function as a defeater for the assertion that God exists? You see, this thread concerns a specific argument with specific premises and a specific conclusion. If you have thoughts on those, then your posting here will be appreciated.
 
Upvote 0

ZNP

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2020
4,311
1,382
Atlanta
✟54,279.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Everything we observe about the world is also logically consistent with a deity who has evil tendencies.

Really? Everything? What about Jesus? What about a man who gave his life to die for others on the cross? That is consistent with a deity who has evil tendencies?

This reminds me of the pharisees asking the Lord if they were blind, He told them if you were blind you wouldn't have sin, but now that you claim you can see your sin remains.
 
Upvote 0

jayem

Naturalist
Jun 24, 2003
15,262
6,943
72
St. Louis, MO.
✟371,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Really? Everything? What about Jesus? What about a man who gave his life to die for others on the cross? That is consistent with a deity who has evil tendencies?

This reminds me of the pharisees asking the Lord if they were blind, He told them if you were blind you wouldn't have sin, but now that you claim you can see your sin remains.

How do you know that Jesus really was the savior? If God were evil, he could also be deceptive. Jesus could have been sent as a ruse to dupe the gullible into thinking that accepting him as savior is the gateway to salvation. If God is omnipotent, he could certainly have risen Jesus from the grave. Because an evil God wants you to believe the deceit. All of the gospel accounts could be lies which were inspired by a deceptive God. Ultimately, it comes down to faith. Other than faith, there is no way to know that Jesus is who the NT says he is. And other than faith, you cannot demonstrate that accepting Jesus will lead to eternal life.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Amoranemix
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ZNP

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2020
4,311
1,382
Atlanta
✟54,279.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Jesus could have been sent as a ruse to dupe the gullible into thinking that accepting him as savior is the gateway to salvation. If God is omnipotent, he could certainly have risen Jesus from the grave. Because an evil God wants you to believe the deceit. All of the gospel accounts could be lies which were inspired by a deceptive God.

I don't have any comment, just wanted to highlight this and let it sink in for anyone watching this thread.
 
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,966
12,052
East Coast
✟830,414.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The first premise has three attributes (omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent) and one concept (gratuitous evil) that are not clearly defined

The definitions for those four are definitive enough that both theists and atheists have agreed to discuss based on them.

Theists are very selective in their beliefs of what might be.

"Atheists are very selective in their beliefs of what might be." I don't know how your assertion, or its contrary regarding atheists, contributes to the argument.

Your reply is jumbled, so I will try to make clear who is speaking:

You said
, "Yet the argument is about monotheistic religions and there aren't many without holy scriptures that their adherents are supposed to believe, so my remark would still apply."

The argument is about a specific philosophical conception of God. Christians will sometimes complain that such a conception is too narrow. So, no, your conflation may be convenient for whatever point you're trying to make, but it does not apply.

You said,
"I am agnostic atheist."

Okay. If you're agnostic concerning the existence of God, then how can you not be agnostic about such a God's mind or reasons, as well? Or, if you can know the reasons for why God would allow evil, and thus have determined some evils are gratuitous (i.e. without good reason), then you must not be agnostic about the existence of God. For, how can one know God's mind and yet not know whether God exists?


You said: "Who says that atheist knows that? That atheist appeals to the best explanation and contrary to the 'skeptical' theist he does not make an exception for God.
When the Nazis gassed Jews, they might have had good reasons to do so and the atheists and the skeptical theist are just not smart enough to think of any. However, that would be a bad explanation and therefore the atheist and the skeptical theist reject it."

You are making a category mistake if you do not allow for exceptions in the case of God. Humans are neither omniscient, omnipotent, nor omnibenevolent. You may assume your reasoning about Nazis is in some way analogous to that of the Divine. But, you cannot assume, without engaging in a category error, that your argument concerning Nazis is applicable-without qualification of being a mere analogy-to the Divine, as well. A tri-omini Being might very well have reasons to which you are not privy. In other words, just extend your own skepticism to one more area, an area that is entailed by something of which you are already skeptical.

