The Problem of Evil

[quatona]

What difference does that make? Knowing something doesn't make something fate.

Creating a world from scratch in full knowledge od the outcome does make the difference.
The fact that an entity knows the future just tells us that it is determined.
The fact that the entity knowing the future was the same who set up things tells us who determined it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

But an omnipotent being would know what the result of every creation and choice it made would mean for the future, if the future can be told. An omnipotent being would always know, otherwise it wouldn't be omnipotent. If there is more than one possible future, if choice actually matters, then there is a chance the omnipotent being could guess incorrectly, because if not then there really wasn't a choice to begin with. Omnipotence and free will are incompatible.

I beat you to it

 

[abacabb3]

But an omnipotent being would know what the result of every creation and choice it made would mean for the future, if the future can be told. An omnipotent being would always know, otherwise it wouldn't be omnipotent. If there is more than one possible future, if choice actually matters, then there is a chance the omnipotent being could guess incorrectly, because if not then there really wasn't a choice to begin with. Omnipotence and free will are incompatible.

I think it is useful to think of free will and its course through history as a domino rally.

BY the way, it's good that we solved the problem of evil...

 

[PsychoSarah]

I think it is useful to think of free will and its course through history as a domino rally.

BY the way, it's good that we solved the problem of evil...

Not really.

 

[Chany]

I think it is useful to think of free will and its course through history as a domino rally.

BY the way, it's good that we solved the problem of evil...

We haven't, I haven't had time to work on a proper response.

 

[Loudmouth]

Do you know what perfect knowledge of the future is?

Do you know what omnipotence is?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I think it is useful to think of free will and its course through history as a domino rally.

BY the way, it's good that we solved the problem of evil...

Yes, we solved it. Solved it by showing that the Christian god isn't good...

 

[abacabb3]

We haven't, I haven't had time to work on a proper response.

You can say that we have not, but I just don't see compelling evidence if there is a problem on our hands. Where is the evidence? Am I just to accept that evil is a problem by faith? Do we want it to be a problem?

 

[abacabb3]

Yes, we solved it. Solved it by showing that the Christian god isn't good...

Why isn't He good?

 

[abacabb3]

Do you know what omnipotence is?

It is the ability to do absolutely everything that is logically possible. Now, do you honestly understand what perfect knowledge of the future is? This is a point I addressed you with for five posts and you ignored it each time. You make the positive claim that evil can never in the future result to some positive good. Without out knowledge of the future, how can you make that claim?

This is without even getting into your anthropocentric view of the universe, which is also terribly flawed and presumptuous, without any positive evidence.

 

[quatona]

You can say that we have not, but I just don't see compelling evidence if there is a problem on our hands.

Yes, right: Until there is evidence for a god existing the problem of evil is entirely hypothetical, anyway.

Am I just to accept that evil is a problem by faith? Do we want it to be a problem?

The PoE ís a logical deduction addressing concepts of omni-all creator entities. It doesn´t say we have a problem on our hands.

 

[abacabb3]

Yes, right: Until there is evidence for a god existing the problem of evil is entirely hypothetical, anyway.

Correct, which is why I really wonder why the argument is so compelling to begin with. We are arguing about the supposed nature of something that might not exist. There's tons of logical errors in this that are so obvious, I am surprised no one else has brought this up. I deny the argument on conceptual grounds, the PoE just doesn't make sense.

The PoE ís a logical deduction addressing concepts of omni-all creator entities. It doesn´t say we have a problem on our hands.

Yeah, but I don't have a problem either. I never said I believed in the omni-qualities you define. I believe in how the Scripture defines God. However, I don't need to prove that to you, because I am not trying to convince you of that. I just need to show the PoE doesn't make sense on logical grounds.

The real definitional issue here is the nature of benevolence. I don't think the existence of evil by necessity makes God any more or less benevolent. Until it can be demonstrated that evil makes an omni-God less benevolent, then I don't think there's even an argument.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Why isn't He good?

Because he doesn't exhibit the qualification that I have for "good".

