The Logical Problem of Evil: Mackie's World

anonymous person · Aug 28, 2016

For those just joining us, I have compiled a defense against the Logical problem of evil with references to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy Here

The defense demonstrates that the logical problem of evil fails to prove what it claims to.

Notice that it is a defense, not a theodicy.

A defense's only aim is to show that an argument does not prove what it claims to.

A theodicy is an attempt to positively show why and for what purpose(s) God allows evil to occur.

A theodicy is not required to show that the logical problem of evil fails to prove what it claims to, merely a defense.

quatona · Aug 28, 2016

anonymous person said:
I take issue with this conception of omnipotence. While I agree it entails not being able to do the illogical, I see the concept as having more to do with being able to actualize any logically possible state of affairs that is in accord with one's nature, as opposed to just having the ability to do certain things.

Yes, as has been predicted, you customize claims and definitions until they suite your purposes.
Anyway, so if God can´t actualize a state of affairs without evil, disaster, calamities, bad times I conclude such a state is not in accord with God´s nature.Which is a remarkable description of an entity that´s alleged all good and can´t be in the presence of "evil".

All I need to do quatona, is to show that the assumptions you are making are not necessarily true because it is you that is making the claim of a logical inconsistency.

No, actually I was the one who early pointed out that you will always have the option to redefine terms until the inconcistency is technically removed, and the one who predicted that you will resort to that tactic.

anonymous person · Aug 28, 2016

quatona said:
Yes, as has been predicted, you customize claims and definitions until they suite your purposes.

Well I think this is a bad argument because it ignores the fact that this view of omnipotence is defended in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, not Jeremy Walker's blog. I did not author the article on omnipotence in the SEP and unless you have an argument for thinking the people who did and who defend said view of omnipotence did so because they wanted to use it to formulate a defense against the logical problem of evil (which is my purpose here in this thread) then I see no reason to think your "prediction" has any merit.

quatona said:
No, actually I was the one who early pointed out that you will always have the option to redefine terms until the inconcistency is technically removed, and the one who predicted that you will resort to that tactic.

I want to help you understand what the logical problem of evil attempts to prove. That is why I have been asking you if you understand the terms that we are using and the concepts behind them. And yes it is true, I always have the option to redefine terms, but a refutation of the logical problem of evil does not require such a course of action. All it requires is that I point out that the assumptions you are making are not necessarily true.

Do you understand that?

FrumiousBandersnatch · Aug 28, 2016

anonymous person said:
The two assumptions in your argument which must be necessarily true aren't. The argument is thus doubly invalid.

Pretty parsimonious to me.

Well the issue is with the rubuttal itself; it's a work of epicyclic convolution, involving argument by definition and the appeal to unfalsifiability.

So, yeah, if we redefine the common concepts of goodness and omnibenevolence in terms of what God is and does; accept that there's always the logical possibility of a morally sufficient reason, however remote, for all evils; and also accept that, however improbable it seems, this must be the best of all possible worlds, the logical argument can be rebutted - at some cost.

Because it requires Humpty Dumpty wordplay; makes moral judgement problematic (do we have to accept "Yeah, but I might have a morally sufficient reason", or "But God told me to do it" because they might be true?); asks us to discount the evidence of our eyes (the best possible world? really?); and then divine command theory is an uncomfortable horn of the Euthyphro dilemma to find yourself sitting on...

I think one could call the rebuttal of the logical argument of the problem of evil, at best, a Pyrrhic victory. YMMV.

anonymous person · Aug 28, 2016

In your mind the concept entails the inability to prefer a world containing evil as opposed to one not containing evil, among other things.

When I say that that is not necessarily true if it is logically possible that such a being has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil, you call that "customizing, and redefining the term".

This indicates to me that you do not understand what I am saying when I use the term "necessarily true" and "morally sufficient reason".

Do you need me to explain?

anonymous person · Aug 28, 2016

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
Well the issue is with the rubuttal itself; it's a work of epicyclic convolution, involving argument by definition and the appeal to unfalsifiability.

So, yeah, if we redefine the common concepts of goodness and omnibenevolence in terms of what God is and does; accept that there's always the logical possibility of a morally sufficient reason, however remote, for all evils; and also accept that, however improbable it seems, this must be the best of all possible worlds, the logical argument can be rebutted - at some cost.

Because it requires Humpty Dumpty wordplay; makes moral judgement problematic (do we have to accept "Yeah, but I might have a morally sufficient reason", or "But God told me to do it" because they might be true?); asks us to discount the evidence of our eyes (the best possible world? really?); and then divine command theory is an uncomfortable horn of the Euthyphro dilemma to find yourself sitting on...

