The Logical Problem of Evil: Mackie's World

[J. Elias]

What I meant was we can consider that God created all events before time began
including what you will ask of him tomorrow.
And we can look to God and do as He asks us tomorrow.
But we cannot reconcile the two processes and think that we have no choices.
We do. It just so happens that God knows those choices.

So, would you be saying God literally created all events in time? Or that He sovereignly ordains them to pass?

Also, if I understand correctly, this sounds like you believe in static time, of "B Theory." Is that correct? I've always held to dynamic time, or A theory myself. But that's an entirely different debate.

 

[Chany]

Was this still on the first page, or was a chance at necromancy that hard to pass up on?

 

[J. Elias]

Was this still on the first page, or was a chance at necromancy that hard to pass up on?

I'm terribly sorry, but I don't understand what you meant by this. If you could please elaborate, I might be able to answer.

 

[Chany]

I'm terribly sorry, but I don't understand what you meant by this. If you could please elaborate, I might be able to answer.

Sorry, allow me to explain.

When it comes to internet, there are some unspoken rules (etiquette). For internet forums, one of those rules is reviving old threads that have no new posts for a while. This is referred to thread necromancy. The conversation has run its course and the thread has "died". You aren't supposed to bring back the dead because the topic has passed. It pushes down threads that are currently alive.

 

[J. Elias]

Sorry, allow me to explain.

When it comes to internet, there are some unspoken rules (etiquette). For internet forums, one of those rules is reviving old threads that have no new posts for a while. This is referred to thread necromancy. The conversation has run its course and the thread has "died". You aren't supposed to bring back the dead because the topic has passed. It pushes down threads that are currently alive.

Ah, I see. Well, as you could probably tell, I don't have much experience with forums. Aside from general courtesy I'm a bit unaware of them. I apologize for any disturbance or annoyance it may have caused, so far as I knew I was just commenting on an interesting thread. Thanks for the heads-up!

 

[ScottA]

What I meant was we can consider that God created all events before time began
including what you will ask of him tomorrow.
And we can look to God and do as He asks us tomorrow.
But we cannot reconcile the two processes and think that we have no choices.
We do. It just so happens that God knows those choices.

I prefer to consider living in time as living within the pages of a book that is already written.

In other words, God is without time, and the world then is like a book about time on His timeless shelf. Which, of course, means that He knows the end because He is the Author of the book, and we do not...simply because we have not read it all the way through to the end.

 

[SkyWriting]

I prefer to consider living in time as living within the pages of a book that is already written. In other words, God is without time, and the world then is like a book about time on His timeless shelf. Which, of course, means that He knows the end because He is the Author of the book, and we do not...simply because we have not read it all the way through to the end.

That matches how scripture explains it. On the other hand, the disciples were
instructed to go preach the gospel to the world. This implies that everything
written could possibly be changed. This idea is covered extensively:
http://biblehub.net/search.php?q=erased

 

[SkyWriting]

Ah, I see. Well, as you could probably tell, I don't have much experience with forums. Aside from general courtesy I'm a bit unaware of them. I apologize for any disturbance or annoyance it may have caused, so far as I knew I was just commenting on an interesting thread. Thanks for the heads-up!

There is nothing really wrong with that. Just be aware when posting that
the Opening Post may be from somebody no longer alive. Mention that the
OP is old in your response so that others are aware as well.

 

[ScottA]

That matches how scripture explains it. On the other hand, the disciples were
instructed to go preach the gospel to the world. This implies that everything
written could possibly be changed. This idea is covered extensively:
http://biblehub.net/search.php?q=erased

That implication would have the disciples at odds with the scriptures...which has happened historically among disciples. But would not be the case with Christ.

The idea that things can be changed, or even that God can have a change of heart - is simply misunderstood. These changes simply "tell the story" of the changes that occur within the story in chronological order. Change - even God changing His mind - is the story...so of course it is going to be in there!