 

[PsychoSarah]

It is the ability to do absolutely everything that is logically possible. Now, do you honestly understand what perfect knowledge of the future is? This is a point I addressed you with for five posts and you ignored it each time. You make the positive claim that evil can never in the future result to some positive good. Without out knowledge of the future, how can you make that claim?

This is without even getting into your anthropocentric view of the universe, which is also terribly flawed and presumptuous, without any positive evidence.

No one said that evil cannot have a future good result, but an omnipotent being can make the good result happen without evil. And omnipotent being don't have to compromise with anything, it can make everything go perfectly without evil if it wanted. Since an omnipotent being can do anything and knows everything, nothing is impossible for it, so using evil or allowing it to exist is completely a choice for such a being, it doesn't have to use it to get what it wants, because by definition an omnipotent being could make a world that gets the benefits than the introduction of evil,would produce without having to actually allow evil to exist.

However, omnipotence alone doesn't mean that such a being wouldn't just choose to allow evil to exist anyways, so an omnipotent god could exist.

Then we have a 100% benevolent being. Such a deity would never allow for evil, suffering, etc. of it could avoid it, because by definition a benign entity wouldn't want these things to happen. However, benevolence alone doesn't mean that the deity could avoid it, it might need to make a compromise, the options could be limited, therefore a benevolent deity could also exist.

But then people present the idea of a deity with both traits. Now a being which doesn't have to allow evil to exist nor wants evil to exist would never allow it to exist, because it would never have to make that compromise and it would never want to. Because if a being which is entirely good dislikes sin and suffering, and this same being is perfectly capable of making a functioning universe without sin or suffering ever having to be present, it wouldn't. Our universe definitely had suffering, pain, etc., thus, it could not possibly have been created by a being which is both all powerful and all benevolent.

You don't need to understand any particular deity to know that a being which has a dislike of evil, which can also remove the presence of evil or never make it exist to begin with, would never let evil exist/create it to begin with.

Note, a deity which has one of these traits and is close but not quite having the other can exist, it just cannot have both and be the creator of the universe. In my personal opinion, in observing what the universe looks like, I would say if it was created by a deity that being didn't have either omnipotence or complete benevolence. There are way too many mistakes/inconsistencies for omnipotence, and there is far too much suffering for complete benevolence, in my views.

 

[quatona]

Correct, which is why I really wonder why the argument is so compelling to begin with.

Well, the argument is compelling - the question, however, remains whether that which it addresses does even exist.

We are arguing about the supposed nature of something that might not exist.

Now, the argument shows that - in a certain conceptualization - it can´t exist.
That´s a very useful practice - reductio ad absurdum.

There's tons of logical errors in this that are so obvious, I am surprised no one else has brought this up. I deny the argument on conceptual grounds, the PoE just doesn't make sense.

You would have to show those errors. I haven´t read each single of your posts (so it´s possible that at some point you did) but in those posts of yours I have read you always omitted at least one of its premises.

Yeah, but I don't have a problem either.

I didn´t say you had.

I never said I believed in the omni-qualities you define.

Then, the PoE doesn´t address your god concept. That, however, doesn´t render it faulty (in reference to the god concepts it does address).

I believe in how the Scripture defines God.
However, I don't need to prove that to you, because I am not trying to convince you of that. I just need to show the PoE doesn't make sense on logical grounds.

Then go ahead and do it.
Simply telling me that it doesn´t address your god concepts (when its premises clearly show which god concept it addresses) isn´t doing that.

The real definitional issue here is the nature of benevolence. I don't think the existence of evil by necessity makes God any more or less benevolent. Until it can be demonstrated that evil makes an omni-God less benevolent, then I don't think there's even an argument.

That´s actually no issue at all - unless we assume that god is entirely happy with the state of affairs. In which case the Christian salvation gag would be pointless, anyway.

 

[abacabb3]

Because he doesn't exhibit the qualification that I have for "good".

So, it's not what is really good, but your opinion of it? Or rather, is your opinion of good necessarily correct and applicable to everyone?