I think one could call the rebuttal of the logical argument of the problem of evil, at best, a Pyrrhic victory. YMMV.

I agree, the logical problem of evil is pretty lousy, and a refutation of it though easy to come by, does not really address the existential questions that arise when we think of evil and reasons why God would allow it. That is where theodicies come in and I think that is really what you are seeking. Reasons why the world is the way it is if God exists. Maybe we can discuss this later?

In addition, I don't see how you can deduce this is the best possible world from the fact that evil and God are logically compatible.

quatona · Aug 28, 2016

anonymous person said:
I want to help you understand what the logical problem of evil attempts to prove.

I do understand what it´s trying to prove. I don´t think you can even start tackling a concept before the individual claimer you are talking to has clearly defined the keyterms of his concept.

Therefore, even attempting to disprove the Christian god concept in general is pointless - because time and again the keyterms prove to be so extremely flexible and interpretable that, for the given purpose, they are useless, vacuous.

So I agree completely: The authors of the PoE as an attempt at disproving the Christian god concept were pretty naive, and grossly overestimated the intellectual honesty and moral integrity of certain Christian apologists.

So, personally, I take the PoE for what it´s called: pointing out a problem (not being a disproof).
And has its merits, in that it shows time and again how far apologists like Willy and you are willing to take wordsmithery, sophistry and mental gymnastics when confronted with this problem.

quatona · Aug 28, 2016

anonymous person said:
In your mind the concept entails the inability to prefer a world containing evil as opposed to one not containing evil, among other things.

Yes, pretty much in the same way that the concept "lake" entails the idea of there being water.

When I say that that is not necessarily true if it is logically possible that such a being has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil

"Morally sufficient", by whose moral standards?
, you call that "customizing, and redefining the term".

This indicates to me that you do not understand what I am saying when I use the term "necessarily true"

I understand it quite fine: You mean that nothing can prevent you from redefining the word "omnibenevolent" as you please.

and "morally sufficient reason".
Do you need me to explain?

Yes, please: "morally sufficient" by whose standards?

anonymous person · Aug 28, 2016

quatona said:
Therefore, even attempting to disprove the Christian god concept in general is pointless - because time and again the keyterms prove to be so extremely flexible and interpretable that, for the given purpose, they are useless, vacuous.

I am pretty firm on God's attributes, at least the main two pertinent to the PoE, omnipotence and omnibenevolence. Nor are they vacuous. I don't deny God is omnipotent or omnibenevolent either. I affirm He is, and I also affirm evil happens. I just realize that if it is logically possible that God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil, then the argument fails. That's all.

quatona said:
So I agree completely: The authors of the PoE as an attempt at disproving the Christian god concept were pretty naive, and grossly overestimated the intellectual honesty and moral integrity of certain Christian apologists.

Aww...come on now, you don't mean that do you? Why not just say the argument was lousy instead of attacking the character of those who exposed its weaknesses? Does not seem very charitable Mr. quatona.

quatona said:
So, personally, I take the PoE for what it´s called: pointing out a problem (not being a disproof).
And has its merits, in that it shows time and again how far apologists like Willy and you are willing to take wordsmithery, sophistry and mental gymnastics when confronted with this problem.

But atheist philosophers recognize the weaknesses of the logical version of the PoE, not just Christian philosophers my friend. I take it you have not reviewed any of the references and sources I have linked have you?

I am disappointed in you quatona, very disappointed. Not surprised though unfortunately.

anonymous person · Aug 28, 2016

quatona said:
Yes, pretty much in the same way that the concept "lake" entails the idea of there being water.

"Morally sufficient", by whose moral standards?
, you call that "customizing, and redefining the term".

I understand it quite fine: You mean that nothing can prevent you from redefining the word "omnibenevolent" as you please.

Yes, please: "morally sufficient" by whose standards?

Not according to any standard, but according to God's goodness, after all it is God who created free moral agents.

A reason is something that tells in favor of taking some particular course of action.

A morally sufficient reason is a reason then, that on its own, is worthy of acting on.

An example of a morally sufficient reason for causing severe pain to a little child by resetting a broken femur bone for example, would be so that the broken bone can heal properly which would lead to a better quality of life for the child than what would have been had the severe pain not been inflicted.

quatona · Aug 28, 2016

anonymous person said:
Aww...come on now, you don't mean that do you?

Yes, I do.

Why not just say the argument was lousy

Because I don´t think it is lousy - as explained above. I don´t think it´s a conclusive disproof of the Christian god concept (for the above mentioned reasons), but it still points out a problem.

instead of attacking the character of those who exposed its weaknesses?

Well, time and again I have pointed out its weaknesses (if meant to be a conclusive disproof) on these forums.