 

[J. Elias]

That implication would have the disciples at odds with the scriptures...which has happened historically among disciples. But would not be the case with Christ.

The idea that things can be changed, or even that God can have a change of heart - is simply misunderstood. These changes simply "tell the story" of the changes that occur within the story in chronological order. Change - even God changing His mind - is the story...so of course it is going to be in there!

Hmm...interesting book analogy above. I suppose my only question would be "If time exists as a creation of God, then could God destroy time and make it as though it never existed?"

It seems to me that God in His necessity is eternal, and yet by creating time, He either binds Himself to it, or perhaps is bound by a higher form of time than ours, a meta-universal time of some sort.

 

[ScottA]

Hmm...interesting book analogy above. I suppose my only question would be "If time exists as a creation of God, then could God destroy time and make it as though it never existed?"

It seems to me that God in His necessity is eternal, and yet by creating time, He either binds Himself to it, or perhaps is bound by a higher form of time than ours, a meta-universal time of some sort.

Imagine, you making up (creating) a story in your mind that has a timeline - would it ever actually have a timeline, if you yourself did not? No, the whole thing would be contrived...which is simply what is meant by "created" in His "image" (His minds eye).

Remember, also, out of all of this would be creation of billions...only One is actually begotten. All the rest (we) are little more than the internal details - the Adams (atoms)...so to speak.

 

[Received]

Here, I will try to clearly articulate a common argument against the existence of God, the free will defense, and a reply to said defense. I will then argue that if you accept the premises of the argument relating to the nature of God, then you must follow the conclusion that God cannot exist. You will notice that put the word "logical" in the thread title. This simply means the version of the problem of evil being discussed tries to show God is logically incompatible with the existence of evil. In other words, the definition of God cannot coexist with the current (and present) existence of evil because their mutual existence logically contradict each other, much like a square-circle cannot exist.

To start:

1) Evil and suffering exists. (Justificaiton: prima facie true.)

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).

3) The good agent wants to avoid as much evil and suffering as possible; the good agent wants avoid all unnecessary evil. For example, if the agent wants to teach someone something important, he strive for the path that causes the least amount of unnecessary suffering. If the agent can either teach me through non-painful tutoring or painful torture, the agent will always choose non-painful tutoring. (Jusitifcation: prima facie true)

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

5) There exists no necessary evils in our world. (Jusitifcation: 2a and 2b. God can always teach us through non-painful ways, for example. There is no just end being served in allowing the torture of innocent people)

6) Therefore, God is incompatible with the existence of evil. Because evil clearly exists, God cannot exist. (Justification: All)

The obvious response is to reject Premise 5 and claim that God must respect the free will of agents as a necessary evil to achieve the just end of freedom. Here, I will respond to this claim.

1) God has divine-foreknowledge of the actions of free creatures. In other words, God knows what an agent with free will ultimately chooses before that agent even actually exists. God knows if I will freely rob the bank or refrain from do so, for example. (Justification: God's omniscience).

2) Mackie's world is possible. Mackie's world is a possible world where all free agents choose to do the morally good action with every choice. In other words, no one does anything evil, so evil does not exist. (Justification: prima facie true. Though it seems improbable and odd, it is logically conceivable, so it is, therefore, logically possible. There is no reason to believe such a world is not possible.)

3) God can actualize Mackie's world. (Justification: Premise 1, God's omnipotence and omniscience. God is aware of Mackie's world and create said world, as God can create all logically possible worlds).

4) Therefore, the free will defense does not stand, as the existence of free will does not necessitate evil existing. God could have created a possible world with both free will and no evil.

I admit that Premise 1 of the second argument is questionable. If you believe God cannot know actions that result from free will before they happen, then the argument does not apply to you. However, if you accept this premise, please explain where this Argument from Evil fails.