 

[abacabb3]

No one said that evil cannot have a future good result, but an omnipotent being can make the good result happen without evil.

But, not necessarily. An ominpotent being cannot make something so heavy He cannot lift it up, for example.

So, can an Omnipotent being exhibit the goodness that exists in forgiveness, perseverance, mercy, healing, and a slew of other things that can only exist if there is contrary evil? That is a very serious question.

I think that your definition of "good" may be faulty, because it is missing components of goodness that we know to exist. Your burden is that you must show that mercy, forgiveness, healing and etcetera are counterfeit goods and that their non-existence would be preferable.

Furthermore, you are presuming an anthropocentric universe. So you have two uphill climbs there.

Since an omnipotent being can do anything and knows everything, nothing is impossible for it, so using evil or allowing it to exist is completely a choice for such a being, it doesn't have to use it to get what it wants, because by definition an omnipotent being could make a world that gets the benefits than the introduction of evil,would produce without having to actually allow evil to exist.

Again, this is not logically necessary either. If an omnipotent being cannot do the logically impossible (like willing itself to create something ti cannot pick up) it cannot create forgiveness without something to forgive.

Further, you are presuming an anthropocentric universe!!!

Such a deity would never allow for evil, suffering, etc. of it could avoid it, because by definition a benign entity wouldn't want these things to happen.

Again, you have not demonstrated this. Demonstrate how a omni-benevolent being must have an anthropocentric view of the universe, please.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Show me how an entity which is benign would allow its creations to suffer when suffering would be completely unnecessary because that deity could just as easily get what it wants without suffering.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

So, it's not what is really good, but your opinion of it? Or rather, is your opinion of good necessarily correct and applicable to everyone?

I'm a subjectivist, leaning towards non congitivism. There exists no "really good". So while my desire is for everyone to have the same qualifications of "good" as I have, I realize that can't be the case. I will say that I have a hard time fathoming someone's definition of "good" that includes the allowance of preventable suffering, although as I'm typing this I'm imagining a man who insists he's "good" to his wife while beating her. The upshot of this is that unless everyone agrees on terms, communication can't reliably happen. I've been in way too many discussions with theists that take a turn when they announce that the things we've been discussing have different meanings in their religion. It's a great way to end a conversation when you know you're being backed into a corner you can't get out of in any other way...

 

[abacabb3]

Well, the argument is compelling - the question, however, remains whether that which it addresses does even exist.

Not compelling, there are conceptual issues, namely, the fact we cannot prove He exists.


However, if I were to employ your own faulty logic, God by necessity exists, because you presume God must be evil or incompetent because it exists.

Well, by that logic, because existence exists, then God must exists.

Do you really want to make that claim?

You would have to show those errors. I haven´t read each single of your posts (so it´s possible that at some point you did) but in those posts of yours I have read you always omitted at least one of its premises.

Bring up a point I have not addressed then, quite frankly I am getting bored of Epicurus being quoted again and again and me showing that his argument is anthropocentric and misdefines benevolence.

Then, the PoE doesn´t address your god concept. That, however, doesn´t render it faulty (in reference to the god concepts it does address).

Well, if we contrive properties of made up beings, we still have to address the definitions we use. What is "good" for example. Must it be good for everything that exists, including humans, excluding humans? Can we demonstrate that this is even necessary?

I think deep down, the PoE is ignorant emotionalism. People know deep down in their gut, without regard to logic, that there is something profoundly wrong in the universe. Something is wrong. I would agree, and just like you, I cannot prove that my opinion on it is true. However, you guys want to claim you have logic on your side when in reality you have a bunch of questionable definitions and premises being flung about.

Then go ahead and do it.

1. I don't have to, I am not looking to make a positive claim.
2. I can't prove it, it would be just as baseless as your presumptions.

That´s actually no issue at all - unless we assume that god is entirely happy with the state of affairs. In which case the Christian salvation gag would be pointless, anyway.

I think people should actually learn some theology to have an opinion on it or simply not care about it. What you say here doesn't make any sense and betrays your ignorance of what Christianity actually teaches.