The Logical Problem of Evil: Mackie's World

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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

Is not a good argument.

Neither is, "You're wrong". But I'm not simply asserting my premise, I'm arguing the following:

P1: An omnibenevolent entity always makes the most morally desirable choice.
P2: A choice that does not lead to evil is more morally desirable than a choice that does lead to evil.
P3: God has the choice of creating a universe that leads to evil and creating a universe that does not lead to evil.
P4: God chose to create a universe that leads to evil.
C: God is not an omnibenevolent entity.

Which of the premises do you disagree with, and why?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

I'll take that as a 'Yes'. You're implying that God can create any amount of evil as a means to achieve a good end result, and it would be evil not to do that (rather than to do nothing at all?).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...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.

The traditional attributes are logically inconsistent in, and between, themselves.

An omnipotent entity has the power to do anything - including limit its own power, but any entity whose power can be limited is not omnipotent.

An omniscient entity knows its future actions, but to make a genuine choice it must deliberate about which option to take, believing that each option is genuinely possible; but this is not the case if it already knows which option it will take. Further, this means it cannot behave morally because that involves making a genuine choice of good over evil.

An omnibenevolent entity is unable to perform an evil action because that is incompatible with essential moral perfection, but this inability to do evil means an omnibenevolent entity cannot be omnipotent. Further, since an omnibenevolent entity has no choice but to do good, it cannot behave morally because that involves making a genuine choice of good over evil.

Just sayin'

 

[Chriliman]

I'll take that as a 'Yes'. You're implying that God can create any amount of evil as a means to achieve a good end result, and it would be evil not to do that (rather than to do nothing at all?).

No, I'm implying that it's good of God to create beings who can freely choose to listen to Him or not and it's only when they choose not to listen and do the contrary thing that is evil.

So you can clearly see that yes God allows us to choose evil, but he does not directly cause us to choose evil, we directly cause ourselves to choose evil by our own will, God corrects this behavior for obvious reasons.

 

[Chriliman]

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.

Indeed.

 

[anonymous person]

Neither is, "You're wrong". But I'm not simply asserting my premise, I'm arguing the following:

P1: An omnibenevolent entity always makes the most morally desirable choice.
P2: A choice that does not lead to evil is more morally desirable than a choice that does lead to evil.
P3: God has the choice of creating a universe that leads to evil and creating a universe that does not lead to evil.
P4: God chose to create a universe that leads to evil.
C: God is not an omnibenevolent entity.

Which of the premises do you disagree with, and why?

Rather than attack strawmen, I will wait for you to define your terms and give reasons and arguments for each premise. As it stands, and until you do, I can comfortably say that I neither reject nor affirm any of those premises. For example, what do you mean when you use the term omnibenevolent? Or the phrase "morally desirable"? Desirable to who? The omnibenevolent being?

Earlier you told me it's not so much about what this being prefers, but what it is obligated to do, but now your premises speak of desire which is synonymous with preference right?

You have much explaining to do and you will need to support each premise before I can attempt to adequately critique them.

 

[anonymous person]

The traditional attributes are logically inconsistent in, and between, themselves.

An omnipotent entity has the power to do anything - including limit its own power, but any entity whose power can be limited is not omnipotent.

I reject such a notion. No Christian Philosopher I am aware of uses the term omnipotence in such a way. The bible speaks of God as being Almighty, among other things. It never claims God can do anything. In fact, it states very plainly several things God cannot do.

An omniscient entity knows its future actions, but to make a genuine choice it must deliberate about which option to take, believing that each option is genuinely possible; but this is not the case if it already knows which option it will take. Further, this means it cannot behave morally because that involves making a genuine choice of good over evil.

This would be better suited for a separate thread don't you think?

An omnibenevolent entity is unable to perform an evil action because that is incompatible with essential moral perfection

On this we agree.

but this inability to do evil means an omnibenevolent entity cannot be omnipotent.

If you define the term as being able to do anything, which is as I stated, an understanding which I reject.

Further, since an omnibenevolent entity has no choice but to do good, it cannot behave morally because that involves making a genuine choice of good over evil.

Just sayin'

Why think God's goodness is something derived by whether or not He has the ability to choose to do evil or not?

God's goodness has been traditionally understood, and is supported by scripture, not as something predicated on the ability to choose between doing good and evil like some think of when it comes to human beings being considered good, but rather as an essential property, not derived by anything. God is essentially good.

