The Logical Problem of Evil: Mackie's World

[Chriliman]

Since an omnibenevolent, omnipotent god could have demonstrably created a universe in which free moral agents would not choose to do evil, it's true that a failure to do so contradicts the idea of omnibenevolence.

At least any definition of omnibenevolence that I'm familiar with.

God is not omnipotent in that he does not use His power to do anything and everything, one thing he does not use his power to do is evil or sin.

The logical consequence stands:

God can either:

A. Choose to create because His omniscience determined the end result is good.

B. Choose not to create because His omniscience determined the end result is evil.

If we're assuming an omnibenevolent, omniscient God exists then we must choose A because we are then created beings in creation, therefore God must know what he's doing and the end result will be good, regardless of the evil we as human beings perceive in creation.

If we're assuming God does not exist then the answers are nonsensical.

 

[anonymous person]

An omnibenevolent, omnipotent god is incompatible with my definition of evil (which focuses on suffering) because the ideas are contradictory. If a all-powerful, all good god could have created a universe without suffering that being would have necessarily done so, because the two stated qualities would have, by definition, demanded it.

Now, you can state that for anyone, their definitions of "omnibenevolent" "omnipotent" and "evil" are such that there is no contradiction. But once you go down the road of redefining words past their breaking points, you cease to be able to communicate.

And it's kind of a cop out...

You're saying God by definition, cannot create a world with free moral agents who choose to do evil. This isn't an argument against God. It is a particular conceptualization of God or as you said, a particular definition of the word "God".

Thus, it's not an argument against the existence of the God of Christian theism.

 

[anonymous person]

Since an omnibenevolent, omnipotent god could have demonstrably created a universe in which free moral agents would not choose to do evil, it's true that a failure to do so contradicts the idea of omnibenevolence.

At least any definition of omnibenevolence that I'm familiar with.

If you define omnibenevolence as "the essential property which renders one unable to create free moral agents who commit evil" then you're not making an argument against the existence of God at all. You're just redefining the term omnibenevolence.

What you and Frumious are doing is akin to me saying that naturaliam is defined as "that particular metaphysical worldview which is false."

Notice I have not made an argument at all or attempted to prove anything. I have simply redefined what naturalism is.

Do you understand?

 

[anonymous person]

The Stanford encyclopedia concurs with what I and Dr. Craig have said about the logical version of the internal problem of evil. I can provide a reference if you like.

So far, I've been given a circular argument. Evil is incompatible with God because God is incompatible with evil. This is the essence of what I've seen here and it proves nothing.

Now since I've gone over this for some years here now, one would think that people would change their views about this and adopt some other view that is not fallacious and that is defensible. I wonder why this has not happened....

 

[ToddNotTodd]

God is not omnipotent in that he does not use His power to do anything and everything, one thing he does not use his power to do is evil or sin.

The logical consequence stands:

God can either:
A. Choose to create because His omniscience determined the end result is good.
B. Choose not to create because His omniscience determined the end result is evil.

False dichotomy.

C. Choose to create because he determined the end result is evil.
D. Choose to create without caring whether the end result is good or evil.
etc...

If we're assuming an omnibenevolent, omniscient God exists then we must choose A because we are then created beings in creation, therefore God must know what he's doing and the end result will be good, regardless of the evil we as human beings perceive in creation.

I'm not assuming an omnibenevolent, omniscient god exists. I'm asking what qualities a god would have given the existent universe. And it can't include both omnipotence and omnibenevolence, given the definition I (and probably everyone I know, theist or non-theist) would use.

If we're assuming God does not exist then the answers are nonsensical.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

You're saying God by definition, cannot create a world with free moral agents who choose to do evil.

No I'm not. I'm saying an omnibenevolent, omnipotent god can't by definition create a world with free moral agents who choose to do evil.

This isn't an argument against God. It is a particular conceptualization of God or as you said, a particular definition of the word "God".

Nonsensical. All god concepts have "particular" definitions.

Thus, it's not an argument against the existence of the God of Christian theism.