This is an excellent argument, but I question whether evils aren't necessary, and whether Mackie's world is possible. Evil might simply be the needed stepping stone in a self's development toward reaching the good. If Mackie's world were possible, it would be such that every self chose in such a way as to not make this realization of the value of the good through choosing evil, which would arguably be a psychologically and spiritually less satisfying world. Only by experiencing evil, as it happens to us or as it pervades our characters in our choosing it, do we learn to value the good. We can see this by contrasting the superficiality of the innocence of a child with the depth of an adult, who has seen his fair share of evil.

If we assume the above is true, then it follows that some degree of evil is necessary. But clearly not all evils that relate to human freedom are necessary, and natural disasters (which aren't technically evil given the lack of agency) still exist. IF this isn't an argument against omnipotence, it's at least an argument against omnipotence as is commonly understood in the West.

 

[anonymous person]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "negative motivators".

Mackie's world is a world where agents have the possibility to do either wrong or right. For example, in both Mackie's world and our world, someone can either freely choose to steal something or refrain from doing so. The difference between the two is that, in Mackie's world, all agents always pick the morally good option. Their free will is never questioned nor diminished. It's just that they always happen to exercise their free will to do the right thing.

While such a world is logically possible, such a world may not be feasible for God to create if God has certain ends in mind for creating other than just creating a world wherein there is no evil.

I see no reason to think that God would somehow be constrained from creating this world in which we live.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

While such a world is logically possible, such a world may not be feasible for God to create if God has certain ends in mind for creating other than just creating a world wherein there is no evil.

The odd thing is that God is supposed to have created heaven, in which there is no evil, and heaven is the ultimate objective for human souls(?), so an omnibenevolent God could avoid the preceding Earthly evil, but this God doesn't. The argument that we must experience the moral and natural evils of time on Earth in order to be ready for heaven doesn't hold good for an omniscient God who would know precisely how such experience would affect us and, being omnipotent, could create beings with such character traits built-in, without having them suffer for them.

Does one still have free will in heaven?

I see no reason to think that God would somehow be constrained from creating this world in which we live.

Omnibenevolence would appear to be a constraint from creating the natural, if not the moral, evils of this world.

 

[anonymous person]

The odd thing is that God is supposed to have created heaven, in which there is no evil, and heaven is the ultimate objective for human souls(?),

Why do you think heaven is the ultimate objective for humans? Why think that there is even such a thing as an ultimate objective for human beings to begin with?

so an omnibenevolent God could avoid the preceding Earthly evil, but this God doesn't.

Earth is not heaven.

And God did not have to create the earth.

The argument that we must experience the moral and natural evils of time on Earth in order to be ready for heaven doesn't hold good for an omniscient God

Who made that argument? I certainly haven't.

who would know precisely how such experience would affect us and, being omnipotent, could create beings with such character traits built-in, without having them suffer for them.

It's a good thing I'm not making that argument.

Does one still have free will in heaven?

I think so.

Omnibenevolence would appear to be a constraint from creating the natural, if not the moral, evils of this world.

Why do you think God created evil?

Why think God being omnibenevolent would preclude Him from creating this world? Where are your implicit premises?

 

[anonymous person]

Hmm...interesting book analogy above. I suppose my only question would be "If time exists as a creation of God, then could God destroy time and make it as though it never existed?"

It seems to me that God in His necessity is eternal, and yet by creating time, He either binds Himself to it, or perhaps is bound by a higher form of time than ours, a meta-universal time of some sort.

God exists timelessly sans creation and in time subsequent to creation.

 

[anonymous person]

Here, I will try to clearly articulate a common argument against the existence of God, the free will defense, and a reply to said defense. I will then argue that if you accept the premises of the argument relating to the nature of God, then you must follow the conclusion that God cannot exist. You will notice that put the word "logical" in the thread title. This simply means the version of the problem of evil being discussed tries to show God is logically incompatible with the existence of evil. In other words, the definition of God cannot coexist with the current (and present) existence of evil because their mutual existence logically contradict each other, much like a square-circle cannot exist.