Like I said, all of this makes for wonderful discourse but it is a little off topic.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

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.

That isn't my definition of omnibenevolence, but I can see why you would need to twist my words in an attempt to sidestep the issue. Dr. Dumb does it quite a bit.

The definition of omnibenevolent is "unlimited or infinite benevolence (disposition to do good)". The unnecessary creation of something that can choose to do evil is, to me, an act that isn't consistent with an infinite disposition to do good.

It's easy to see if you take off the blinders of religion. I think if I asked 100 people if the creation of a self-aware robot that can decide to murder when it was within the ability of the creator to design the robot so that there was no way it would murder, I'm guessing that the vast majority of people would say that it was evil to create such a thing.

Now, as I've already said, you may think it's perfectly fine and good that a god would cause unnecessary suffering. If that's the case, then we don't have anything to discuss. But, like I've already said, once you start redefining words away from the definitions that most people use, you cease to be able to communicate.

Maybe that's your point...

 

[ToddNotTodd]

No, I'm implying that it's good of God to create beings who can freely choose to listen to Him or not and it's only when they choose not to listen and do the contrary thing that is evil.

So it's good to create beings that can cause suffering when the possibility to create those same beings so they don't choose to case suffering exists?

 

[anonymous person]

That isn't my definition of omnibenevolence, but I can see why you would need to twist my words in an attempt to sidestep the issue. Dr. Idiot does it quite a bit.

The definition of omnibenevolent is "unlimited or infinite benevolence (disposition to do good)". The unnecessary creation of something that can choose to do evil is, to me, an act that isn't consistent with an infinite disposition to do good.

It's easy to see if you take off the blinders of religion. I think if I asked 100 people if the creation of a self-aware robot that can decide to murder when it was within the ability of the creator to design the robot so that there was no way it would murder, I'm guessing that the vast majority of people would say that it was evil to create such a thing.

Now, as I've already said, you may think it's perfectly fine and good that a god would cause unnecessary suffering. If that's the case, then we don't have anything to discuss. But, like I've already said, once you start redefining words away from the definitions that most people use, you cease to be able to communicate.

Maybe that's your point...

Ok well stating what something is to you or what something is in your mind or what something is in your understanding isn't a good argument. It's not an argument at all.

To me, God and and evil are compatible.

That's easy to say. Isn't proving anything though. It's not an argument.

I'm glad you have said what you have said though. I think it highlights the natural response we have when we think of evil. We recoil at it. Such a response however should be a clue pointing towards the existence of God not away from it.

In the absence of God, the evil you envision and see day to day is simply the result of chance. Of certain things happening for no overarching purpose or rhyme or reason. Things just happen and we deal with it. But that's for another thread.

 

[juvenissun]

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).

4) God wants to avoid all unnecessary evil and suffering in achieving just ends; any unnecessary evil will be stopped by God. (Justification: 2c)

God wants to use evil to get the highest good.

Would this solve your problem?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Ok well stating what something is to you or what something is in your mind or what something is in your understanding isn't a good argument. It's not an argument at all.

Every single human being who argues a position does so with the understanding they have for each of the terms of their argument. To suggest otherwise is nonsensical. So by stating that I'm going by my understanding of a particular term, I'm doing the exact same thing you (and everyone else does) when you construct an argument.

So your claims that this isn't an argument are unfounded. It's an argument predicated on definitions that I would venture to guess the majority of people actually hold. That you perhaps don't hold to these definitions simply means that you can't engage in conversation with those that do. The problem of evil is only a problem for people that take to traditional definitions of "evil".

I'm glad you have said what you have said though. I think it highlights the natural response we have when we think of evil. We recoil at it. Such a response however should be a clue pointing towards the existence of God not away from it.

Non sequitur. You can't get to "a god exists" from "there are things that humans recoil from".

 

[Chriliman]

So it's good to create beings that can cause suffering when the possibility to create those same beings so they don't choose to case suffering exists?

God doesn't deal in possibilities because he's omniscient, he already knows what actions will result in the greatest love and good. Creating beings with freedom to listen to him or not, results in the greatest love and good in the end.(notice we mere men have not reached the end yet)

To think that God has to consider possibilities, means he's not omniscient, remember He is God, not a mere man, he already knows what actions result in the greatest good and greatest love and he executes these actions perfectly, this is why so many mere men trust in Him, including myself.