So, yes, you either make an exception for God in regards to your skepticism, or you admit that you are skeptical about many, many things except when it comes to the reasons that God may have for allowing evil. In that case, you are not skeptical at all, and you know what reasons God may or may not have. Not only are you not skeptical about reasons God may have, but you are simultaneously skeptical about God's existence, which is absurd for you seem to want to say you know the relevant details of the attributes of a being whose existence you don't know.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Amoranemix

Democrat
Apr 12, 2004
906
34
Belgium
✟16,446.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
ZNP 31 said:
Your posts are becoming far too complicated to post and quote, so if you have some "unanswered questions" perhaps ask them clearly.
You can find the questions you forgot to answer clearly asked in post 24 and repeated in post 31. Feel free to answer them.

ZNP 31 said:
Since this response is built on the Biblical discussion of death it seems incomprehensible to me that anyone could conclude that I am saying that actions clearly condemned in the Bible are "ok". Is this intentional slander? My understanding of sin would also be built on the Biblical discussion of these topics as well as your eternal judgement.
I had assumed you intended to support a point that was on topic. Whether humans or the seemingly real world are a simulations is off topic. Whether a human life or its impact is insignificant in the light of eternity is also off topic. So I had assumed those points were intented to support that there is no gratuitous evil, which would be on topic. Were you not trying to make an on topic point ?

ZNP 31 said:
Amoranemix 30 said:
You forgot to answer my question.
[8] Can you prove that ?
[9] Are you saying it is OK to cheat at board games, since the people that unfairly lost because of it wouldn't be crying about it 40 years later ?
[no response]
[8] I thought so.
[9] You forgot to answer my question.

ZNP 34 said:
jayem 21 said:
Everything we observe about the world is also logically consistent with a deity who has evil tendencies.
Really? Everything? What about Jesus? What about a man who gave his life to die for others on the cross? That is consistent with a deity who has evil tendencies?
Evil Jesus might not have actually given his life for anyone or he might have been secretly resurrected without anyone knowing about it and now be sitting on some throne in Heaven while billions are burning in Hell.

ZNP 31 to jayem said:
I don't have any comment, just wanted to highlight this and let it sink in for anyone watching this thread.
I doubt that will work. Christians tend to be immune to reason when that would undermine their faith.

public hermit 37 said:
Amoranemix 30 said:
Theists are very selective in their beliefs of what might be.
"Atheists are very selective in their beliefs of what might be." I don't know how your assertion, or its contrary regarding atheists, contributes to the argument.
How your claim about atheists contributes to the argument I don't know either.
I wasn't trying to contribute to the PoE argument, but arguing that it would be biased to dismiss the PoE argument only because the premises cannot be proven.

public hermit 37 said:
Your reply is jumbled, so I will try to make clear who is speaking:
Indeed. Sorry about that.

public hermit 37 said:
Amoranemix 30 said:
Yet the argument is about monotheistic religions and there aren't many without holy scriptures that their adherents are supposed to believe, so my remark would still apply.
The argument is about a specific philosophical conception of God. Christians will sometimes complain that such a conception is too narrow. So, no, your conflation may be convenient for whatever point you're trying to make, but it does not apply.
I suppose you mean that it is my remark that does not apply. I don't understand how that is supposed to follow.

public hermit 37 said:
Amoranemix 30 said:
I am agnostic atheist.
Okay. If you're agnostic concerning the existence of God, then how can you not be agnostic about such a God's mind or reasons, as well?[17] Or, if you can know the reasons for why God would allow evil, and thus have determined some evils are gratuitous (i.e. without good reason), then you must not be agnostic about the existence of God.[18] For, how can one know God's mind and yet not know whether God exists?[19]
[17] I don't know. I have not claimed to be certain about the premises of the PoE argument.
[18] I don't understand how that would follow. The existence of gratuitous evil is consistent with an evil god as wel as with the absense of any god.
[19] It is possible to reason and argue based on fictitious presuppositions. Who is stronger, Hulk or Thor ? Some people debate that.

public hermit 37 said:
Amoranemix 30 said:
public hermit 26 said:
What exactly are skeptical theists skeptical about? They are skeptical about a human's ability to know what possible reasons a tri-Omni God might have for allowing evil. So, yes, they are skeptical about the POE, but their skepticism is more specific.
I would like to believe skeptical theists have good reasons for their skepticism and not that they are irrationally skeptical.
[no response]
It might be that be that the skeptical theists want to keep the reasons for their skepticism to themselves to avoid converting others to their religion.