I am disappointed in you quatona, very disappointed. Not surprised though unfortunately.

LOL. Disappointed but unsurprised in your disappointment? That doesn´t even make sense.
Now, spare me your emotional appeals and crocodile tears.

quatona · Aug 28, 2016

anonymous person said:
Not according to any standard, but according to God's goodness

The circularity of "God has moral sufficient reason according to God´s own standards" makes me all dizzy.

An example of a morally sufficient reason for causing severe pain to a little child by resetting a broken femur bone for example, would be so that the broken bone can heal properly which would lead to a better quality of life for the child than what would have been had the severe pain not been inflicted.

Yes, I have already explained to you that doing damage for a "greater good" is a concept that makes sense when it comes to non-omnipotent beings.
Now, it would be your part to give me an example how that makes sense with an omnipotent being.

Job8 · Aug 28, 2016

Chany said:
You will notice that put the word "logical" in the thread title.

Yes, and that is where the problem begins. Human logic and Divine logic are not identical. So one can have a very logical argument from the human perspective and yet fail to grasp Divine logic. According to human logic, since God is perfect, He should have created men and angels to be perfect, and remain perfect. That would have excluded sin and evil from the universe automatically. But Divine logic had a different perspective, and so here we are. Logically illogical.

anonymous person · Aug 28, 2016

quatona said:
The circularity of "God has moral sufficient reason according to God´s own standards" makes me all dizzy.

I suggest Dramamine.

quatona said:
Yes, I have already explained to you that doing damage for a "greater good" is a concept that makes sense when it comes to non-omnipotent beings.
Now, it would be your part to give me an example how that makes sense with an omnipotent being.

I would if I felt you were capable of understanding and willing to accept what I gave you. Since you cannot or will not accept that the logical problem of evil has been dissolved, I see no reason to think you will be accept any theodicy I provide.

quatona · Aug 28, 2016

anonymous person said:
I suggest Dramamine.

Brilliantly dodged.

I see no reason to think you will be accept any theodicy I provide.

I didn´t ask you for a theodicy. I asked you for an example as to how an omnimax being could possibly say "This I need to do for the greater good even though it entails me creating things that are not to my liking.". It needn´t be about your God, and it can be entirely hypothetical.

Btw. I find it somewhat odd that for you to give an example or explanation it´s a prerequisite that you feel I will accept it.

anonymous person · Aug 28, 2016

quatona said:
Brilliantly dodged.

I didn´t ask you for a theodicy. I asked you for an example as to how an omnimax being could possibly say "This I need to do for the greater good even though it entails me creating things that are not to my liking.". It needn´t be about your God, and it can be entirely hypothetical.

Btw. I find it somewhat odd that for you to give an example or explanation it´s a prerequisite that you feel I will accept it.

I'm not surprised.

quatona · Aug 28, 2016

anonymous person said:
I'm not surprised.

You can´t give such an example? Ok.

anonymous person · Aug 28, 2016

quatona said:
You can´t give such an example? Ok.

Jesus was the Lamb that was slain before the foundation of the world.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Aug 28, 2016

Job8 said:
Yes, and that is where the problem begins. Human logic and Divine logic are not identical. So one can have a very logical argument from the human perspective and yet fail to grasp Divine logic. According to human logic, since God is perfect, He should have created men and angels to be perfect, and remain perfect. That would have excluded sin and evil from the universe automatically. But Divine logic had a different perspective, and so here we are. Logically illogical.

'Divine logic' is it?

I didn't get an explanation of 'spiritual logic' from Steve; it's clearly easy enough to appeal to some esoteric form of logic, but meaningless without some definition - perhaps you can tell me something about 'Divine logic' - what are its axioms? in what ways does it differ from human logic? how is it used? what are some examples?

FrumiousBandersnatch · Aug 28, 2016

anonymous person said:
...I don't see how you can deduce this is the best possible world from the fact that evil and God are logically compatible.

It's an implication of omnibenevolence, among other things - that such an entity would necessarily create the best possible world it could, and an omnipotent entity could create a world it was not possible to better. One could argue that there's no best possible world, or that a better world is always possible, but that leads to the reductio ad absurdum that an omnibenevolent could create a world of evil without any moral difficulties, which is troubling. It's not the most robust flag that the POE rebuttal is flaky - there are better ones, but it is easier to follow in a forum.

The Logical Problem of Evil: Mackie's World

Well-Known Member

"God"? What do you mean??

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

"God"? What do you mean??

"God"? What do you mean??

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

"God"? What do you mean??

"God"? What do you mean??

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

"God"? What do you mean??

Well-Known Member

"God"? What do you mean??

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency