The Logical Problem of Evil: Mackie's World

[ToddNotTodd]

I provided the article as proof that what I am saying is not something I just made up. The version of the argument which intends to prove a logical inconsistency between the existence of evil and God is a version that has largely been abandoned in favor of less ambitious ones which focus not on the existence of evil per se, but the existence of certain types of evil or certain amounts of it.

And no, if something already exists which says what I aim to get across, I will copy and paste it and reference it because that is the best way for me to get my point across. Turning attention to how I deliver my argument to you instead of addressing the argument is to introduce a red herring into the mix.

Just tell me if you think these articles are wrong and if so, where is their error?

This is exactly what I was talking about. You're just playing postman between me and the source material you think addresses my argument, without actually addressing my argument yourself.

How about you explaining to me in your own words how your source material addresses my argument.

 

[bhsmte]

This is exactly what I was talking about. You're just playing postman between me and the source material you think addresses my argument, without actually addressing my argument yourself.

How about you explaining to me in your own words how your source material addresses my argument.

He is a big willy craig fan.

 

[anonymous person]

He is a big willy craig fan.

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy article, which is the article in question which clearly states that there is no logical inconsistency between the existence of evil and God given the logical possibility that humans have libertarian free will, is not authored by Dr. Craig.

 

[anonymous person]

This is exactly what I was talking about. You're just playing postman between me and the source material you think addresses my argument, without actually addressing my argument yourself.

How about you explaining to me in your own words how your source material addresses my argument.

My own words?

How about this: "the assumptions you appeal to in order to show that an explicit contradiction can be deduced from the propositions,

1. God exists

And

2. Evil exists

aren't necessarily true. Why? Because it is logically possible that humans have libertarian free will.

If you're arguing that there is a logical inconsistency/contradiction, then the implicit assumptions must be NECESSARILY TRUE, which means all I have to do is come up with a proposition that is LOGICALLY POSSIBLE that would show that one of your assumptions isn't necessarily true. That proposition is:

God endowed human beings with libertarian free will.

This proposition does not need to be true or even plausible for it to destroy your argument.

I keep telling you this but it seems either to not be sinking in or you just won't accept it.

If I go back and count how many times I have said this I know it will be close to ten times I have said this.

If it's not sinking in we can go over it and I can teach you. If you just want accept it then I can't help you.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

My own words?

How about this: "the assumptions you appeal to in order to show that an explicit contradiction can be deduced from the propositions,

1. God exists

Specifically an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god.

And

2. Evil exists

I prefer to use "suffering" instead, since it's more tangible, and less prone to argument, than "evil".

aren't necessarily true. Why? Because it is logically possible that humans have libertarian free will.

And I've already stated that the free will rebuttal is a non starter since it can be shown that a god could have created us without the inclination to cause suffering and yet retain our free will, however you want to define it. In fact, that's what a good god would do.

 

[quatona]

The free-will defense collapses with the option for the omniscient, omnipotent creator entity to allow only those free-willed beings into existence who will use their free-will only for the good.

 

[anonymous person]

The free-will defense collapses with the option for the omniscient, omnipotent creator entity to allow only those free-willed beings into existence who will use their free-will only for the good.

This is not a rebuttal to the free will defense, this is an assumption which you are using to show that an explicit contradiction can be deduced from the set of propositions:

1. God is omnibenevolent

2. God is omnipotent

2. Evil exists.

The assumption you have provided can be applied to the first two propositions written as:

A1. If God is omnibenevolent, then He would prefer to create a world wherein He allows only those free-willed beings into existence who would will use their free-will only for the good.

A2. If God is omnipotent, then He can create a world wherein only those free-willed beings come into existence are those who would use their free-will only for the good.

Since you're still trying to prove that there is a logical inconsistency/contradiction in the set of propositions, these two assumptions must once again be necessarily true, making them vulnerable to the same refutation which destroys the appeal to evil per se.

The first assumption, A1, is not necessarily true for if it is logically possible that God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing free-willed beings to exist who use their free-will for evil. Thus, the assumption is not necessarily true and therefore no explicit contradiction of the set of propositions can be deduced from it. So this version of the argument is invalid by virtue of this alone.

But what about A2?

It is not necessarily true either. It suffers from the same vulnerability. For while we can imagine a logically possible world wherein every free moral agent always freely chooses the good, such a world may not be feasible for God to actualize because it may be the case that in every world, they all choose to do evil. Therefore so long as it is merely logically possible humans have libertarian free will this assumption is not necessarily true. Thus this version is doubly invalid as well.

 

[variant]

2) God exist, a being who is: (Justification: Assumption)
a)omnipotent (able to do all things logically possible),
b)omniscient (knows all true and false propositions), and
c)omnibelevolent (wills the highest good of the other agent. For example, this
highest good can be achieving a relationship with God and getting into heaven).

I consider the problem of evil a weak argument because of the following:

These are not contradictory if being placed in a world that contains evil is somehow ultimately good for you.

Ultimately if you think about the nature of humanity, we are a being with consciousness, a living, breathing, thinking, problem solving device.

Without "evil" (things that are problems) we would have no real purpose.

The solution to the problem of evil? You are here to learn. A universe without "evil" has nothing to overcome and is therefore strictly meaningless. A meaningless existence is contrary to a benevolent creative being so, "evil" is entirely necessary.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't see how that follows. Especially if it is possible God has a good reason for creating the world the way He did, i.e. with free moral agents.

I am persuaded a world full of people capable of genuinely loving each other is a better world than a world full of, oh let's say, animals or androids.

I see this world perfectly compatible and if fact, what we would expect if God is love and whose very essence is graciousness and goodness. True love requires the possibility of rejecting God and that is where evil comes from.

So I'm just not persuaded by your argument.

In addition, evil is something you have to account for too. It is not just an issue Christians have to deal with. Where does evil come from, what is it, and what is the solution for it in your worldview?

http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2013/why-the-problem-of-evil-is-a-problem-3/

It has nothing to do with "free will". Free will doesn't create tornadoes, hurricanes, floods. It's obviously within the power of god to create a world without these things (if we're assuming that he created a world with these things)...so why didn't he? What's the "good reason" to destroy so many lives, homes, etc?

The fact that he could've made the world better...in almost countless ways...shows he isn't omnibenevolent and we don't even need to touch the issue of "free will".

 

[quatona]

This is not a rebuttal to the free will defense, this is an assumption which you are using to show that an explicit contradiction can be deduced from the set of propositions:

No, it´s directly addressing your free-will defense: It shows that you can create "free will" and "free willed beings" without creating or allowing "evil" to enter this world. It shows that your attempt at finding a "moral justification" for God rests on wrong premises.

 

[quatona]

Walker, there´s another bug in your "free-will" reasoning:

1. You submitted that a world with beings with "free-will" (to do good or evil) is a better world than without.
2. You submitted that God can not act against Its nature (which is good, holy, righteous, whatnot...).

#2 implies that God doesn´t have "free will" as described in 1.

That´s quite odd, don´t you think: Perfect God Itself doesn´t have a capability that It feels entities should have in order for the world to be better.

On top, one has to wonder how and why a perfectly holy, righteous, good entity sitting there in Its perfect holiness, goodness, righteousness, whatnotness with no potential for "evil" even gets the idea of valuing "free-will" and creating the potentiality for "evil".

 

[quatona]

On another note, if we apply the definition of "evil" as you submitted it´s used in Isajah (i.e. not as "moral evil", but as calamities/disaster/etc.) in the PoE, "free will" has absolutely nothing to with anything.

 

[anonymous person]

I consider the problem of evil a weak argument because of the following:

These are not contradictory if being placed in a world that contains evil is somehow ultimately good for you.

Ultimately if you think about the nature of humanity, we are a being with consciousness, a living, breathing, thinking, problem solving device.

Without "evil" (things that are problems) we would have no real purpose.

The solution to the problem of evil? You are here to learn. A universe without "evil" has nothing to overcome and is therefore strictly meaningless. A meaningless existence is contrary to a benevolent creative being so, "evil" is entirely necessary.

Variant has touched on a point found in some theodicies, i.e certain soul-making theodicies and Variant is right.

Some things can only be learned through suffering and overcoming.

 

[anonymous person]

Specifically an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god.




I prefer to use "suffering" instead, since it's more tangible, and less prone to argument, than "evil".



And I've already stated that the free will rebuttal is a non starter since it can be shown that a god could have created us without the inclination to cause suffering and yet retain our free will, however you want to define it. In fact, that's what a good god would do.

Not if humans have libertarian free will, which is the type of free-will I am referring to, and the free-will referenced in Plantinga's free-will defense.

Going back to our definition of omnipotence, we see a good case can be made for the view that it does not entail being able to do the logically impossible. A creature with libertarian free will by definition, is one who is free to act however it chooses, even contrary to God's will.

Secondly, and I know I've said this numerous times...while it is logically possible that God could create a world, let's call it possible world 1 or P1, wherein every creature with libertarian free will never causes another to suffer, i.e., they all always choose to do good and right, such a world may not be feasible for God to create. The error in your reasoning lies in the fact that you think that because a world is logically possible, that therefore God can create it, but this is a non-sequitur given that it is logically possible human beings have libertarian free will, for it may be the case that in every world God "saw" before Him in His mind in that state of affairs causally prior to the bringing into being this actual world, contained free creatures who would eventually end up causing human suffering to each other. It may be the case in those possible worlds, there was even more suffering in them than this one. It may be the case that in those possible worlds, there was less suffering accompanied by less good.

But you may reply by saying that surely there was a possible world P2. wherein there was less suffering and more good in it than this world and that God therefore would have actualized that world instead. Here is an extremely strong and for all intents and purposes, impossible position for one to substantiate. It would be the responsibility of the person making the claim to show that there is a possible world that in fact could have been actualized that would have had less evil in it and more good than this and even if one were to do that, it still is not necessarily true that God would prefer to create such a world, for so long as it is logically possible that God has a morally sufficient reason for creating this world as opposed P2., it is not necessarily true that He would prefer to create P2 as opposed to this world.

So it seems that your reasoning is still too ambitious.

 

[anonymous person]

Walker, there´s another bug in your "free-will" reasoning:

1. You submitted that a world with beings with "free-will" (to do good or evil) is a better world than without.
2. You submitted that God can not act against Its nature (which is good, holy, righteous, whatnot...).

#2 implies that God doesn´t have "free will" as described in 1.

That´s quite odd, don´t you think: Perfect God Itself doesn´t have a capability that It feels entities should have in order for the world to be better.

On top, one has to wonder how and why a perfectly holy, righteous, good entity sitting there in Its perfect holiness, goodness, righteousness, whatnotness with no potential for "evil" even gets the idea of valuing "free-will" and creating the potentiality for "evil".

Your error in reasoning is found in the fact that you think that being free necessarily entails being able to choose evil as opposed to good. That is a misunderstanding of the view of libertarian free will.

The following response is applicable here:

"Your objection assumes that a necessary requisite for freedom of the will is the ability to choose evil as well as good. I see no reason to accept this as true, not only of God, but also of humans. While it is factually true that freedom of our will includes our ability to choose evil, it is not necessarily true. For the will to be free only requires that our choices are not determined by causal factors outside our own volitional powers. One can be free even if they can only choose good, and not evil. - Jason

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/freedom-and-the-ability-to-choose-evil#ixzz4IvU1Rfel

Jason then goes on to quote a thought illustration to give an illustration of why this is true.

So there is no problem. God is free, not because He can choose between evil and good, but because His choices are not determined by causal factors outside His own volitional powers.

To answer your second point, I think one response would be to appeal to the doctrine that God is Love and that God is creative. Taking the two into account, I am not surprised God would want to create free moral agents capable of loving Him and receiving His love. This would necessitate however, them being free to reject Him, and thus giving rise to all the suffering and evil and sin in the world.

 

[quatona]

Your error in reasoning is found in the fact that you think that being free necessarily entails being able to choose evil as opposed to good. That is a misunderstanding of the view of libertarian free will.

Cool - if that is a misunderstanding, your free will defense collapses before it has even taken off.
If free will deosn´t entail being able to choose evil as opposed to good, there needn´t be evil for there to be free will.

To answer your second point, I think one response would be to appeal to the doctrine that God is Love and that God is creative. Taking the two into account, I am not surprised God would want to create free moral agents capable of loving Him and receiving His love. This would necessitate however, them being free to reject Him, and thus giving rise to all the suffering and evil and sin in the world.

As you submitted above, free will doesn´t necessitate being able to do evil.

 

[anonymous person]

On another note, if we apply the definition of "evil" as you submitted it´s used in Isajah (i.e. not as "moral evil", but as calamities/disaster/etc.) in the PoE, "free will" has absolutely nothing to with anything.

The appeal to natural evils is a different version of the argument than the version which appeals to evil per se.

It has the same inherent weaknesses as the other argument in that it still attempts to prove quite a bit more than one can defend.

 

[anonymous person]

No, it´s directly addressing your free-will defense: It shows that you can create "free will" and "free willed beings" without creating or allowing "evil" to enter this world. It shows that your attempt at finding a "moral justification" for God rests on wrong premises.

All you've done is resurrect Mackie and Flew's rebuttal.

This article presents Mackie's argument and then a refutation of it. In addition, it speaks about the existential aspect of all of this which I think is what people are really at the end of the day more concerned about.

http://preparedtoanswer.org/2013/05/31/god-and-evil-series-a-key-objection-to-the-free-will-defence/

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What makes you think I've closed my mind to rationality?

I don't.

 

[quatona]

The appeal to natural evils is a different version of the argument than the version which appeals to evil per se.

It appeals to "evil", as - in your submission - "evil" is defined in your religion, so it´s should be spot on.

It has the same inherent weaknesses as the other argument in that it still attempts to prove quite a bit more than one can defend.

You´d have to address the argument, rather than merely claiming it weak.