public hermit 37 said:
Amoranemix 30 said:
Who says that atheist knows that? That atheist appeals to the best explanation and contrary to the 'skeptical' theist he does not make an exception for God.
When the Nazis gassed Jews, they might have had good reasons to do so and the atheists and the skeptical theist are just not smart enough to think of any. However, that would be a bad explanation and therefore the atheist and the skeptical theist reject it.
You are making a category mistake if you do not allow for exceptions in the case of God. Humans are neither omniscient, omnipotent, nor omnibenevolent. You may assume your reasoning about Nazis is in some way analogous to that of the Divine. But, you cannot assume, without engaging in a category error, that your argument concerning Nazis is applicable-without qualification of being a mere analogy-to the Divine, as well. A tri-omini Being might very well have reasons to which you are not privy. In other words, just extend your own skepticism to one more area, an area that is entailed by something of which you are already skeptical.
I am not familiar with the category mistake and I don't understand your reasoning, but I suppose your objection is that the Nazis and God are not of the same category. However, an analogy does not require all concepts in both reasonings to be of the same category. What matters here is that those who are judging belong to the same category, which, being identical, they do. The analogy illustrates, like my other examples do, that what might be, regardless of category, must not necessarily be taken seriously as a possibility.
Also, I am presupposing God's existence and questioning his attributes, rather than presupposing his attributes and questioning his existence, which amounts to the same. Presuppsing God must be omnibenevolent in order to contemplate that there may be a good reason for the evil he allows would be akin to presupposing the Nazis were omnibenevolent in order to contemplate the possibility that they had good reason for gassing Jews.

public hermit 37 said:
So, yes, you either make an exception for God in regards to your skepticism,[20] or you admit that you are skeptical about many, many things except when it comes to the reasons that God may have for allowing evil.[21] In that case, you are not skeptical at all, and you know what reasons God may or may not have. Not only are you not skeptical about reasons God may have, but you are simultaneously skeptical about God's existence, which is absurd for you seem to want to say you know the relevant details of the attributes of a being whose existence you don't know.
[20] That option is clearly false. As a skeptic I have no good reason to make an exception for God.
[21] That option is clearly false as well, for the same reason as in [20]. In addition, I have been skeptical about the reasons presented by ZNP in this thread.
As a consequence, the conclusions you drew in the rest of your paragraph are false.
 
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,966
12,052
East Coast
✟830,414.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I wasn't trying to contribute to the PoE argument, but arguing that it would be biased to dismiss the PoE argument only because the premises cannot be proven.

My mistake. I thought you were arguing in favor of Rowe's argument in the OP. It may be that one cannot dismiss the PoE argument in general, based on the premises of a specific version of it. But, if an argument has a questionable premise, then that particular argument can be reasonably dismissed (at least, until some corrections or additions to the specific argument are made, whatever those might be). I do hold that the second premise of Rowe's argument is questionable, at best. The second premise is too strong. It states there are instances of gratuitous evil. I see no reasons why a limited, finite being should be in an epistemic position to know such a thing. Nonetheless, my apologies for thinking you supported that second premise.

The existence of gratuitous evil is consistent with an evil god as wel as with the absense of any god.

That may be. I have already said as much above (see post #22). That is not the first premise. The first premise asserts a tri-omni God exists (hypothetically, of course). So, again, I was mistaking that you were in support of Rowe's argument.

It is possible to reason and argue based on fictitious presuppositions. Who is stronger, Hulk or Thor ? Some people debate that.

Yes, you're right. But, we want to keep ontological and epistemic distinctions in place, relevant to what is being compared analogically. Do I and Hulk have similar epistemic capabilities, are we similar enough in terms of ontology to make the analogy work? Or, maybe better, I can make the analogy work only in so far as Hulk and I are comparable in the relevant ways.

Likewise, we can compare ourselves to God, analogically, but there are limits. And those limits are relevant when it comes to comparing what I know and what God knows. Is it unreasonable for me to hold that a good God may have reasons for the evil in this world to which I am not privy? Maybe. It's not a very strong assertion. Is it unreasonable for the atheist to assert, with no qualification, that God can have no good reasons for evil? I think so. It's dogmatism. Dogmatism is fine for those who candidly admit their dogmatism is based in faith. But dogmatism goes against the very spirit of skepticism.

It might be that be that the skeptical theists want to keep the reasons for their skepticism to themselves to avoid converting others to their religion.