It is if the Christian god is said to possess both omnibenevolence and omnipotence. Of course not all Christians believe that their god possesses these traits. If you're one of those, then we may not be in disagreement. I'm not sure about this of course, since you've failed to actually address my argument.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

The Stanford encyclopedia concurs with what I and Dr. Craig have said about the logical version of the internal problem of evil. I can provide a reference if you like.

Or you could try and put into Dr. Crai... I mean your... words. Why you still think Dr. Idiot is someone to actually listen to is beyond me.

So far, I've been given a circular argument. Evil is incompatible with God because God is incompatible with evil. This is the essence of what I've seen here and it proves nothing.

That's not at all what I've been saying. If you would actually address my argument instead of constructing a straw man, you'd see that it's not circular at all. I can probably explain it in simpler terms if you'd like.

Now since I've gone over this for some years here now, one would think that people would change their views about this and adopt some other view that is not fallacious and that is defensible. I wonder why this has not happened....

Actually, since you're the one committing the fallacy, I think everyone here knows what's really going on.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

God can either:

A. Choose to create because His omniscience determined the end result is good.

B. Choose not to create because His omniscience determined the end result is evil.

If we're assuming an omnibenevolent, omniscient God exists then we must choose A because we are created beings in creation, therefore God must know what he's doing and the end result will be good, regardless of the evil we as human beings perceive.

So you're saying that, for God, the ends justify the means?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It is no indictment against God that men do evil because men freely choose it. They are culpable.

I'm not suggesting any indictment.

We would say God is morally perfect. That is essentially what omnibenevolence means. You're arguing moral perfection makes it logically impossible for God to create free moral agents who He knew would commit evil but have given no reason to think that that is true.

Yes; the consequence of omnibenevolence means that given a choice between an action that will lead to evil, and not doing that action (or doing an action that will not lead to evil) the latter option must be taken. An omnibenevolent being must always make the moral choice that avoids evil. It seems to me that's an essential of omnibenevolence. YMMV.

 

[anonymous person]

No I'm not. I'm saying an omnibenevolent, omnipotent god can't by definition create a world with free moral agents who choose to do evil.



Nonsensical. All god concepts have "particular" definitions.



It is if the Christian god is said to possess both omnibenevolence and omnipotence. Of course not all Christians believe that their god possesses these traits. If you're one of those, then we may not be in disagreement. I'm not sure about this of course, since you've failed to actually address my argument.

What source or reference are you using that states that omnibenevolence is "that essential property which precludes one from creating free moral agents who can choose to do evil"?

I've never come across this definition before.

Seems all you've done is take your premise and put the words "by definition" in front of it. But doing this does not a successful argument make. It's not even an argument.

What you've done is no different than the one who makes the attempt to argue for the existence of God by saying, "God by definition, exists" or argue for the inspiration of the Bible by saying something like, "The bible by definition, is inspired by God".

These are premises which one wants to make immune from having to defend, so they put "by definition" in front of them.

You know the bible tells us plainly yhat God is responsible for creating free moral agents who used their freedom to commit evil, so you should know that I am committed to a different understanding of omnibenevolence than the one you are using.

 

[quatona]

The Stanford encyclopedia concurs with what I and Dr. Craig have said about the logical version of the internal problem of evil. I can provide a reference if you like.

So far, I've been given a circular argument. Evil is incompatible with God because God is incompatible with evil. This is the essence of what I've seen here and it proves nothing.

Of course, it´s an argument regarding a particular God concept (it should be obvious that you can´t address all fathomable God concepts with one and the same argument).
So, if your God concept doesn´t contain all three omni´s, the argument doesn´t apply.
However, it strikes me as odd that you picture the "three omni God concept" as an invention of non-believers. As far as I can tell it´s a concept widely spread in Christianity.

Now since I've gone over this for some years here now, one would think that people would change their views about this and adopt some other view that is not fallacious and that is defensible. I wonder why this has not happened....

Yeah, you may want to have a word with those Christians who actually hold the God concept addressed in this argument.

 

[anonymous person]

Of course, it´s an argument regarding a particular God concept (it should be obvious that you can´t address all fathomable God concepts with one and the same argument).
So, if your God concept doesn´t contain all three omni´s, the argument doesn´t apply.
However, it strikes me as odd that you picture the "three omni God concept" as an invention of non-believers. As far as I can tell it´s a concept widely spread in Christianity.