To start:

1) Evil and suffering exists. (Justificaiton: prima facie true.)

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).

3) The good agent wants to avoid as much evil and suffering as possible; the good agent wants avoid all unnecessary evil. For example, if the agent wants to teach someone something important, he strive for the path that causes the least amount of unnecessary suffering. If the agent can either teach me through non-painful tutoring or painful torture, the agent will always choose non-painful tutoring. (Jusitifcation: prima facie true)

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

5) There exists no necessary evils in our world. (Jusitifcation: 2a and 2b. God can always teach us through non-painful ways, for example. There is no just end being served in allowing the torture of innocent people)

6) Therefore, God is incompatible with the existence of evil. Because evil clearly exists, God cannot exist. (Justification: All)

The obvious response is to reject Premise 5 and claim that God must respect the free will of agents as a necessary evil to achieve the just end of freedom. Here, I will respond to this claim.

1) God has divine-foreknowledge of the actions of free creatures. In other words, God knows what an agent with free will ultimately chooses before that agent even actually exists. God knows if I will freely rob the bank or refrain from do so, for example. (Justification: God's omniscience).

2) Mackie's world is possible. Mackie's world is a possible world where all free agents choose to do the morally good action with every choice. In other words, no one does anything evil, so evil does not exist. (Justification: prima facie true. Though it seems improbable and odd, it is logically conceivable, so it is, therefore, logically possible. There is no reason to believe such a world is not possible.)

3) God can actualize Mackie's world. (Justification: Premise 1, God's omnipotence and omniscience. God is aware of Mackie's world and create said world, as God can create all logically possible worlds).

4) Therefore, the free will defense does not stand, as the existence of free will does not necessitate evil existing. God could have created a possible world with both free will and no evil.

I admit that Premise 1 of the second argument is questionable. If you believe God cannot know actions that result from free will before they happen, then the argument does not apply to you. However, if you accept this premise, please explain where this Argument from Evil fails.

I reject five but not for the reason you have given a response to.

The reason I reject five is that you've given no reason to think the premise is true. You just state the premise and move to six.

Dr. Craig in the video around the 3 minute mark demonstrates why this argument fails. It fails because it attempts to prove too much.

 

[Chriliman]

The odd thing is that God is supposed to have created heaven, in which there is no evil, and heaven is the ultimate objective for human souls(?), so an omnibenevolent God could avoid the preceding Earthly evil, but this God doesn't. The argument that we must experience the moral and natural evils of time on Earth in order to be ready for heaven doesn't hold good for an omniscient God who would know precisely how such experience would affect us and, being omnipotent, could create beings with such character traits built-in, without having them suffer for them.

Does one still have free will in heaven?
Omnibenevolence would appear to be a constraint from creating the natural, if not the moral, evils of this world.

Actually there was evil in heaven which is why it was cast out to the earth by God. God is also casting out evil from earth and bringing His heavenly Kingdom to earth. When Gods will is done, there will be no evil in heaven or earth.

The only place evil has never existed is in God Himself, which of course makes perfect sense

 

[anonymous person]

In addition Chany, I reject premise three of your response to the free will defense.

While Mackie's world may be a logically possible world, it does not follow that God can actualize it, for it very well may be that in any world God actualizes wherein there exist free moral agents, at least one of them chooses to do evil.

A portion of Dr. Craig's Defender's Podcast transcript highlights this:

Question: It seems like God would be able to create any world He wants; He could create a world without free will. So He could choose not to create free will. So you need to have the best of all possible worlds.

Answer: I don’t think so. Certainly God could create a world without any free creatures in it at all. He could create a world that has no higher life forms than rabbits, for example. That is certainly within God’s power. But there may be worlds – for example, worlds of free persons that involve as much moral good as this world does, but He doesn’t have the ability to create them – and then, say, in these possible worlds these persons would never sin, and there would be no evil and no suffering. God may not have the ability to create those worlds because if He tried to create those people in those circumstances, they would not cooperate, and they wouldn’t do the right thing. So there is any number of possible worlds that are logically possible for God to create, but they are not actually feasible for Him to create because the people in them would not cooperate; they would freely go wrong.