No, it's no secret. They are simply admitting they are not in an epistemic position to know God's reasons, and that not having those reasons in hand does not lead to the conclusion that God does not exist.

Presuppsing God must be omnibenevolent in order to contemplate that there may be a good reason for the evil he allows would be akin to presupposing the Nazis were omnibenevolent in order to contemplate the possibility that they had good reason for gassing Jews.

Well, then that's no good. It makes sense to say that God is omnibenevolent, because that is an attribute commonly associated with the divine. Besides, the argument is not presuming God is omnibenevolent in order to discover (contemplate) God's reasons. The argument assumes God is omnibenevolent and then argues such is incompatible with gratuitous evil, which the argument is assuming does exist.

Likewise, one cannot assume the Nazis were omnibenevolent, not just because they were Nazis, but because it is generally assumed that humans are not omnibenevolent (i.e. humans are capable of both benevolence and malevolence). My point being, you are trying to force an analogy precisely in the areas where there is too much dissimilitude, according to the limits imposed by the first premise. Again, human knowing and divine knowing are analogous up to a point, and after that point skepticism regarding the possibility of human knowledge sufficient to make an assessment of what God knows is the appropriate position to take. I would be somewhat surprised if you disagree.

As a skeptic I have no good reason to make an exception for God.

So, you are in an epistemic position to know all God's thoughts and reasons? If not, then you agree with me. And, if you agree with me, then you agree that the second premise is questionable. But, of course, you're not trying to support Rowe's argument, so we're good. We agree on at least one thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Amoranemix

Democrat
Apr 12, 2004
906
34
Belgium
✟16,446.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
public hermit 39 said:
Amoranemix 38 said:
I wasn't trying to contribute to the PoE argument, but arguing that it would be biased to dismiss the PoE argument only because the premises cannot be proven.
My mistake. I thought you were arguing in favor of Rowe's argument in the OP. It may be that one cannot dismiss the PoE argument in general, based on the premises of a specific version of it. But, if an argument has a questionable premise, then that particular argument can be reasonably dismissed (at least, until some corrections or additions to the specific argument are made, whatever those might be).[22] I do hold that the second premise of Rowe's argument is questionable, at best. The second premise is too strong. It states there are instances of gratuitous evil.[23] I see no reasons why a limited, finite being should be in an epistemic position to know such a thing.[24] Nonetheless, my apologies for thinking you supported that second premise.
[22] Do you know any non-weaker argument for an omnimax god than this one is against it ? If so, please present it. If not, do you dismiss all the argments in support of an omnimax god ?
[23] It is reasonable to assume that some instances of apparent gratuitous evil aren't, but all of them ? There is no compelling evidence to support that.
[24] That you cannot see something does not imply it does not exist. Perhaps you have not thought it through or perhaps you don't want to see it.

public hermit 39 said:
Amoranemix 38 said:
It is possible to reason and argue based on fictitious presuppositions. Who is stronger, Hulk or Thor ? Some people debate that.
Yes, you're right. But, we want to keep ontological and epistemic distinctions in place, relevant to what is being compared analogically. Do I and Hulk have similar epistemic capabilities, are we similar enough in terms of ontology to make the analogy work? Or, maybe better, I can make the analogy work only in so far as Hulk and I are comparable in the relevant ways.
You seem to be saying that we can debate reason and debate about Hulk because of the similarity Hulk has with us. I don't see why that would need to be the case and neither do Christians, for they reason, debate and draw conclusions about God like there is no tomorrow.

public hermit 39 said:
Likewise, we can compare ourselves to God, analogically, but there are limits. And those limits are relevant when it comes to comparing what I know and what God knows. Is it unreasonable for me to hold that a good God may have reasons for the evil in this world to which I am not privy?[25] Maybe. It's not a very strong assertion. Is it unreasonable for the atheist to assert, with no qualification, that God can have no good reasons for evil?[26] I think so. It's dogmatism. Dogmatism is fine for those who candidly admit their dogmatism is based in faith. But dogmatism goes against the very spirit of skepticism.
[25] I cannot speak for you personally. If one assumes God exists, then it is reasonable to believe that he may have reasons for allowing evil. For example example, he may not care. As for reasons compatible with omnibenevolence, I don't know what evidence you have available, but based on the evidence I have, may is the wrong word. Might better emphasises that it is unlikely.
[26] I don't think so, especially if the atheist is consistent. The claim is that God has not. The claim is not that God could not have. The latter would imply that no evidence could make it plausible that God has a good excuse. The simplest explanation for why such evicence is not publically available is that it doesn't exist, but it might be that Christians are hiding it.
Skeptical theists who believe in an omnimax god are dogmatic, for they hold on to the belief of God's omnibenevolence despite evidence to the contrary, namely the gratuitous evil. Their excuse ? They are not sure it really is gratuitous evil. It might just look like it. So they ignore it.