Yeah, you may want to have a word with those Christians who actually hold the God concept addressed in this argument.

The concept of God as one who is unable to create free moral agents by virtue of His omnibenevolence is not a concept found in Christianity. Christianity teaches that God is righteous and Holy and morally perfect. It does not teach that He is unable to create free moral agents who can choose to do evil. In fact, Christianity teaches the opposite.

Now if you think, as some do, that there is some logical inconsistency between these concepts, then you will need to furnish good reasons and arguments.

 

[quatona]

The concept of God as one who is unable to create free moral agents by virtue of His omnibenevolence is not a concept found in Christianity. Christianity teaches that God is righteous and Holy and morally perfect. It does not teach that He is unable to create free moral agents who can choose to do evil. In fact, Christianity teaches the opposite.

Now if you think, as some do, that there is some logical inconsistency between these concepts, then you will need to furnish good reasons and arguments.

Well, if you think that creating evil is compatible with omnibenevolence/righteousness/moral perfection, you certainly must use some very creative definitions of these terms. I guess that´s the reason why people take you and your Willy the less serious the longer and more complex your verbal justifications of that idea get.
If an argument requires me to assume that "evil" is "good", I am pretty sure someone got lost in semantics trickery.

 

[anonymous person]

I'm not suggesting any indictment.

Yes; the consequence of omnibenevolence means that given a choice between an action that will lead to evil, and not doing that action (or doing an action that will not lead to evil) the latter option must be taken. An omnibenevolent being must always make the moral choice that avoids evil. It seems to me that's an essential of omnibenevolence. YMMV.

"It seems to me to be the case that my premise is true"

Is not a good argument.

If I told you that God exists or that metaphysical naturalism is false or that the Bible is inspired by God, and you asked me for reasons and arguments and evidence for those claims and I said, "It seems to me to be the case" you would respond by saying I had proven nothing, that I had given no reasons to think that those premises were true other than stating that they seemed to me to be true.

I reject your position for the same reason you would reject mine if I made those claims.

If you would those premises if I put them to you, you should reject yours also because the same fallacious reasoning is the basis of both.

Do you reject your premise?

Are you willing to drop your view of the incompatibility of God and evil in favor of one that is not fallacious?

 

[anonymous person]

Well, if you think that creating evil is compatible with omnibenevolence/righteousness/moral perfection, you certainly must use some very creative definitions of these terms. I guess that´s the reason why people take you and your Willy the less serious the longer and more complex your verbal justifications of that idea get.
If an argument requires me to assume that "evil" is "good", I am pretty sure someone got lost in semantics trickery.

I reject the notion that God created evil. I reject the notion that evil is even something that is created and I have given reasons why I reject those notions earlier in a post to Frumious.

 

[quatona]

I reject the notion that God created evil.

Too bad that you are in disagreement with the bible.

 

[anonymous person]

Too bad that you are in disagreement with the bible.

Surely you will quote Isaiah to me.

 

[Chriliman]

So you're saying that, for God, the ends justify the means?

If God knows the end result is good, but then chooses not to create the means which lead to that good end, then that would be an evil choice.

 

[Chriliman]

False dichotomy.

C. Choose to create because he determined the end result is evil.

This is not something an omnibenevolent God would choose to do, so we can remove this option.

D. Choose to create without caring whether the end result is good or evil.
etc...

An omnibenevolent God is all-loving and all-caring, so we can remove this option as well.

I'm not assuming an omnibenevolent, omniscient god exists. I'm asking what qualities a god would have given the existent universe. And it can't include both omnipotence and omnibenevolence, given the definition I (and probably everyone I know, theist or non-theist) would use.

Maybe you need to adjust your understanding of omnibenevolence. It means God is all-loving and all-good, which means he does not make evil choices, he only makes choices that are good and that lead to what is good, which is why we can remove the additional options you've added above.

 

[anonymous person]

If God knows the end result is good, but then chooses not to create the means which lead to that good end, then that would be an evil choice.

Chriliman, make these men bear their burden. They are claiming a logical inconsistency between two propositions which is not explicit. Therefore it is to them to give implicit reasons. IOW, they bear the burden. Make them bear it.