Followup: He can choose to create any world He wants, but what you are saying is He can’t choose one that is logically inconsistent, correct?3

Answer: No, I am not saying that. Let’s imagine a world without sin, in which there are lots of free people, and in every moral situation they find themselves in they always make the right choice. That is a logically possible world. There is nothing illogical or self-contradictory about a world like that. But what I am saying is that that kind of a world may not be feasible for God to create because if He created those people, in those circumstances, they might freely go wrong. And so that world wouldn’t come about. It is not within God’s control to make them always do the right thing. If He did that, that removes their freedom. This leads to this rather paradoxical conclusion that I think is quite correct that there are worlds that are, in and of themselves, logically possible – there is no inconsistency in a world in which people always freely do the right thing – , but those things might not be feasible for God to create because, in order to do that, He would have to override their free will, and in these worlds we are imagining people do have free will.

Question: How do you reconcile the doctrine of heaven? Is it possible for people in heaven to sin? Given an infinite future, wouldn’t it seem possible that every free agent in heaven would sin?

Answer: I think there are a couple of ways to deal with this. This comes up in my debate with the philosopher Ray Bradley on the question of hell.4What I point out in that debate is that heaven is not itself a possible world. Heaven is the result of a state that leads up to heaven where people have freely chosen to obey and worship God, and so they are rewarded and go to heaven. It is not as though God could just sort of scale away or take off this pre-mortem state and just create heaven by itself because heaven is the state which is the result of all these prior choices. If He did try to create such an isolated world, then you have got a new world on your hands, and it might very well be the case that then the people would go wrong and do the wrong thing. The deeper question posed by your question is, in heaven will people have the freedom to sin or not? I think there are a couple of ways that one might respond to this. There isn’t any sort of orthodox doctrine on this. I think a couple of sorts of responses are possible. One would be that people in heaven do have the freedom to sin but God has chosen the elect to be only those who, if they were in heaven, would always freely choose to do the right thing. So even though they have the ability to sin, they just won’t exercise it. The other thing you could say – and this I find very plausible – is that the freedom to sin is effectively removed in heaven by coming to see Christ in all of His beauty and glory and purity. I think that the human will to evil will simply be overcome by the powerful and immediate presence of Christ. So, just as iron filings stick to a gigantic magnet, there would not be the ability to fall away because Christ, being seen in all of His magnificence, would be so attractive and irresistible that the freedom to sin would be removed. But again, that is only the result of a pre-mortem condition in which people are created at a sort of “arm’s length” from God and all His glory and thus have the freedom to respond or refuse to believe in Him during this vale of decision-making until we get to heaven.



Read more:http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s4-32#ixzz4ICy7RdlX

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Why do you think heaven is the ultimate objective for humans? Why think that there is even such a thing as an ultimate objective for human beings to begin with?

That's what the priests taught me at school. I naturally assumed they ought to know...

Earth is not heaven.

And God did not have to create the earth.

Quite; that's the point.

Who made that argument? I certainly haven't.

It's an argument that has been made in these forums.

It's a good thing I'm not making that argument.

Other Christians have.

Why do you think God created evil?

If God existed and created evil, then He would not be omnibenevolent, but why a God would create evil is a horrible mystery to me.

Why think God being omnibenevolent would preclude Him from creating this world? Where are your implicit premises?

It's the traditional problem of evil that remains unanswered. By definition, an omnibenevolent entity is all good, not least in action; such an entity cannot condone or be responsible for evil through its own action or inaction. This world is rife with natural (and moral) evils. Therefore this world cannot be the result of the action of an omnibenevolent entity, and such an entity would, if able, act to prevent those evils. An omnipotent omnibenevolent entity would be able to so act.