This will be my last post on this thread.

Thanks and God bless!

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Creating beings with freedom to listen to him or not, results in the greatest love and good in the end.(notice we mere men have not reached the end yet)

I personally don't think that unnecessary suffering is a good thing, so we'll just have to disagree on this point.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

1. So you can clearly see that yes God allows us to choose evil, but he does not directly cause us to choose evil, we directly cause ourselves to choose evil by our own will, God corrects this behavior for obvious reasons.

   I can see that means God creates us knowing the evil we will do, and also creates a world with situations that He knows will result in evil choices. Given that He has freely chosen to do this despite having the alternative of not doing this (or of creating a world where evil will not result - which, as an omnipotent entity, must be within His Power), He cannot, on this account, be as acting in as moral a way as He could be, and so cannot be at the peak of moral rectitude, i.e. omnibenevolent.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... what do you mean when you use the term omnibenevolent?

The relevant attributes (there could be others) would be morally perfect, all-good, or of infinite goodness, such that every act of an omnibenevolent entity would be good, and every choice would favour the more morally desirable over the less morally desirable (defined below).

...the phrase "morally desirable"?

The moral desirability of an act is the extent to which an act is right or wrong, good or evil; where right or good is more morally desirable than wrong or evil.

Desirable to who? The omnibenevolent being?

For the argument, it doesn't matter, as long as it is used consistently.

Earlier you told me it's not so much about what this being prefers, but what it is obligated to do, but now your premises speak of desire which is synonymous with preference right?

That's mixing the contexts of use. An omnibenevolent entity is morally perfect by definition, which implies always choosing the most morally desirable action (as defined above). That is what I meant by being 'obliged' to make such choices. I'm sorry if you found my choice of words confusing.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... we directly cause ourselves to choose evil by our own will, God corrects this behavior for obvious reasons.

If God corrects our evil behaviour why are there still evil acts and evil consequences of acts? is God unable or unwilling to correct them all?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I reject such a notion. No Christian Philosopher I am aware of uses the term omnipotence in such a way. The bible speaks of God as being Almighty, among other things. It never claims God can do anything. In fact, it states very plainly several things God cannot do.

I'm using the common dictionary definition, 'unlimited power' (vocabularly.com even suggests, 'can do absolutely anything') . What definition do you prefer - what does 'Almighty' mean if not 'having unlimited power'?

This would be better suited for a separate thread don't you think?

Possibly; it was just an aside.

Why think God's goodness is something derived by whether or not He has the ability to choose to do evil or not?

You misread my comment - I was saying that an omnibenevolent entity cannot do other than good, but since moral behaviour involves making a genuine choice of good over evil, such an entity cannot act morally because it doesn't have a genuine choice.

God's goodness has been traditionally understood, and is supported by scripture, not as something predicated on the ability to choose between doing good and evil like some think of when it comes to human beings being considered good, but rather as an essential property, not derived by anything. God is essentially good.

This would seem to make whatever God does good by definition, and if whatever God does is good, and good is whatever God does, 'good' becomes arbitrary and effectively redundant, what God does is just what God does; but it is also considered wrong for man to do some of the things that God does, which makes a double standard for good - what God does, and what is good for man. That's a mess... It also renders the 'morally sufficient reason' excuse redundant; if whatever God does is good by definition, He doesn't need a morally sufficient reason for it (which at least removes the problem of how to make moral judgements if actions can have unknown 'morally sufficient reasons').

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... I think it highlights the natural response we have when we think of evil. We recoil at it. Such a response however should be a clue pointing towards the existence of God not away from it.

Not really; it just means we find the egregious violation of the most important moral codes, and the suffering that may cause, to be repellent or horrific.

In the absence of God, the evil you envision and see day to day is simply the result of chance. Of certain things happening for no overarching purpose or rhyme or reason. Things just happen and we deal with it.

Yup; they may be called 'acts of God', but I doubt that most Christians believe that God causes natural evils.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

God doesn't deal in possibilities because he's omniscient, he already knows what actions will result in the greatest love and good. ...
To think that God has to consider possibilities, means he's not omniscient, remember He is God, not a mere man, he already knows what actions result in the greatest good and greatest love and he executes these actions perfectly...

So He literally has no choice in His actions - not only does He already know what He will do, but also He can only act for the greatest good and greatest love. Oh, the constraints of the divine...