public hermit 39 said:
Amoranemix 38 said:
It might be that be that the skeptical theists want to keep the reasons for their skepticism to themselves to avoid converting others to their religion.
No, it's no secret. They are simply admitting they are not in an epistemic position to know God's reasons, and that not having those reasons in hand does not lead to the conclusion that God does not exist.
They wouldn't rejecting the second premise for that reason alone. They probably also want to believe God is omnibenevolent.

public hermit 39 said:
Amoranemix 38 said:
Presuppsing God must be omnibenevolent in order to contemplate that there may be a good reason for the evil he allows would be akin to presupposing the Nazis were omnibenevolent in order to contemplate the possibility that they had good reason for gassing Jews.
Well, then that's no good. It makes sense to say that God is omnibenevolent, because that is an attribute commonly associated with the divine.[27] Besides, the argument is not presuming God is omnibenevolent in order to discover (contemplate) God's reasons.[28] The argument assumes God is omnibenevolent and then argues such is incompatible with gratuitous evil, which the argument is assuming does exist.
First, the Nazis are caricatural example, as there is evidence they are actually evil because there conclusive evidence they did evil things, contrary to God, who appears to be completely inactive. Hence, the 'might' for the Nazis is more unlikely than the 'might' for God. Nonetheless, the principle is sound. A good analogy for God is hard to find as real people who don't do anythig are hard to find. Alternative examples could be created with ficitious beings (like Superman) to be real or find apparently evil people (like condemned criminals) who might not be evil. For example, one could consider that the Nazis might have been morally neutral i.s.o. omnibenevolent.
[27] It only makes sense if what one is interested in what people believe in stead of in reality. The attributes of a real god do not depend of what people associate with the divine. Only te attributes of an invented god do.
[28] Indeed. To my knowledge, no one has yet been able to come up with an explanation able to reconcile the evidence with the hypothesis on an omnimax god.

public hermit 39 said:
Likewise, one cannot assume the Nazis were omnibenevolent, not just because they were Nazis, but because it is generally assumed that humans are not omnibenevolent (i.e. humans are capable of both benevolence and malevolence).[29] My point being, you are trying to force an analogy precisely in the areas where there is too much dissimilitude, according to the limits imposed by the first premise.[30] Again, human knowing and divine knowing are analogous up to a point, and after that point skepticism regarding the possibility of human knowledge sufficient to make an assessment of what God knows is the appropriate position to take.[31] I would be somewhat surprised if you disagree.
[29] First, what is assumed might be wrong. Second, one could assume the Nazis were not more evil than the a typical human. In addition, such an assumption is not required for the PoE to work.
[30] I hope I have made it clear that the problems are easy to mend.
[31] Agreed. The absense of an omnimax god is the best hypothesis we have so far, but in order to make that a fact we would need additional evidence. The problem is that if one extends the possible worlds to the supernatural, evidence is hard to interpret, as there always might be an alternative explanation. That would make it almost impossible to say anthing sensible with reasonable degree of certainty about deities. That doesn't stop Christians though, who keep making claims about God, oblivous to the fact that they might be wrong, and that's an euphemism.

public hermit 39 said:
Amoranemix 38 said:
As a skeptic I have no good reason to make an exception for God.
So, you are in an epistemic position to know all God's thoughts and reasons?[32] If not, then you agree with me. And, if you agree with me, then you agree that the second premise is questionable.[33] But, of course, you're not trying to support Rowe's argument, so we're good. We agree on at least one thing.
[32] If God exists, no. What about you ?
[33] That depends on how high you place the bar, how strict you are in evaluation of premises and deductions for arguments for an omnimax god as well. I am afraid that if one is consistently so strict, that one wouldn't be able to say anything about such god with reasonable certainty. I have asked you for an argument for comparison. We shall see how that goes.
 
Upvote 0